FSX Specs

[Danthepilot]

Hey everyone, what are some of the specs required for FSX to run fast? I have 2 GB ram, 100 GB hard drive and a Geforce 6200 graphics card. Anyone have any recommendations? or do i need to upgrade anymore?

[Danthepilot]

Anyone have Fly Tampa Tampa airport they could send me through a PM? I purchased the scenery a while ago but lost the scenery because i had a reformat and i didnt back it up. Thanks!

[flyer13]

shoot an email to george or martin and they should give you another copy if you bought it

[paavo]

Hey everyone, what are some of the specs required for FSX to run fast? I have 2 GB ram, 100 GB hard drive and a Geforce 6200 graphics card. Anyone have any recommendations? or do i need to upgrade anymore?

FSuX run fast ?
I don't think that is possible, but you would probably need a better video card. What cpu do you have ?

[tbmavengerstuka]

Ya, The video card won't make you happy for FSuX and a descent CPU is needed. Also, a fast/good Hard drive is always helpful

[sddjd]

Hey everyone, what are some of the specs required for FSX to run fast? I have 2 GB ram, 100 GB hard drive and a Geforce 6200 graphics card. Anyone have any recommendations? or do i need to upgrade anymore?

The specs for running FSX smoothly are fairly intimidating (monetarily anyway). I just completed migrating from a xeon3.0 w/3.5gb ram and a 6800gtoc to a new machine. I was at the end of the line due to the age of my socket and video adapter interface (agp). I suspect that on your system FSX won’t even be playable (end even then hardly so) unless all the sliders are minimized fully; this was the case on my previous system. The upgrade path for speeding up FSX isn’t really an option unless you’re somehow already on a core2-compatible motherboard w/pcie16 slot(s). Even the 79xx agp adapter that’s currently available is already a two generation old card, and will likely cost several hundreds that could be applied to a new system in the near future.

Now, on the new hardware I’m floored by the smoothness of FSX, even with everything maxed. Using an x6800 (2x2.93), 4gb ram, and a 768/8800gtxoc2 I have yet to see a stutter. One additional suggestion, since the cost of all that hardware feels like it warrants a second mortgage, is to go with 10k drives. I put FSX on a perf raid stripe consisting of two 10k’s, and the os on a third.

One other thing is to do thorough research of the issues with nvidia motherboard chipsets and Vista (req’d for coming dx10 titles). Visit nvidia’s own forums for a clear picture of just how much trouble buyers of expensive new systems are having, some to the point of inoperability. Whatever you pick, at least you’ll know what you’re in for with that chipset for the next 6-12 months. Opting for a different chipset based mobo will preclude going to SLI, but in terms of flight simming it’s never been supported for fs9 and almost definitely won’t ever be in FSX.

Older systems just aren’t really that upgradeable for huge performance gains in FSX. I find it funny though that so many bash FSX for this reason; our beloved copies of FS9 arrived back when almost no one had systems capable of running that at top settings either.

[paavo]

Older systems just aren’t really that upgradeable for huge performance gains in FSX. I find it funny though that so many bash FSX for this reason; our beloved copies of FS9 arrived back when almost no one had systems capable of running that at top settings either.

I have to disagree with that, I had a system more than capable when fs9 came out, ( except for the 2 week wait for the ATI drivers ). I was able to run fs9 with the sliders very high the day it came out. FSX is a schizophrenic mess, marketed not to us, but those with little or no flight sim experience, but those people will not have the latest system or spend big bucks to upgrade just for FSX. Look at the good side, we can use our xbox 360 controllers for FSuX.

[tbmavengerstuka]

I might not know as much as you, but I get the impression that FSX runs well on a montrous computer because that hardware makes up for FSX's shortcomings. The game, if designed properly, should be running on cheaper computers. I guess a 6000$ computer can make any mess run well, but with my income, thats just unreasonable.

[paavo]

I might not know as much as you, but I get the impression that FSX runs well on a montrous computer because that hardware makes up for FSX's shortcomings. The game, if designed properly, should be running on cheaper computers. I guess a 6000$ computer can make any mess run well, but with my income, thats just unreasonable.

I agree, flight sim needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with a new graphics engine.

[abaris]

I might not know as much as you, but I get the impression that FSX runs well on a montrous computer because that hardware makes up for FSX's shortcomings. The game, if designed properly, should be running on cheaper computers. I guess a 6000$ computer can make any mess run well, but with my income, thats just unreasonable.

With my E6600, the Geforce 8800GTS, 2 Gigs Ram and a serial ATA drive, FSX runs pretty well. But if some addons scenery is put into play, things look differently. TNCM is pretty OK, but Budapest from aerosoft turns out to be a hog. Also addon planes (and I only use these, since I don't like the vanilla toy equipment) are pretty demanding.

All in all the FSX performance isn't comparable to fs9 when it first came out. You could be able to run everything smoothly then, provided you had the right equipment. Things look differently when it comes to FSX. And you needn't believe the tale of being made for future systems. They simply slept through the multicore development. If both cores were actually put to good use, FSX would skyrocket on my machine. But the second core only shows a zero line when running it. Well, they said something about fixing that with SP1, but I'm sceptical, since the multicore ability is deeply burried in the code. And if they didn't do it, they simply didn't do it.

[rolf_gemini]

abaris,

what OS have you installed on your system. Tomorrow I'm getting exactly the same system you have. I have a question about it:

In fact I hope I don't have to install Windows Vista. I really want to stick to Windows XP. It's just fine for me. But do I need to install Vista considering the 8800GTS is DX10 compatible? Or doesn't it bother?

Thank you!

gemini

[abaris]

In fact I hope I don't have to install Windows Vista. I really want to stick to Windows XP. It's just fine for me. But do I need to install Vista considering the 8800GTS is DX10 compatible? Or doesn't it bother?

Thank you!

gemini

Same with me. I built that system last fall and took the opportunity to buy Win XP to go with it. I'm not interested in running Vista in the foreseeable future. The DX10 update is due in october at the earliest and so DX10 isn't of any use until then anyway.

I will probably install Vista on my second drive as my second system then. Just as I did with XP although I had the advantage of having a press copy of XP in 2001 before it even hit the market. It seems the better way, than totally being dependant on a new system, that hasn't even seen SP1.

[rolf_gemini]

Thanks for the reply!

Finally I can enjoy the pleasure of flying! I don't think fsx will be on my pc for the next few months....if ever...


Tomorrow:

E6600
2GB
8800GTS

gemini

[paavo]

This is a funny quote from a flightsim.com op ed article.

"The 3D graphics engine is very far ahead and rivals most other games, which is impressive. Microsoft has tried to bring in a mission idea. This has worked and now instead of having to purchase add-ons to try your hand at all kinds of real events it is included within FSX itself."

Say what ? Rivals most games ? HL2 has a better engine and it's a 3 year old game, crysis will blow everything away.

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/op-ed/ed404.htm