anu po latest flight simulator? may 2008 naba?
MS Flight Simulator X is the latest in the series. It is a hog of a game, though. Personally, I don't see too big of an advancement over Flight Simulator 2004: A Century Of Flight unless it's at Ultra High settings which require the latest and greatest pc hardware.
Of the WW2 flight sims...... I lost track. But Ubisoft's Pacific Fighters is still a favorite of mine unless MS makes a 4th Combat Flight Simulator. I still play CFS 2 and 3 as well as Ubisoft's IL-2 series.
Also with the Catalyst 8.5 driver update...... Doom 3 is also playable, albeit at 640x480 windowed and at medium detail settings. Not ideal. But, it's an improvement from before which was choppy gameplay regardless of resolution. At that res, the cpu is a big factor. But, the latest Catalyst gave an improvement regardless.
Last edited by Jun aka Pekto; June 1st, 2008 at 03:28 PM.
I wouldn't recommend MS Flight Simulator X for your hardware. The video card in my pc is an X800XL (6800GT-class) and it can't handle FSX.
If you want a non-combat flight sim, I recommend MS Flight Simulator 2004: A Century Of flight or X-Plane. I just happened to have FSX because it's a gift.
It's interesting to note that the designer of the Wings series used to design the Jane's series for Electronic Arts. I still have Jane's USAF here. I noticed a lot of similarities between both games including system requirements.
But, I prefer WW2 dogfights over jet versus jet combat. The last modern-day flight sim I played was Falcon 4.0. That game still remains my favorite jet sim to this day especially after it was fully patched and with the add-ons.
Last edited by Jun aka Pekto; June 1st, 2008 at 04:10 PM.
Let me put that last post on hold for a moment. Although FSX is a hog of a game, it's been rock-solid. It never occurred to me to check for a patch. I decided to check the MS web site and sure enough there's a Service Pack 1 that promised the following: * Provide a 20 to 50 percent performance increase * Optimize for multi-core CPUs and improve draw times for faster loading * Address multiplayer and backwards compatibility issues * Offer improved realism of key geographical locations, landmarks and airports . I'll see if it does any good and post an update. Oh. I can get decent framerates with a little tweak of the settings. But, it doesn't look much better than FS 2004: A Century of Flight. Hopefully, that service pack will do good.
Well well well! It looks like Service Pack 1 for MS Flight Simulator X has worked some wonders.....
Before the patch, I can only manage 10-14 fps at 1024 x 768 resolution at medium/low detail levels, no traffic, and clear skies (normal for my location).
After the patch, I can go to 1280 x 960. Skies are still clear and there's still no traffic. But, I can rachet up the detail levels to near Ultra High and still get 14-20 fps. For a game where all I do is fly around, that's plenty enough. Obviously, the addition of dualcore cpu support must have helped a lot.
Freaking Microsuck........ They deserve an egg on the face for releasing FSX so unoptimized.
Now that's over with..... I'm grinning once more because I can postpone upgrading my X800XL for a little bit longer. Yee-hah! Rock n Roll!
![]()
I'm obviously on a roll with FSX.....
Manila certainly never looked better than in FSX........
![]()
maganda rin po yung GRID. dami types ng race.. may drift, touge, le mans, muscle, kaht banggaan meron. ganda rin graphics.
to all pc gamers out there.. do you know any title similar to ace combat of the playstation console? with good graphics?
Currently? Nothing that I know of. Crimson skies from way back, maybe. I played Ace Combat on the PS2. Definitely on the arcadish side. It's fun when the mood suits me. But overall, I still prefer the "closer to reality" flight physics and geographic accuracy of a flight/combat sim.
Take FSX..... My daughter gets a kick out of seeing Meteor Crater which we'll visit later this year...
![]()
FSX is too cool that it scares me. I've seen this on youtube and I think you really need to have the knowledge of actually flying an aircraft to play it. Not to mention the system requirements of it. I don't think my pc can handle it. I think you must have a water cooling and SLI to run it smoothly.Currently? Nothing that I know of. Crimson skies from way back, maybe. I played Ace Combat on the PS2. Definitely on the arcadish side. It's fun when the mood suits me. But overall, I still prefer the "closer to reality" flight physics and geographic accuracy of a flight/combat sim.
Take FSX..... My daughter gets a kick out of seeing Meteor Crater which we'll visit later this year...
Mine is just for racing. and my ide harddisk is slow.
2.4 E660
2gig XMS2 DHX
seagate 200g
8800gt
ecs 9965t-a
Your pc is way way better than mine. I still have my Athlon X2 4200+/2gb ram/ATI X800XL from 2005. I've been tempted to upgrade. But, I always found a reason to hold off. Yours should run FSX easily and all maxed out.
I'm not a pilot. But, I've been around aircraft all my life and count pilots among my friends here.
FSX isn't hard. There's varying levels of difficulty. So anyone can jump right in. I found Falcon 4.0 much harder:
from Falcon 4.0 Headquarters.
Kinda reminds me. One of my friends swiped my Falcon 4.0 cd. Grrr.
Add: Also, I know some real F-16 (and A-10) fighter jocks who still play with Falcon 4.0. Of course, they also have FSX or FS 2004.
Last edited by Jun aka Pekto; June 10th, 2008 at 06:54 PM.
I'm downloading the FS demo now..this should cure my curiosity..hehe
thanks for sharing sir.
Still got an hour before I board to my first flight.. I still got time to burn some rubber. ..playing codemaster's GRID
[SIZE="1"]correction on the previous post.
2.4 E6600
2gig XMS2 DHX
seagate 200g
8800gt
ecs P965t-a[/SIZE]
captain pekto, this is a lot harder than i thought!! i never managed to land the plane safely..even the training on the glider with the flour bombs, i couldn't it the target. waahh! mag-piloto ay hindi biro. my respect to you.![]()
You're doing fine.It took me a looong time before I was able to land
I've been playing MS Flight Simulator ever since it was Sublogic's Flight Simulator 1.0. I still manage to crash often specially when there's a crosswind component over the runway.
I need a good set of rudder pedals. My older CH pedals broke a while back.
I want a CH Pro:
Reminds me. X-Plane version 9 is also out. Got to get that one too.
sir jun ano pong recomended system requirements for d latest flight sim? RAM and video card po ..
TIA![]()
Incidentally, I bought X-Plane 9 yesterday although I haven't installed it yet. The game and default scenery takes up almost 12gb. Then, there's over 60gb of scenery compressed in five other dvd discs. Ouch.
X-Plane and MS Flight Simulator are the Macs and PC's of the flight sim world. Sure enough, there's already a lot of X-Plane 9 vs FSX views from fanbois out there..... boneheads.
X-Plane Version 9 took up almost 12gb with the default install and that doesn't include scenery of Asia. I wanted to fly over Manila. That meant installing another 13gb of scenery. Also, X-Plane 9 is Mac OSX and Linux compatible which is probably the reason for all the fanboi junk. It doesn't help that Flight Simulator X was made by MS.OT I confirmed my friend did swipe my Falcon 4.0 (Allied Force) game. He was waving it (the box) at me as he left and said goodbye. I didn't even realize it. No wonder he had an evil grin......