The MS Flight Simulator X is resource-intensive, so even though there are low settings for all graphics and activity options, to get the most out of this latest version of the state-of-the-art civilian flying software you'll want to run it on the fastest hardware you can get your hands on.
O velho guerreiro, ainda jogo ele, há mais de 10 anos, tenho ele instalado deste 2010, ele sozinho num, Windows somente para ele, mais de 5 TB de dados de cenários, e nunca precisei reinstalar. Tenho mais de 1400 entradas de cenários incluídos nestes mais de 10 anos, não foi fácil deixar assim. Está perfeito amo ele.
Overwhelming is probably the best way to describe this one. It’s a title that requires some level of commitment from you the virtual pilot, but with that commitment comes nearly endless rewards, rewards that may assist you in getting your real pilot’s license if you so desire.
Perhaps when Windows Vista arrives next year with the software enhancements (e.g. new DirectX) Flight Simulator X might be worth picking up at that point. Until then make your flight plans go direct to "Flight Simulator 9."
As a flight simulator fan i came to love FSX, but this did not blinded me towards its flaws.
MISSIONS-as you would expect, flight simulator X doesn't have a story with missions being an exception, which have a self contained plot each, which most of the time are nothing special. For the type of game FSX is, this is not really a flaw. GAMEPLAY-The sim itself now is fairly easy to learn. tutorial missions do a fairly good job on teaching you the basics and some more advanced flight techniques. Missions will gradually get very challenging, and the more advanced missions will require large amounts of effort and lots of trial and error to pull off. fortunately, the save feature allows as many saves as you want and whenever you want, sparing you the frustration. Clickable **** are a convinience as memorizing each and every keyboard combination might be time consuming and annoying. However many aircraft are legacy, ported from the previous entry FS2004 and often not all buttons are clickable.
INTERFACE- the interface in the menus is good and it does it's job. The in-game interface on the other hand, is a bit of a chore without a head tracking device, even if you are using a HOTAS joystick. the reason for this is that one monitor cannot fit all the instruments inside it. you will constantly need to turn and zoom the camera to the instruments you need to see and use, forcing you to let the controls of the aircraft. a hat switch on the joystick is a convenient feature, but still you would have to let the controls and grab the mouse in order to use the clickable instruments. final verdict on the interface: you will need at least a decent HOTAS joystick and a second monitor in order, at least partially, alleviate frustration
TECHNICAL- It mostly feels great to fly in the world of flight simulator X. there are lakes, coastlines, big cities and famous landmarks like Eiffel tower and the Parthenon. There are actual cars on the roads(to a point where the technology allows it) and there is also wild life, though sometimes it feels like it's only placed on specific places to enhance missions. unfortunately the technical is where the most drawbacks are. If you take a close look on the ground you will notice randomly placed low-fi textures . beyond that there are the human models which are exclusively used for missions and they are not very good. in missions where you are supposed to have people entering or exiting your aircraft(heli or otherwise) there is no animation of it and you can't see your passengers and crew. The biggest black mark on the game's technical faults is the performance. Constantly poor framerates and stuttering add an immense amount of frustration to the release version. High end computers had a problem running this smoothly many years after release. Even the first patch which improves the performance and fixes bugs was not enough. Εven if you got past the lag and stuttering, the game is very power hungry and it also does not take proper advantage of multicore CPUs, relying on raw CPU power instead. FSX is not that demanding, but poorly optimized. Lowering graphical settings might not only improve performance, but in fact make it worse. Many guides and fan fixes came out for tweaking the game to run proper. FSX Steam edition did some improvements, but not that much. So in addition to the flying gear and extra monitor you would need a very beefed up PC making it more expensive than the price of the individual game. I tried this on 4 CPU. GPUs are out of the equation because FSX does not rely on them much. Initially on an athlon64 at 2.5ghz FSX was playable, but it looked like something out of the 90s. Next up came the E8500. FSX seemed to like the raw power and the 3.4ghz, but it was still problematic. Next came the i5 750 clocked at 2.66ghz. FSX still hates me for that. All these with a standard HDD, that FSX does not enjoy one bit treating you with stutter. Now I changed to a Ryzen 2600x and a Crutial MB500 SSD and FSX loves it, but its technical issues are more apparent now. Though it is an actually smooth experience, the framerate is erratic, jumping up and down. Fortunately this is not obtrusive.
FINAL VERDICT-Despite its major technical flaws that can be overcome with lots effort and tweaking by the user, playing this game can be pure magic. the missions are varied without getting boring and i will add the huge number of third party DLC as an advantage as there is everything for every taste. the physics have only a few hiccups, but generally are excellent. This game is not for everyone. you need high budget gear, and the game itself although more accessible, can be unforgiving later, on more advanced missions. hopefully the new Microsoft Flight Simulator will be a major advancement in solving the performance and accesability issues that plagued this game. MS Flight certainly wasn't.
The final entry in the long running Flight Simulator series that started so many years ago with Bruce Artwick's Flight Simulator. In many ways it's both the best and the worst entry in the series. The best because it's a huge sandbox that can be crammed full of third party content to satisfy even the most demanding flight sim geek. The worst because it's built on a creaky old engine that just doesn't cut the **** any more.
Straight out of the box it's a pretty bland experience. If you are prepared to spend the time and money, you can transform it into a much more compelling simulation with astonishingly detailed aircraft, scenery and weather. The downside of this is the cost involved, and that creaky old engine that will eventually collapse under the weight of everything thrown at it.
There are newer flight sim platforms out there (P3D, X-Plane) but to be honest right now FSX is still the best for most users.
A very authentic experience, but also a very boring one. The controls with joystick is very precise, and there is alot of detail, but the game is very boring, and also quite ugly.
Full of microtransactions and base game has only handful of planes. I have a 1000€ computer and with all dlc this game costs almost twice that. With better pricing would give it 8 or 9 but as a it has 1 826,01€ worth of dlc this game is worst thing ever made. Would give negative score if could.
SummaryFrom award winning game developer ACES comes Flight Simulator X. The latest installment will include the usual genre leading realism that continues to awe real pilots and will serve as the graphical benchmark for games on Windows Vista. Additionally, Flight Simulator X will deliver for the first time structured game play with more than 5...