[Review] Flight Simulator X


Recommended Posts

Microsoft Flight Simulator X – My Verdict

During the past few weeks Microsoft’s latest and arguably best looking Flight Simulator was released. Named Flight Simulator X – X for the 10th release in the series – its main update is in the graphics engine department where it’s been upgraded to support Direct X 10 and to be more compatible with Windows next incarnation, Vista. Microsoft claim that this version is the most important milestone to date – Which is all well and good, however, have they pushed it too far out of range for the average user to run it smoothly and as visually pleasing as they market it to be?

Many gaming and review websites have noted how good it looks with all its new features and visuals – but the majority of them concur on the fact that its too resource intensive. Gamespot says “Microsoft's Flight Simulator X provides a mind-boggling level of depth and breadth--if you don't mind some less than stellar frame rates”. That sums it up pretty well.

As per usual Microsoft were very generous with the recommended system settings – 1.0ghz processor, 256mb (XP) or 512mb (Vista) RAM, 14GB hard disk space and 32mb video card memory. This is about right – If your interest is flying around the open expanse of the Sahara desert. Where the simulator only has to render a flat surface, the sky and your aircraft. Get anywhere near somewhere which has trees, buildings or mountains and the frame rates find a sudden need to plummet. The system requirements are realistically 3 times more than Microsoft has recommended. 3.0 GHz processor, 1.5 – 2 GB RAM, X1800 / 7900 range graphics cards. You get the picture.

So, enough of my criticisms and negative views of the game – and yes, I did say game and not simulation. The reason for this is that Microsoft have keyed it toward a wider market. Now featuring missions and rewards the user can now complete challenges to get rewards and points. This is turn gives it a bit more appeal for the average Joe who would think about purchasing the product. Personally I think that this was a good move and seasoned simmers alike now have more to enjoy on top of the simulation itself. Occasionally features are added to various games to which critics turn and reply “But why?” or “What was the point of that?”. This definitely isn’t one.

Overall from the content perspective this definitely hits the mark. In fact, it hits the mark in style. Everything from missions, to the graphics, to the learning curve all make this a good move up from FS9 to FS10.

However, this doesn’t make up for the fact that the game is unplayable on the average home computer if you want the visuals Microsoft have marketed the software to have. This really lets it down and certainly I was disappointed. With FS9 I would have easily attained upward of the 20 fps mark with all sliders to the right (maxed) and various other applications such as weather simulation (i.e. Active Sky) running in the background. But with FS10 this is only a dream, a spec in the oh-so distant horizon.

In closing I can only but conclude on the fact that this bit of software is certainly a content rich experience for the user. Unfortunately it comes at a hefty price for the user. To experience the ‘simulation’ in all of its splendour and glory you will need to shed out a lot of cash in order to have a system worthy of running it in a smooth and visually pleasing manner. Which in this day and age is not really something the average computer user or gamer want to do.

What hopes are there for me and you? The users who want to play it in all its glory but without having to spend more cash? Tweaks and patches will hopefully reduce its downfalls in the performance department. I’m sure enthusiasts will find things within the configuration files which improve performance and in turn, improve the whole experience of this game. It really has the features and does look great – It’s a shame though that this all comes at a tall price. Which if you want FS-X in all its glory you will ultimately have to pay. Either that or I’d recommend sticking with FS9 – which with user improvements (such as the recently released Real Environment Pro) looks just as good, if not better. As well as that you get very good framerates.

Edited by SamNeeds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice review, personally i don't like simulation games that much, but after reading your review and looking at a few screenshots, i might be tempted to buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance you can post some screenshots of what it looks like with the tweaks. Also what are the specs of your system?

I can PM you some if you'd like as I don't want to hijack the review, but I don't have any before and afters.

It's a good review Sam, I found the same frustrations with regards to performance. Like you said, it should be interesting to see what other tweaks come out as well as patches or new videocard drivers that are more suited to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can PM you some if you'd like as I don't want to hijack the review, but I don't have any before and afters.

It's a good review Sam, I found the same frustrations with regards to performance. Like you said, it should be interesting to see what other tweaks come out as well as patches or new videocard drivers that are more suited to it.

That would be really useful actually, cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a bit of tweaking and such, I took my FSX from 8FPS to 20-30FPS. It just takes time and patience.

I totally agree. However, by reviewing a product that has been tweaked and modified for performance gains the review is next to useless. You have to remember that a tweaked program is not the same as the product that will ultimately come out of the box when purchased. So by reviewing it in an 'un-touched' state I hope to give any potential users a real perspective on what they may be buying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I set my settings to around medium-high and it boosted my fps to around 30 too. When I set everything to the max I only get around 10fps or less. My monitor is 1680x1050 res by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice review, personally i don't like simulation games that much, but after reading your review and looking at a few screenshots, i might be tempted to buy it.

It'll be worth every single dollar(or whatever is your money) you use on it, it's a really nice simulation. I just love flight simulators

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be worth every single dollar(or whatever is your money) you use on it, it's a really nice simulation. I just love flight simulators

It is very nice, I agree. I received it the other day. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bought the Deluxe Edition-though I'm having some problems getting up. But I love the improved scenery and World Airports style aicraft service vehicles and jet docking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great review! :rofl:

I've got the game too, and I do agree with you that you do dream about getting 20 fps...

Was in the shop, playing it on the shop PC, was laggy as hell :p

I've got it in the French version [am on holiday, was desperate to play it]

I saw you can get two versions of the game, Professional version and standard :D

I love the fact that they now have an aircraft carrier :D And loads of new planes :) I like the one with the propeller at the back xD.

I recommend this game if you want to have fun with these planes and go wild :woot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I haven't played any games since FS2004 came out, but this just slowed my system to a crawl. The graphics are reminiscent of FS5 on my Pentium 1, and it still going around 10 FPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.