Search the archive:
 YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
  Simviation Forum › Computer Hardware & Software Forum › Hardware › THIS IS NUTS!!!
(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
THIS IS NUTS!!! (Read 1264 times)
Apr 8th, 2009 at 10:19pm

757200ba   Offline
Colonel
757200-THOR of the skys
Florida

Gender: male
 Posts: 516
 *****
 
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. Embarrassed Cry Wink.Unless you spend $2000 on a pc for a game that is down for $20 hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Sad
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - Apr 8th, 2009 at 11:27pm

SubZer0   Offline
Colonel
KLNA

Gender: male
 Posts: 3882
 *****
 
I was able to max out FS9 on my three year old dual core AMD, 2gb ram, and 7950gt... and FSX plays very well in my i7 system now...
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - Apr 9th, 2009 at 2:03am

HarvesteR   Offline
Colonel
F/A-18 HARV    Almost
has my name on it!
Mexico, DF :D

Gender: male
 Posts: 707
 *****
 
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...  Shocked

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  Wink

Cheers
 
Cheesy NEW PC SPECS: Intel Core i7 920 - 6GB Corsair DDR3 PC12800 RAM- Intel DX58SO Mobo - Geforce GTX 460 768MB GDDR5 - 3x LG1952h LCDs through Matrox's TH2Go - 640GB Seagate Barracuda 7200Rpm  - 200GB Maxtor 7200Rpm - Microsoft Sidewinder X6 Keyboard - 5.1 Surround and a Saitek X52 Pro and Pro Flight Rudder Pedals  -- Running Windows 7 Ultimate x64

My 8800 GTX has at last retired... may it rest in peace in GPU heaven.
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - Apr 13th, 2009 at 5:19am

ManuelL   Offline
Colonel

Gender: male
 Posts: 744
 *****
 
I was able to run FS2004 maxed out on my old single core 4.0 MHZ CPU. The problem is that FS2004 doesn't support multi core systems. Therefore you will always get better results with a single cores system and high processor frequency than with the new multi cores with lower CPU frequency.
 
...
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - Apr 13th, 2009 at 5:46am

FlyingPerson   Offline
Colonel
My avatar is new and shiny!
Near Oslo, Norway

Gender: male
 Posts: 577
 *****
 
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.

Undecided
 
Specs&&Intel M C2D P8400 2.26 GhZ&&nVidia GeForce 9600M GT&&4 GB DDR3&&320 GB HD&&Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 32&&&&
...
&&&&&&Flown: Boeing 737-3Y0 (2) Airbus A330-343 (1) Airbus A321-211 (1) Boeing 737-883 (1)&&&&&&Flown Airlines: SAS Braathens, SAS Norway, Thomas Cook&&&&Summer Flying Time:&&&&A340-300: 11,9 hours&&A340-500: 5,1 hours
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - Apr 13th, 2009 at 9:27am

Brett_Henderson   Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender: male
 Posts: 3593
 *****
 
Yeah.. this is strange. I haven't run FS9 for years now.. but my last FS9 computer (o'clocked AMD3700, 7800GTS, 2GB of fast DDR2) not only ran smoothly with all the settings cranked up.. I had loads of add-on AI..

Even at Ohare, with AI all OVER the place, every gate AND lined up for takeoff.. I couldnt get FS9 to even hiccup.

FSX is a different story..  A quad-core at 3.6Ghz.. 8800GTS.. 4GB of fast RAM, and .. well...  it struggles..  Cheesy
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - Apr 13th, 2009 at 10:26am

Alejandro Rojas L.   Ex Member
I Love Simviation.

*
 
757200ba wrote on Apr 8th, 2009 at 10:19pm:
.Maybe in 2020 we have a pc that can run fs9.And in 2050


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 ..


 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - Apr 13th, 2009 at 10:46am

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

Posts: 6317
 *****
 


I dunno whats up with this system

I was running FS9 maxed out on a 7900GTX and a AMD x2 processor in 2006





 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - Apr 13th, 2009 at 11:04am

Brett_Henderson   Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender: male
 Posts: 3593
 *****
 
Quote:
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 ..


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  Smiley
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #9 - Apr 13th, 2009 at 11:35am

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

Posts: 6317
 *****
 


Lets face it...

It doesnt change because at cutting edge time a top end FS9 system was 2grand and thats about the same for FSX on triple the clock per clock ability

so in reality it is cheaper today to by a FSX system than it was to buy a FS9 top-end. You are getting 3 times the system ability for the same price

 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - Apr 13th, 2009 at 12:26pm

Sergeant-Coates1   Offline
Colonel
squashed

Posts: 112
 *****
 
HarvesteR wrote on Apr 9th, 2009 at 2:03am:
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

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


Cheers


Then why did they let us do it? Huh
 
my name was NitroPower & 87Honda Shadow Wink
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #11 - Apr 14th, 2009 at 10:58am

757200ba   Offline
Colonel
757200-THOR of the skys
Florida

Gender: male
 Posts: 516
 *****
 
THis is my current machine for FS9 (so far im not interested on FSX).I guess this can take FS9 ok. I know that FS9 might not use the dual core but, hey! its was for  free.
Besides some AI traffic (i have removed the default traffic), i have Pmdg 737, Wilco airbus , level d 767.Maybe 1 or 2 scenery airports.I have locked on 20 fps.And some times this " guy" is fighting to maintain that.This is a standalone pc no internet connection, no anti virus, so not much back ground programs running. Shocked
Any ideas.I guess this SHOULD hold FS9 pretty well.  Undecided
This is not a ultimate machine i know, but shouldn't be enough???

