This is no reply or any problem with my pc.Is just one thing the really makes me mad.I know the computers companies need to sell products.
But what makes me crazy is-Fs2004 has 5 years and not even the latest pc can run it in perfect condition, not even the latest video cards and fast memory, can make this sim's just be installed, maxed and lets play.And then we read the min req. and its just crazy.Maybe in 2020 we have a pc that can run fs9.And in 2050 we have one that can run FSX at HALF POWER so i will be close to my 80's.NICE!!!
Sorry guys is just an idea that really freaks me out.
But its funny FS2004 can be only played in 2020 because so far no hardware can hold it. .Unless you spend $2000 on a pc for a game that is down for $20 hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

yes, new hardware can run FSX fairly well, but you've got a point there...

simply pushing all sliders you see far to the right on FSX is hardware suicide... no computer to this day can run it like that

i'll bet even FS9 won't run that well of you do that on a top-notch system today...

but this matter isn't as serious as it may sound... the FS sliders are not scales of hardware potential... you need to realize that FS wasn't made to be run at max sliders... ever... it's just not intended to do that

some settings will bog down your hardware VERY easily, because some things in FS are simply not optimized for performance... take the .wav sounds and .bmp textures for example... or the fact that even the small autogen houses and trees have texture maps that are HUGE for the size they normally appear on screen... 

as you increase some sliders, they will weigh exponentially higher as the graphical benefit they yeald keeps ever decreasing... so eventually you get to a point where, to gain 1% of graphics, you must have 2 times as much computing power... and so on... 

FS can be better thought of as a benchmarking tool... a tool that's made to present a formidable hardware challenge, and should never be completely maxed out

it's always a question of "how high can you go", really 

Cheers

That sounds weird, Manuel. I can max out FS2004 with my Mobile Core 2 Duo system with 17-26 FPS (26 locked), very smooth..

Sounds to me like you have some weird problem anyway, 757200ba.

757200ba wrote on Apr 8^th, 2009 at 10:19pm:


No my friend in 2020 we will be invaded by monkeys I mean Apes and they will rule a new world..

seriously at least FS2004 works , Have you try the default FSX? they made a software to an nonexistence computer ,they BEARLY fix some of the issues with SP1 and SP2 But there is no computer Yet capable to run this program full set in fact IHO think that's the real reason that was WHY MS Dumped ACES .

FSX is really much worth and made thousands of people Buy/Waste expensive machines which still can't run well at full set up ,Flashes , trouble with the DX10 ,etc ..

Quote:


I wouldn't say MUCH worse..  not even really worse. Sure it was a bigger  LEAP in hardware demand. It took me three upgrades to finally get FS9 running well.. I'm on my second FSX upgrade.. I imagine  upgrade three will be a similar experience.

My FS2002 computer was an AMD2000/Ti4XXX (can't remember lol)..

My first stab at FS9 was a AMD2500/ATI9800pro ... Then an AMD3200-64 ....  FINALLY,  that AMD3700(o'clocked)/7800GTS hit the mark. That last computer actually ran FSX decently, .. Then I built a Q6600 machine..and this Q9550@3.6Ghz handles it pretty well, but not with everything cranked up. But it  IS a significantly better simming expreience than the Fs2002-FS9 leap..  Certainly on par with th $$ spent.  

You could build this Q9950 machine, with an even better V-card.. for not much over $1200 right now. The curve might have steepened a little, but nothing really changes 

HarvesteR wrote on Apr 9^th, 2009 at 2:03am:


Then why did they let us do it?

not really

The video card is 256mb and that will hold it back and its not the better 7950 either

a 450 watt PSU?  hmmm...   well... I would say that is probably at its limit clocking a modern Intel proc.. I assume thats a C2 and not a old pentium? If so that would be another reason why its slow. Modern C2's run much better memory speed.. memory timing is also key. If that is el'cheapo memory running something like 5-5-5 or higher timing thats also holding it back

and then to top it all off you are slamming it with the hardest aircraft known to MSFS in perf killing, all of which need a 512 video card and very good CPU/memory support

So my assesment would be that system is not what you think it is

757200ba wrote on Apr 14^th, 2009 at 11:41am:


If that is a P35 chipset motherboard then it has the ability to run Core2, DDR2 800 to 1066 memory in a proper clock with that C2 with a minimum of 5-5-5 timing and a PCIe 512MB video card.. at the very least a decent one. All of which will need a 600watt PSU

When I was running FS9 I had a 7900GTX 512 on a AMD x2 clocked to 2.8GHz which will run circles around a Pentium D. .those things are real old news

Its not the CPU speed as much as the design. A AMD 3000 or x2 series running 2.8Ghz is the same as a Core2 running 1.8-2.2. That does not mean you can go out and buy the cheapest used C2 you can find either.. You need to find the one that will allow the right multiplier clock to the memory speed you intend to run to get the most out of it.

So yes what you have is second-rate at best for what you are trying to do

I will look later when I have time and see whats available