Flight Simulator X looks like ****.

[PETC]

Don't buy it, I'm glad I stole it and I will be un-stealing it shortly.

Unless you have a super computer and windows vista for Direct X 10 don't even waste your time. The game looks JUST the same (maybe worse) than FS2004 and it runs 10x worse. My computer is getting old, and my CPU blows nuts, but even at FULL settings (with a decent amount lag) it STILL looked like garbage!

I don't even know how they can post screenshots like THIS:



and then when you buy it, it looks like this at FULL SETTINGS! Yes, that is full video card AND in game settings, along with a 1920x1080 resolution.


"If you look to your left you will see beautiful Mt. Baker."

That and Microsoft has canceled development and further sequels. This is like leaving the driving range after the last ball you hit went directly to your right and hit somebody in the face. **** you Microsoft. Maybe I'm just mad because my computer sucks and I have no money for a new one right now... I've been buying the Flight Sim series since it came out on CD for Windows 95, and back when FS2000 came out I got a USB yolk and rudder pedals with a throttle quadrant, all that good stuff... so needless to say I was excited for FSX. What a let down.

[Ku-sama]

I play it just fine.... get a new PC.

[PETC]

Dude, stop saying that like it's the answer to all of my problems. I KNOW MY COMPUTER SUCKS! But when your computer surpasses ALL of the recomended system requirements, you'd expect the game to run decently on at least medium settings. It does not.

Do you have a spare thousand dollars laying around you'd like to give me? Because... let me see here... right now I have... $100 there abouts not counting money that is spoken for rent, electricity, etc, and last time I checked newegg I can't even buy a CPU for 100 bucks. (Oh and my Walbro crapped out on me so I need a new fuelpump lololol)

[Ku-sama]

Originally Posted by PETC

Dude, stop saying that like it's the answer to all of my problems. I KNOW MY COMPUTER SUCKS! But when your computer surpasses ALL of the recomended system requirements, you'd expect the game to run decently on at least medium settings. It does not.

Do you have a spare thousand dollars laying around you'd like to give me? Because... let me see here... right now I have... $100 there abouts not counting money that is spoken for rent, electricity, etc, and last time I checked newegg I can't even buy a CPU for 100 bucks.

used....

duhh....
****, I have a Core 2 Duo E8400 here with your name on it for $80

[PETC]

Okay and how would you suggest I make that fit on my Socket 478 motherboard? A very large hammer?

[PETC]

Wait, I got it, JB weld.

Man, I really appreciate you offering me good deals on computer parts all the time, and when I have enough disposable income and a lull in the **** in my life that requires money all the time, I will hit you up. But for the foreseeable future I am stuck with what I have.

[Ku-sama]

lol, I'll see what I have, if I can can get you hooked up for sub $120.

[Drew]

@ shot number 2...


You are doing it wrong

[PearlJammzz]

If yer budget, go AMD .

[Ku-sama]

lol ^^^^

[Raptor13x]

Get a real flight simulator. Microsoft can't design games to save its life, and never could.

X-Plane, by Austin Meyer - Real physics... you can design your own aircraft and the program determines how it would actually fly... you can fly on Mars, in orbit, do reentries in the space shuttle, land on aircraft carriers, etc. You can also download hundreds of custom-designed aircraft from sites like Home of the X-Plane Flightsim Community - New Server The software designer continuously updates the program to make it better, more accurate, and more comprehensive. I highly recommend it.

[PearlJammzz]

Originally Posted by Ku-sama

lol ^^^^

a 275 dollar phenom 2 kicks the crap out of the 1000+ dollar Intel quad-core extreme. At least in 3dmark06...check out the top scores .

For computer upgrades, you have TONS of options. Best is to choose a budget, and which components you want/need to upgrade, and get the best that fits in your budget, whether it's Intel, AMD, Nvidia, or ATI.

ocforums.com will help you out a lot, and it's best to buy everything from Newegg.com. They have BOMB return policies and have never given me trouble in a solid 20k worth of stuff purchased from them over the years.

And Raptor, that game sounds sweet....and complicated :-p.

[Ku-sama]

Originally Posted by PearlJammzz

a 275 dollar phenom 2 kicks the crap out of the 1000+ dollar Intel quad-core extreme. At least in 3dmark06...check out the top scores .

For computer upgrades, you have TONS of options. Best is to choose a budget, and which components you want/need to upgrade, and get the best that fits in your budget, whether it's Intel, AMD, Nvidia, or ATI.

ocforums.com will help you out a lot, and it's best to buy everything from Newegg.com. They have BOMB return policies and have never given me trouble in a solid 20k worth of stuff purchased from them over the years.

And Raptor, that game sounds sweet....and complicated :-p.

stop talking about the extreme at stock and the Phenom II at 6GHz :P. the i7 920 can be had for $230 and it beats the phenom stock for stock.


I agree, I'm not bias for companies. I don't care to be. because if they don't have something in my budget, I don't really give a **** what they make.


-Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 @ 3.66GHz
-OCZ Reaper DDR2-1066 CL4 4GB
-Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P
-EVGA GTX295
-2xVeloci Raptor 150GB drives (Raid-0)
-Thermalright Cooling

[PearlJammzz]

I commend you with thermalright cooling and not thermaltake .

Their slk-700a was a thing of legend back in the socket a days!

And no, that quad beats out their extreme when extremely overclocked too. At least in 3dmark scores. Intel is usually always better in encoding and such. They ahve a few articles on it, it's pretty cool what they can pull out of that chip pretty easily .

