Hi,

I am getting a new system this week. Bottom line, i must be able to max out FSX. I've not been keeping up to speed with hardware, and to be honest i was a little surprised that years afters the release of FSX many systems still struggle to max it out.

I have been looking at this system, with an upgraded card to the HD 5870.............

System Specification
- Case: Xigmatek Asgard Midi Tower - Black
- Power Supply: Corsair Extreme 600W
- CPU: Intel Core i7 930 2.80GHz Overclocked to 4.00GHz
- Motherboard: Asus P6X58D-E Intel X58 (Socket 1366) DDR3 Motherboard
- Cooler: Prolimatech Megahalem w/ Sharkoon Silent Eagle 2000rpm 120mm Fan
- RAM: Corsair XMS3 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 (1600MHz) Tri-Channel
- Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 500GB SATA 3Gb/s 16MB Cache
- Graphics Card: A choice of the latest graphics cards
- Sound: 7.1 Channel Sound (On-Board)
- Optical Drive: LG DVD+/-RW SATA Drive

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-025-OP&groupid=43&catid=...

Would that do the trick? 

Thanks for any help.

Yeah i was a little vague. What i really want to be able to max out is the scenery. I am fed up of flying into citys that look like villages. Is it possible to max the scenery with current systems? If not i will just hold off an get one next year.

bgyuk wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 3:38am:


Also, it may just be that you don't have the right add-ons to make the cities look good. Do you have Ground Environment X? Ultimate Terrain X? Depending on what your current system is, these might make a huge difference. I just got them recently (along with Real Environment X) and it's like an entirely different game, all at 30 fps with my quad core 2.66 ghz system that's 2 years old now. Not a bad deal...

bgyuk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 4:40pm:


Sounds good, and go for it!
On a different note, I also have been running FSX at full max settings for almost a year now. I see so many people having such a hard time running FSX that I try to help folks out with how I did it.

FSX CFG has been modified, for even better than stock performance. I changed this setting:
LevelOfDetailRadius:4.500000// changed it to 7.500000 so the buildings and scenery load sooner in flight!
I run AMD Phenom2 965 @ 4.0 GHz, an 850W PSU, ATI 4870 512MB video card, 8GB DDR3 OC 1600MHz, and anything comparable or better should do the trick. I run no less than 15 FPS with ManhattanX using PMDG 747 (FriscoX is a lot harder on it, maybe 10 FPS) but anywhere else is never less than 30+, and hit well over 100+ in some areas, with REX2 running full on, and everything maxxed. Everyone has the same fix for this, and it seems to be a CPU intensive game, so better to go hard, or keep having issues. Even some of the i7 920 operating folks OC it and still get FPS issues. That one is a great deal for your $, but go with 930 or better, or Phenom2 (a guy named IdahoSurge OC'd his i7 930 to 4.2 stable and I imagine he isn't having any problems at all, either)
I haven't had ANY of the problems that people typically have with FSX (usually FPS) for some time now, and am VERY satisfied with it's graphics and performance. Gotta get really expensive hardware, from what it seems. That ought to do it.

You're headed in the right direction. Hope this helps...

snippyfsxer wrote on Sep 26^th, 2010 at 3:38pm:


Yes, you are right - maxed out means every slider full right and all applications turned on. But does it mean maxed out for best performance and graphics? I don't believe so.

Full right on water or cars makes no sense as REX handles the water graphics quite well at 2.X and UTX floods the landscape with vehicles with the slider at around 25%. As for Light Bloom, I have yet to figured out why this was added in the first place. Screen Resolution, Air Traffic, Autogen Density, Scenery Complexity and Filtering makes sense to keep them as high as possible depending on your specs. And keeping in step with your definition of a maxed out system, why would one with a high end system turn the 2-D panel transparency fully right - of course, you would not have it turned on. As for all the settings in FSX, each one has or had a purpose mostly good and should be set based on your system spec and just common sense. And what is the difference between a resolution of 5760 X 1200 compared to 1920 X 1200. For me - visually - none.

Now, can one turn all FSX applications on with all sliders to the right and still get a satisfactory performance?  I can and did a few minutes ago in Rio. At Low altitude in weather at sunup over the populous area my frame rate was between 25 and 30. Everything was turned on and/or maxed out. Can I maintain the same or improve the performance by selectively adjusting or turning off settings. Yes by lowering the water setting, Lowering vehicle traffic, turning off Light Bloom, and a few other minor adjustments. By doing this my frame rate jumped to 70 plus(over 100 at times). The graphics presentation did not change - still outstanding. And remember I am running GEX, UTX, REX, and a number of other associated software packages. Air Traffic, Scenery Complexity, Autogen Density, and Filtering remained at max settings.

I will sum up this discussion with this statement. If you have a well balanced computer with good components (motherboard (easy to overclock), CPU running at 3.8GHz and above, upscale video card with 1 GB or more memory, high end power unit - preferably 800 watts and above, Good RAM - preferably CL 6 or 7, and good cooling and I always prefer in a full case)then the chances are great that one will be able to run FSX in a manner it was intended. I just recently added a solid state drive with both FSX and my OS on it and it is like having a new computer. It did not improve much on my already outstanding performance but boot, read, and write times are significantly faster - and many times instantaneous. My next improvement on my rig, before building a new one, will be to upgrade my GTX 285 OC which has 1GB of DDR3 to one of the new advanced video card offerings.

The above works for me but remember this is only one persons opinion.

snippyfsxer wrote on Sep 28^th, 2010 at 2:53am:

Might do it, 'cept it runs Linux.

RaptorF22 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 3:40pm:


Create and load Cray version of Windows 7. See how easy that was? 

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!"

snippyfsxer wrote on Oct 9^th, 2010 at 3:59pm:


Wow, even. Some people are so touchy. Jeeze. Calm down. Your 3 monitors must be saturating your cerebellum. It's not that big a deal. This is supposed to be helpful and fun, not all jerky and angry. Sheesh.