I think this should be a good FSX rig as soon as it comes out.

I don't build my own computers, I don't know enough about it. So you computer experts, go easy on me.     

XPS 700 Pentium® D Processor 930 with Dual Core Technology (3.00GHz, 800FSB)
Operating System Genuine Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition with re-installation CD
Memory 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 4 DIMMs
Keyboard Dell USB Keyboard
Monitor 20 inch Ultrasharp™ 2007FP Digital Flat Panel
Video Card 512MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GTX
Hard Drive 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
Floppy Drive and Media Reader 13 in 1 Media Card Reader
Mouse Dell Optical USB Mouse
Modem No Modem Requested
Adobe Software Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 7.0
Optical Drive Dual Drives: 16x DVD-ROM Drive + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
Sound Cards Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ XtremeMusic (D), w/Dolby® Digital 5.1
Speakers Dell AS501 10W Flat Panel Attached Spkrs for UltraSharp™ Flat Panels
Office Software (not included in Windows XP) No Pre-installed software
Security Software PC-cillin Internet Security with AntiVirus and Spyware removal 15-months
Hardware Warranty 1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr At-Home Service, and 1Yr HW Warranty Support
XPS Specialized Support XPS, Specialized Support
Internet Access Service No ISP requested
Future Operating Systems Windows Vista™ Capable
SYSTEM DETAILS 2.5MM aluminum thickness Chassis with front & back customizable LEDs
SYSTEM DETAILS 7-slot, BTX design motherboard
SYSTEM DETAILS 750-watt Power Supply
SYSTEM DETAILS Tower Six-heat pipe, Copper base Heat Sink with aluminum fans
SYSTEM DETAILS Two 120mm x 38mm front fans
Dell Digital Entertainment Starter pack- Basic and trial products from Corel and Yahoo

Why's that? Do you mean so I could get a DX10 video card?

I needed a new computer anyway. I could have waited a while, but I've been suffering with what I've got right now. 

Oh no, it's actually a desktop. This would be a pretty damn sweet laptop to take around with me though! 

I should get one... 

Quote:


There are a few people in this dumb world  who believe that when one's own computer can't handle a particular software, they immediately assume that everyone else's computer can't handle that software. This is particularly true of those who don't even consider the possibility that their hardware may not be compatible with certain features or that they have loads of other crap installed onto their system as well or that they may have forgotten to do a defrag recently.

Luckily, we don't have too many of those people in this dumb world. But then again, this is a dumb world after all and I may have underestimated the number of such people.

Quote:


Especially when our eyeballs can only perceive up to 30 of those frames per second.

So let me guess, those who have eye capable of perceiving 50+ frames per second are capable of seeing any subliminal messege posted between the individual frames of a commercial?

From what I remember, the individual frames of a film are somewhat blurry as opposed to the individual frame of a sim [which is not blurry]. That could be the key factor in all this. I don't know, I'm just guessing.

Quote:



No.. video is sharp

Let me put this in a visual example:

VIDEO 40 FPS

______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|

40 of these frames every second and exaclty ONE per .025 seconds without missing a beat

Its CONSTANT .. it never changes from one frame to the next. The video will always remain at its locked speed for every frame displayed.



3D GAME RENDER 40 FPS but does not seem smooth

_____|_______|__________|______|_______|___|___|_______|____|_______|

40 of these frames every second and BUT even though 40 frames get rendered in that 1 second time period they are not equal in transition time due to all sorts of different load changes on the system or a system that is not correctly set up. This is where tweaking and load balancing the computer with the sim is critical.




3D GAME RENDER 24 FPS and smooth as glass

_______|________|________|________|________|________|_______|________|

24 of these frames every second and even though rendering will never be EXACTLTY ONE per .041666 seconds, the difference is so small you dont see the changes.

The computer and the sim are in balance with each other. Loads do not cause severe transition changes, therefore the visual looks exactly the same as example #1


Thats the best I can do to make it clear with a forum post example


I ran an x800xt overclocked with it locked @ 22FPS for a year and I cant see the difference in smoothness and flight over my 7900GTX. The visual are cleaner and there is more to look at with the 7900GTX but with the exception of very, very heavy load situations there is absolutely no difference in how smooth my sim runs between 22 and 34 frames on two very different cards... nothing

I lock the 7900GTX @ 34 because lower it throws the sim out of balance with the computer and higher I get micro stutters in heavy traffic airports. @ 34 it is in perfect harmony with the loads being applied.

Flight sim is not couterstrike or other games... it is calculating a hell of a lot more in the background than a simple "shoot-em up" game. If a computer is not set up to FORCE the system to give FS9 all the resources it wants and at the same time the sim settings are not balanced for/with the available resources, the rendering will be choppy, stuttered and blurry no matter how high the frame lock is making it to on the counter.


Everybody makes the same mistake ... jack up the frame lock thinking since it will go that high they should set it that high. The fact of the matter is it should be set to about 35-45% LESS than what the card can do in FS9 so if the card can easily hit 50-60FPS with the sliders maxed @ 100%, cloudy day and 90% AI traffic, the frame lock should be between 24-35. The exact number requires testing and trial/error.

I think SLI is supported more by FSX rather than dual core. But then again, I never tested a dual core before.

I have three with various sepcs to run win 98 to XP but will not get a new one till Vista is launched as i have ram required min 1gb so vista may need min 4 gb vdo card of 1 gb Hd of 250 X 2 sets as i have heard so you can run all types of high end games. 

The difference between games like Quake 4 and Flight Simulator is that the sim has to render an entire globe and to consider the complex calculations involved with managing AI traffic, scenery object, etc. that populate an area that measures a good 300 square miles. In games like Quake 4 and Doom 3, the game only has to render an area of only about one square mile since you're only on foot most of the time which means that the game doesn't take much resources. Basically, it wouldn't matter how powerful the computer is. The sim's calculations alone would bring the system to its knees. So, I still think it was best to wait for the latest hardware to come out next year so that you could save a good $100 bucks on the current hardware when you buy them next year.

Techinically,  Quake renders a scene creating and destroying polygons in the terrain, but not degrading them.  Degredation is done on characters and such.

In FS, degredation is done to everything to a point where the degredation completely takes away every polygon.  FS doesn't render the entire world, it renders as far as it can see, and degrades areas depending on distance...

If thats too technical for you, u shouldn't have read it...