PS, I haven't bought AMD since my AthlonXP 2500+

[Ku-sama]

Originally Posted by PearlJammzz

I commend you with thermalright cooling and not thermaltake .

Their slk-700a was a thing of legend back in the socket a days!

And no, that quad beats out their extreme when extremely overclocked too. At least in 3dmark scores. Intel is usually always better in encoding and such. They ahve a few articles on it, it's pretty cool what they can pull out of that chip pretty easily .

PS, I haven't bought AMD since my AthlonXP 2500+

Ah, the good ole days of AMD... I miss my 2100+. I had Thermalright since those days.... bought the SI-92 then the XP-120 for my XP chip..


I don't worry about 3dmark anymore, it's been bought out. and for some reason I think it lies. my GTX295 scores only 2000 points higher then my old GTX260...

[Luni]

Thats funny Brian. We argued about this, but 3dmark is just 1 benchmark.

Tomshardware says the Intel is STILL faster overall. Heres an exerpt from their article

"Conclusion

As far as we can see it, there are four different factors that go into the purchasing decision of one of these next-gen platforms.

The first is price. AMD has the upper hand here. Although its Phenom II X4 940 is priced fairly close to Intel’s Core i7 920, 790GX-based motherboards cost in the neighborhood of $150, while high-end X58 platforms generally tend toward $300 (although we’ve recommended a $250 model here). DDR3 memory is still significantly more expensive than DDR2. Populating three channels, the more modern technology is going to bear a notable premium over two channels of the more mainstream type. In all, the Phenom II machine costs about $250 less to build than our i7 box did, while arming the AMD platform with a better aftermarket cooler would have shaved $50 or so from its advantage.

Next is performance. Intel maintains its advantage in this one, even with both configurations overclocked. We very effortlessly achieved a 3.8 GHz overclock on the i7 920 by bumping its Bclk up to 190 MHz and keeping all other settings in place. Knowing that our own German lab was able to reach 3.8 GHz stably on air (and AMD’s lab team said to expect frequencies up to 3.9 GHz at 1.55 V), we pushed our X4 940 extremely hard. While we were able to boot at up to 3.8 GHz, benchmarks wouldn’t finish consistently until we had dropped down to 3.64 GHz—and that was still at 1.6 V. Anything less and even that speed wasn’t 100% solid. Given the speeds we were able to achieve, Intel’s entry-level Core i7 walked away from AMD’s fastest Phenom II in every single one of our tests.

Third, you have power. We’re giving this one to AMD, as well. At idle—where you’ll spend most of your time—the overclocked Phenom II spins down to 800 MHz and yields some impressive power figures. Once it shoots back up to 3.64 GHz, it’s sucking down more juice than Intel’s 3.8 GHz Core i7. However, we anticipate that most enthusiasts aren’t going to peg their chips at redline very often.

Finally, there’s the upgrade question. For owners of existing Socket AM2+ motherboards, today’s Phenom II is a drop-in component. Provided that your board and graphics are beefy enough to warrant the new CPU, stepping up is a matter of spending $275. Conversely, adopting i7 means buying a CPU, motherboard, and DDR3 memory, at least. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Intel has always been aggressive about nudging the bleeding edge forward and advocating new technologies—sometimes to its own detriment. We know DDR3 is going to replace DDR2, and it’s nice to have an X58 board able to support CrossFireX and SLI. AMD’s upgrade path simply lets enthusiasts stretch their aging hardware out a little bit longer.

So What Do I Buy?

The Core i7 and Phenom II seem suited to two different customers. Indeed, there will undoubtedly be gamers who go all-AMD and are willing to sacrifice a bit of speed in order to save money and Intel loyalists who adopt i7 at a bit of extra cost for its newer technology. We thus see distinct advantages to each platform.

For the gamer or multimedia aficionado with a mind to performance, Intel’s Core i7 920 overclocked to 3.8 GHz simply delivers the most compelling experience. The ~$250 hardware price premium is the cost of entry over AMD’s solution, and we think it’s worth paying. AMD is planning its own shift to DDR3 in the first half of 2009, and less-expensive X58 boards are trickling out (the cheapest right now being Gigabyte's $210 EX58-UD3R), so the cost-difference will continue getting smaller.

If you’re instead buying for a more productivity-oriented purpose, the Phenom II makes sense. After all, it’s able to handle every task nearly as well as i7 does (both platforms overclocked, of course), it drops into existing AM2+ motherboards, it costs less, and in a majority of situations, will use substantially less power—even highly-tuned, as we've done here. We didn’t have as much luck overclocking the Phenom II as we expected, but the chip is still a notable improvement over AMD’s 65 nm Phenom series."

[PearlJammzz]

I never claimed other bench marks, just 3dmark. It's still the best gaming benchmark their is, aside from actual games. Honestly, today's games would be hard pressed to tell a difference on a 3.8 i7 or phenomII. It'll be 99.9% GPU related.

They had a ****** chip is they could only get 3.6 on air. People on ocforums are hitting 3.8 easily on air, but each chip varies wildly (I have had 4 Q6600's, some hit 3.6 easily, other struggled to his 3.2 in the same exact setup! same mobo, ram, timings, etc.).

Still vote price per performance is in AMD's court now . The small gain for the few hundred extra bucks is better off saved for a GPU upgrade in a year or 2 than put into a system now. You'll see MUCH more gaming benefit by saving 200+ and buying a new videocard down the road. CPU's are so beefy now that upgrading them isn't as much of a need as is the GPU.