Simviation Forum - WILL THIS (or MY) SYSTEM RUN FSX??

	Search the archive:

Simviation Main Site | Site Search | Upload Images

Simviation Forum › Computer Hardware & Software Forum › Hardware › WILL THIS (or MY) SYSTEM RUN FSX??

(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2

WILL THIS (or MY) SYSTEM RUN FSX?? (Read 8965 times)

Reply #15 - Jun 4^th, 2008 at 10:01pm

GuitarFreak Offline
Colonel
Home Airport: KWBW/KAVP
KWBW/KAVP

Gender:
Posts: 272

NickN wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 8:37pm:

With FSX its all CPU

The 8800GTs 640 and the GTX 768 are 384bit memory buss cards... these cards are actually BETTER for FSX than the newer 9xxx series however with the 280 that may change because they will be incorporating a higher number of TMU's and a few other changes

The 9xxxx cards are a marking joke.. unless you are coming from a slower card their use in FSX is no better than the original GTS/GTX because they reduced memory, memory buss but increased TMU's so its 6 of 1 , and 1/2 dozen of the other

CPU and memory speed is what FSX needs and it does need the right card matched to that speed. You cant put a Q6600 quad with a 8800GT and get the same result as pairing that with GTX.. the GTX will squash the GT in a hearbeat 8x or 9x in FSX

Yeah. The 280 has 1GB GDDR3 w/a 512b bus. Very nice. I'm looking forward to the nehalems coming out at the end of this year, and the octo-cores next year. That should help FSX out a bit.

Current Computer specs:&&&&e8600@4.5GHz 1.31v/swiftech apogee GTZ/MCR320/MCP655&&EVGA 790i Ultra&&MSI GTX280 / XSPC Razor &&4GB Patriot Viper DDR3-1800&&PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750w&&Auzentech X-Fi Prelude&&1500GB Seagate 7200.11&&500GB Samsung 2.5"| 500GB Seagate 7200.11&&320GB WD Caviar | 160GB Samsung&&Cosmos S&&28" Hanns-G + 22" Gateway monitors

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Jun 11^th, 2008 at 9:56am

NickN Offline
Colonel
FSX runs fine... the problem
is you or your system

Posts: 6317

Just so you guys know... this thread and post were made in June of 2007, a year ago

Things have changed

But the idea of what to purchase has not

the 8800GTX is still the best card for FSX in cost to performance and on the right DDR3, FSX will run much better and provide more, period.

It wont be until Intel next gen before FSX comes into its prime, which is 2 years from release.. just like FS9 took 2 years to have the hardware needed for plug-n-go performance

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Jun 14^th, 2008 at 1:07pm

NickN Offline
Colonel
FSX runs fine... the problem
is you or your system

Posts: 6317

All this is easy to address

1. FS11 will not be released until either October of 2010 or October of 2011. Trains2 must go first and then development will start on FS11

2. FSX was poorly designed. It used the old FS8 engine, and, they did not take into proper consideration CPU and video card technology, or, where it was going and when it would get there.. heck they did not even take into consideration old multicore tech.

3. With the new Aces development team, the move to the larger facility and improvements to the division with management shifts they are now looking at the tech correctly and will develop based on the optimizations they should have done with FSX. This research is part of something called WAVE 2009 http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008/06/05/nehalem-will-it-deliver.aspx and Phil Taylor will be reporting on their progress as it unfolds. Phil is aware of all the mistakes and I dont see them happening again.

4. Aces is not MS. The only thing MS is responsible for budget, marketing and distributon. Aces, a division of MS GAMES, is responsible for the design.

5. Between now and then, suck it up soldier and save your money for Intel Nehalem and the right next gen video card

That’s an order Kiss

« Last Edit: Jun 14^th, 2008 at 2:23pm by NickN »

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Jun 17^th, 2008 at 11:01am

NickN Offline
Colonel
FSX runs fine... the problem
is you or your system

Posts: 6317

Negative reinforcement works in the Military, not in the private sector

That wont do anything but pi$$ people off and make it worse, trust me

The issue was leadership and organization at Aces... thats been fixed now

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Oct 19^th, 2008 at 5:54am

Moosetek13 Offline
1st Lieutenant
Fly FS
San Diego, CA

Gender:
Posts: 2

Wow.

Let's see.
I have a HP Media Center PC with a 2.8GHz Pentium D, 3GB ram, and an eVGA Nvidia 6800 GS 256MB ePCI (factory overclocked) video card.

I can by no means run FSX even near the limits of the game. But I can run it with very decent graphics and performance. (much due to some tweaking from NickN's well presented posts).

My nephew, Matthew, who is pretty heavy into PC gaming and has a slightly better system than me, looked at my screen and said - "Wow, how did you get the graphics so good?"
NickN's tweaks, I said.

So while it would be nice to have a top-of-the-line system to get the very most out of FSX - it is not necessary to get a very satisfying experience.

Just make the best of what you have, if you can't afford more.
And these days, who can afford much at all?

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Dec 20^th, 2008 at 8:46am

ivan.lybe Offline
Colonel
Fly FS
lybe

Gender:
Posts: 15

My system specs are:

-Motherboard: ASUS P5B (Intel P965 chipset);
-CPU: Intel Q6600@2.4GHz (don't really want to oc it);
-Memory: 2x1GB Geil Black Dragon DDRII800;
-Graphics Card: ASUS Radeon HD4850 (512 MB);
-Monitor: 22" Samsung (only stating this because it's a TFT monitor and I want to use its native resolution - 1680x1050);
-OS: XP with SP3.

My question is: how well would FSX perform on this system. Would I be able to see 40fps on KLAX or KDFW (Dallas International was the heaviest burden on my system in FS9), with some decent settings? To be honest, I really don't care much about fps, but it's a sign of computer handling software properly. It doesn't have to look really flashy, but it would be nice if it looked at least a little better than FS9 at it's best.

If it helps someone, I'll say that I've tried the demo, and I got somewhere around 40-60fps with settings I can live with and 25-35fps with settings that look really nice. The demo appears to be without the quad-core support, so if that's the case, full version of the game should perform decently.

Would it help if I added 2 more Gigs of RAM?

Would it help if I used 64bit Vista instead of XP?

What's your opinion/experience?

ASUS P5Q Pro; Intel Q6600@2.4GHz; 2x1GB Geil Black Dragon DDRII800: ASUS Radeon HD4850 512MB; Approx. 1.4TB of disk space on 2HDDs; 600W power supply; XP SP3

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Dec 20^th, 2008 at 8:37pm

NickN Offline
Colonel
FSX runs fine... the problem
is you or your system

Posts: 6317

FSX will perform with medium quality and ability at best

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Dec 21^st, 2008 at 3:05am

ivan.lybe Offline
Colonel
Fly FS
lybe

Gender:
Posts: 15

Nick, don't get me wrong, but I kinda knew that myself.

Could you be more specific, please: would it meet my demands of running smoothly with those medium settings and would it help (or would it be a disadvantage) if I added two more gigs of RAM and upgraded to Vista 64?

And finally, what if did one thing I said I wouldn't do, what if I did a little oc of my CPU to 3.2-3.6GHz?

Thanx

ASUS P5Q Pro; Intel Q6600@2.4GHz; 2x1GB Geil Black Dragon DDRII800: ASUS Radeon HD4850 512MB; Approx. 1.4TB of disk space on 2HDDs; 600W power supply; XP SP3

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Home

‹ Board

Top of this page