Flight Ace wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 6:03pm:


Very easy!
Let someone else do the thinking for me!
Lol, that would be a very fast computer!!

Speed of flight wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 2:23am:



Speed of Flight is right. Maxing out FSX is a no brainer. There is more than enough information on this forum to confirm this statement. Do the research.

Get the i7 950 over the 930. It dropped in price not long ago.

snippyfsxer wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 1:35am:


Snippyfxer

You are one in a hundred or more that has such an elaborate simulator setup. Why don't you tell us more about your Sim setup rather than making fallacious criticisms implying that two of your fellow simmers are giving people the impression and I quote "Jeez, what is everyones's problem here, I'm getting 200 fps no sweat. Everyone else must be stupid."

Shame on you. I as well as Speed of Flight has the greatest respect for everyone on this forum and that includes you. And as far as doing what your screenshot shows, my cockpit is not broken up into three slices only one and my scenery is every bit as good as yours. One last point, Every post I have made was not for impressing or conveying attitudes but providing information about my PC specs and how it performs with FSX. All represent my opinion with honest and accurate statements.  I have been rebuilding my PC on a yearly basis with the latest technology. I would like to think that the information I provide would help others who are looking for a good spec for FSX.

snippyfsxer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2010 at 1:40am:


snippyfsxer

As I have indicated in previous posts, all sliders crammed right as you put it (in my opinion) don't give you the best FSX presentation.

And I am assuming from your statement that your system is complex and loaded up to the eyeballs with scenery, ambience enhancements and you have spent hours, days, even months optimizing your sim to its present  entity. I would even think you have been at this for years. I have since Microsoft's first offering of FS. Also, obviously, your field of vision is greater than if you only had one monitor. I do think your Flight Simulator architecture is great. I would like to hear more about it.

Now having said all this, in the future, don't make up statements that I have said that are not true. I don't and never have, as a norm, suggested that anyone run FSX with sliders all right. I have done it only as a test and in a location suitable for it.

snippyfsxer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2010 at 8:05pm:


Now we're ALL on the same page. It is so easy to forget that these kinds of things always seem to set threads on fire. Nobody was suggesting that FSX is running at ITS max, but that it is running at it's max for the simmer. Let me straighten a few things out that I (and others) seem to misunderstand. Here's how I define what I meant:

1. All sliders up: Merely using the maximum fidelity that FSX displays through your monitor(s). Smaller or lower resolution may enhance performance (FPS) but that does not imply that FSX is doing the most that it is capable of. Adding a few "must have" accessories can adversely impact performance (multiple HD monitors, IMAX theater screens, etc.). The more you make it DO, the less likely you are to GET.

2. FPS "spikes": Occasionally, FSX can "spike" up to over 100 FPS. COOL! Having a consistent 30+ is better and more valuable to me than 8-10 avg, and a "spike". However, if your system can run at 30+ normally, and run in the 100s over plain areas (desert, ocean, what-have-you), then sweet! Why should one be criticized for that? That sounds good to me, really. Some people can't do that, and others get that normally. That's why those who do and can, try to inform those who don't or can't. It depends on your system (which is what the original poster was asking about, anyway).

3. Set real-world goals for your experience: You will not get FSX to run properly on a $35 computer with a 386 processor and 256 KB RAM and shared video. You probably won't even find a DVD ROM on a computer having these parts on it. Nor will you get it to run well on a movie screen with a 43 gigapixel monitor (not yet, anyway). But, let's face it. FSX didn't even know how big monitors would get while trying to use it. FSX never even saw it coming. It will do it, but there is NO hardware out yet that will "max out" on those settings. However, that's not even real-world. That's obsessive. I am all for that, but don't expect to run it fast yet. That said, on a GOOD system, one can regularly get 30+ FPS, easily. If you have all sliders right, and good components, and 1 1920x1080 monitor, it should do great. For the EXTREMISTS, (and that's what 3 HD monitors is still called, considering the available "affordable" hardware), give it some more time. Remember how long it took us to get this far...

Now lets talk about this:
I hate it when someone asks for an impossible feat on a graphing calculator. I won't quote it, but there was something to the effect of "REX on, UTX, GEX, FSPax, Heathrow, all kinds of 'too much' on there to list, and get over 100 FPS. I bet it brings it's system to it's knees". I don't now why I'm even going to dignify this with a response, but hey. Why not? My question is this:
Really? if you paid for all that stuff, and a system to run it, and the electric bill, you could have taken REAL FLYING LESSONS. This is a sim, and it does VERY well at what it's designed to do. Even gets you some real-looking cities to fly VFR around, but it is a SIM. If you need an entire wall-o-video, photo-real EARTH, and G-force, GO OUT FRIGGIN SIDE. Otherwise, enjoy 1080P video, on 1 screen, and get it to go fast enough for you.

All that said, I hope this can help put a good light on at least what I was trying to do. I think getting 30+ all the time, running a few REALLY GOOD addons is very good. If your asking for more than that, you will have problems for the foreseeable future. But by all means, push it harder. Let us know when you get it screamin! That's what we're all after anyway!

Still not on the same page huh?  What do you and your buddy Speed of Flight, disagree with?  I guess I really don't quite understand where you are going with this thread, then.  Enjoy your flight simming.

And to Speed of Flight:  Your last post was going okay, until, in so many words, you basically told me to "get a life".  As it might have occurred to you, this is a website for Flight Simming enthusiasts and hobbyists.  Why don't you take that attitude into the homebuilt cockpit section and see how they like that?  Until then, go back to flying your UltraTrike over Friday Harbor; because, in your own annoying, repetitive words, I'm sure that it "Rocks!"