MB - Giga-byte P35 - DS4
Processor - Intel Pentium Dual Core CPU 2.8 oc to 3.2  1meg cache (i dint go more than that, i used the Giga-byte overclocking program)
Cooler - Zalman 9500
2Gb Ram DDRII Pc 4800 (303 mhz)
BFG Nvidia 7950 GT OC 256 Megs
400 W Power Supply
1 Western Digital 320 GB Sata 16 Meg cache 3GB/s
1 Western Digital 120 GB Sata   8 Meg
Nec DVD - RW
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #12 - Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:23am

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

Posts: 6317
 *****
 

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



 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #13 - Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:41am

757200ba   Offline
Colonel
757200-THOR of the skys
Florida

Gender: male
 Posts: 516
 *****
 
The processor is a Intel Pentium D 820 processor.
So in your opinion for this contraption works on FS9.
I need RAM, PSU, and a 512 video card.
I know is asking to much but, any ideas, and please stay on mortal prices.
I know im asking a lot but... MANY THANKS. Smiley
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #14 - Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:50am

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

Posts: 6317
 *****
 
757200ba wrote on Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:41am:
The processor is a Intel Pentium D 820 processor.
So in your opinion for this contraption works on FS9.
I need RAM, PSU, and a 512 video card.
I know is asking to much but, any ideas, and please stay on mortal prices.
I know im asking a lot but... MANY THANKS. Smiley


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
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #15 - Apr 14th, 2009 at 1:31pm

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

Posts: 6317
 *****
 
Make sure your BIOS is updated to make sure the CPU support is in the system before upgrading.

CPU:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115036

That one will do 4+GHz on the right air cooler

Or this one a few bucks cheaper may have more trouble reaching 4 but it will do 3.6-3.9 no problem

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037


Memory:

2x2GB DDR2 800 4-4-4 timing

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231209

now those will allow a great clock however for bleeding edge clocking, these:

2x2GB DDR2 1066 5-5-5 timing

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146785


You will have to clock the motherboard to use either one. A 400Mhz FSB (minimum) will be required.

A E8500 has a 9.5 multiplier ability.. 400x9.5=3.8GHz, set the CPU STRAP to 333 for a DDR2 800 mem-speed..

For the E8700 it has a 10.5 multiplier which means 10.5x400 = 4.2GHz

Both require proper cooling solutions as you will need to raise the CPU voltage to do any clocking above 300-500MHz+

As you increase FSB the mem-speed available will increase so in the case of a bleeding edge clock you need the 1066 memory. If you do not intend to try and push it to the max the DDR2 800 memory is fine but you do need to make sure both the memory speed and timing are right after installing the memory.

Now, the issue of 4GB.. you can use 4GB of memory and those big planes can use the extra in FS9 as long as you manually edit the FS9.exe file to use the LARGEADRESSWARE flag and also set WindowsXP/Vista x32 up to not have issues with >2GB. In the FSX forum at the top of the list you will see my tuning thread.. a few posts down directs in how to set Windows up to work with >2GB and not throw out of memory errors.

The process for making FS9 >2GB aware and use it is here:

http://www.ntcore.com/exsuite.php

Make a backup of the fs9.exe file in the main Flight Simulator 9 folder and place it somewhere safe. Using CFF Explorer browse to fs9.exe and open it in the application. (FILE – OPEN then browse)

See the image below.. click 1 then 2 then in #3 place a CHECK in the line which says App can handle >2GB address space… click OK then select FILE – SAVE which will overwite the fs9.exe file in the main Flight Simulator 9 directory.


...



Once you apply the Windows technique here your FS9 will have access to above 2GB without issues as will your PMDG and other heavy hitting aircraft.

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1208959973/0#3



If you do not wish to deal with 2x2GB which is nice to have if you ever upgrade to a 64bit OS.. you can use these instead:

2x1GB DDR2 800 4-4-4 timing:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146764

or for bleeding edge 2x1GB DDR2 1066 5-5-5 timing

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226048


Video card:

Now.. if you do not intend to start diving into FSX this little number will do just fine

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133241

It will run FSX as well however if you wish to start playing with FSX I would suggest something a little meatier

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130370

Power Supply:

I only use PC Power and Cooling PSU’s. For you that would be this unit:


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703005

This is the only other one I can find that would meet the specs for quality at 600-650watt

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005




however if you ever intend to move into a quad core (which you could now but it just wont help with FS9) you would need this

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703009



There you have it…

Use Nhancer exactly the same as I specified for FSX.. same settings just subsitute FS9 for FSX in the profile

http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=27540&PID=156769#156769


and use this list to set up FS9


http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1231802901/15#15


you will be in hog heaven with FS9 and you can even have some fun with FSX and those support components

read the guides about system setup too.. everything you need to know is in that thread in the FSX forum with links to everything else


So on the low end you are looking at about 400 bucks with the 2nd choice for the CPU, 2x1GB DDR2 800 4-4-4 memory, a 8800GT 512 ans a really good 600watt PSU for a heck of a proce at 80 bucks. You wont find a better made PSU for that price.

Compared to what you are use to looking at.. that 400 bucks will go a long. long way





 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #16 - Apr 16th, 2009 at 2:46pm

757200ba   Offline
Colonel
757200-THOR of the skys
Florida

Gender: male
 Posts: 516
 *****
 
Once again "you are the best".
May thanks, i will try this SLOWLY ( like they say i just rob a bank a year)  Grin Wink.
Many thanks
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #17 - Apr 16th, 2009 at 4:05pm

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

Posts: 6317
 *****
 


actually.. I goofed and posted the link to the wrong 260 card

this is the correct one

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130433


the first one I posted is nutered.. it only has 192PC's..  the one above has 216
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
  « Home ‹ Board Top of this page

Simviation Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge