Simviation Forum - List your system specs and describe how it ran

Reply #60 - Oct 4^th, 2006 at 6:44pm

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Are you getting better or worse fps /smoothness in FSX than with FS9 on the SAME machine with about the same level (in percent of its capability) of graphics and AI and all other such stuff running?

I have yet to even get really smooth stuff out of FS9 on my not TOO shabby machine (see specs below) ...... so I can't IMAGINE this machine handling FSX at anything other than VERY reduced settings....... which is a "why bother" until I get a good hardware situation in place.

From my point of view...... when I buy "the package" I am buying it in order to run it with ALL the features enabled to their fullest extent. I haven't been able to do that with FS9 yet.

I simply do not understand how perople with "minimal machines" are saying....oh yeah....it runs great on my machine. Unless most of the stuff is turned off.

This baffled me on FS9 too.

best,

......................john

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #61 - Oct 4^th, 2006 at 10:18pm

cheesegrater Ex Member

Quote:

I simply do not understand how perople with "minimal machines" are saying....oh yeah....it runs great on my machine. Unless most of the stuff is turned off.

Technically if you get less than one frame per second the game still "runs." It just doesn't run very fast. Grin

Yeah, to get it running on a lower spec system with a decent frame rate you definately need to disable most of the options.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #62 - Oct 5^th, 2006 at 2:13am

Bindoe Ex Member

P4 650
2gb RAM
X850XTPE oc'd 640/ 640

Runs amazing! Far better than fs9 looksm while running smoooooooth.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #63 - Oct 5^th, 2006 at 7:29am

freedomhays Offline
Colonel
I'll take on that chump,
and you fight the other
Catonsville, Md.

Posts: 650

LIAN LI PC-60BPLUSII Black Aluminum ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
ASUS P5W64 WS Professional Socket T (LGA 775) Intel 975X ATX Server Motherboard
CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz 4M sharing L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
Thermaltake Big Typhoon CL-P0114 120mm Cooling Fan with Heatsink, Artic Silver 5 Thermal Paste
eVGA 512-P2-N570-AX Geforce 7900GTX 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 610 EPS12V EPS12V 610W Continuous @ 40°C Power Supply 90 - 264 V UL/ULC/CE/CB/TUV
2 X's Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive

Have not tried FSX Demo, waiting on preordered Deluxe Version.
FS 2004 with most all the addons available and sliders all maxed is awlsome.
I made a dual boot with Windows XP Home SP2 on both hard drives, FS2004 is on one hard drive and FSX will be on the other................................................

&&&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #64 - Oct 5^th, 2006 at 10:22pm

cheesegrater Ex Member

Wow, great system. Let us know how it goes. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #65 - Oct 6^th, 2006 at 4:17am

freedomhays Offline
Colonel
I'll take on that chump,
and you fight the other
Catonsville, Md.

Posts: 650

I sure will,
I can't wait, I'm getten kinda excited.

&&&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #66 - Oct 6^th, 2006 at 6:17am

supernova45849850l Offline
Colonel
where'd this Yabb crap
come from?
Brighton, UK

Gender:
Posts: 98

Well I am disappointed to say the least. Cry

I keep telling myself that its only a demo and the finished product will run like a dream. If Mr Gates expects me to go out and buy more hardware he can take a running jump, I will stick with FS9 and FSP, which I am perfectly happy with.

Without changing any settings and running the demo from scratch it was awful, blocky and unflyable in cockpit and spot view, after messing with sliders I turned the water effects to low and this (slightly) improved performance in cockpit view (landed ok) but spot view was still a complete disaster. turning up the scenery was a disaster too, all the animals and cars crap just drains the processor I wouldnt bother anyway. I had clear skies as weather so clouds sliders wouldnt have made a difference, though I would dread to think how that would have run!

Sorry guys I know this is not good news but hey its a demo and the finished product will be superb! Though I dont think I will buy it straight away, I think I will wait until some reports come through from individuals first.

Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2
Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.80GHz
512MB RAM
GeForce FX5200 128MB

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #67 - Oct 6^th, 2006 at 6:39am

Daube Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender:
Posts: 5833

Quote:

Well I am disappointed to say the least. Cry

I keep telling myself that its only a demo and the finished product will run like a dream. If Mr Gates expects me to go out and buy more hardware he can take a running jump, I will stick with FS9 and FSP, which I am perfectly happy with.

Without changing any settings and running the demo from scratch it was awful, blocky and unflyable in cockpit and spot view, after messing with sliders I turned the water effects to low and this (slightly) improved performance in cockpit view (landed ok) but spot view was still a complete disaster. turning up the scenery was a disaster too, all the animals and cars crap just drains the processor I wouldnt bother anyway. I had clear skies as weather so clouds sliders wouldnt have made a difference, though I would dread to think how that would have run!

Sorry guys I know this is not good news but hey its a demo and the finished product will be superb! Though I dont think I will buy it straight away, I think I will wait until some reports come through from individuals first.

Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2
Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.80GHz
512MB RAM
GeForce FX5200 128MB

Your graphic card is really poor, this is your problem.
Also your RAM is quite limited... CPU is OK.
But don't worry, it has been said many times that the demo performance is crap, and beta testers confirmed that the beta was much better.

The target performance is that FSX, if tunned down to look exactely like FS9, should run a little bit better than FS9. Since your config cannot even run FS9 at max settings, you cannot expect FSX to look good or run smooth, unfortunately.

Got bloom ?
Got mountains ?
Got damage ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #68 - Oct 6^th, 2006 at 4:56pm

cheesegrater Ex Member

Quote:

Your graphic card is really poor, this is your problem.
Also your RAM is quite limited... CPU is OK.
But don't worry, it has been said many times that the demo performance is crap, and beta testers confirmed that the beta was much better.

The target performance is that FSX, if tunned down to look exactely like FS9, should run a little bit better than FS9. Since your config cannot even run FS9 at max settings, you cannot expect FSX to look good or run smooth, unfortunately.

That CPU is not OK for FSX.

It's like this with every release of Flight Simulator. Unless you have a top of the line PC, you won't get good frame rates. The only frame rate friendly release was FS2002.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #69 - Oct 7^th, 2006 at 11:05am

Daube Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender:
Posts: 5833

Quote:

That CPU is not OK for FSX.

It's like this with every release of Flight Simulator. Unless you have a top of the line PC, you won't get good frame rates. The only frame rate friendly release was FS2002.

It is indeed.
For FS9, I could get good frame rates with a Pentium 1,7 GHz, and very good frames on a 2,4 GHz.
FSX is like FS9, graphics are the most ressources-heavy thing:
- autogen needs graphic power
- visual effects (water or self-shadows for example) need graphic power
- precise textures need graphic power

Things that are heavy on the CPU:
- AI traffic
- animated sceneries
- wildflife
- car traffic
- flight model

This is why I think so good framerates can be obtained with a Pentium 2,8GHz, as long as the graphic card is powerfull enough.
Very small CPU can of course be a preformance bottleneck for powerfull videocards, but a pentium 2,8GHz is not really a small CPU.

Got bloom ?
Got mountains ?
Got damage ?

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: