Serious Problem with FSx and "stock" PC hardware

[NACAOG]

Trying to share my experiences with this product.  The problem I have encountered appear to be quite common.

FSx is too much for common and even properly maintained PC's to handle.  The impact of this for me is the "black triangles" that are drawn in or around most airports.

A VFR approach to KSFO is virtually impossible on my Dell 4700.  Unfortunately, you will unlikely discover whether or not your hardware is capable of supporting the application until after you've invested time and money purchasing and installing the thing.  The demo is of no use - it ran fine on my PC - interestingly, the demo is staged on an island in the middle of . . . . .  ..  you get the point.

Check out these links before you buy - (you may need to cut and paste the URL) -

http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/in ... &p=&#entry


http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.p ... 51e9049ecc


http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/read. ... 056&t=3056

[Wing Nut]

You failed to list your specs, so I'm guessing here...  

If you're running a stock 4700, try getting more than 768 megs of ram for starters.  Then you might want something more than an 80 gig HD...  Oh, and maybe something called a video card.  That system comes with shared memory.

Look, you can't expect a state of the art program like FSX to run on something designed to sell as cheap as possible.  We aren't talking the Sims here.  This is a graphics intensive program.  

Get a better machine...

[Daube]

[quote]Trying to share my experiences with this product.

[NACAOG]

Daube says -
"Quite common ? Well, not on this forum. "

I've provided three links *in this website* alone - check them out - out of respect for the forum, I haven't posted others.

[SubZer0]

I feel bad having to tell you that you're gonna need a new, better system to run FSX. The program isn't even built for today's generation of computers. it's supposed to be for the next. Hopefully within a year we will have the hardware necessary to run FSX maxed out... Hopefully.

[G-Fire25]

Those'll be the days. I have a pretty damn good computer, and I had to tweak my autogen to get more than 10+ FPS. The box lies. Either turn down your settings or get a better computer.

[Nick N]

There has never been a single MSFS title released that would run as expected on the 'mimimum hardware requirements"

That is not just true of Microsoft Games


buy better hardware, drop the sliders to where it runs, no matter how low, and forget it.

SP1 will help but but not on the hardware you are running unless you are willing to fly with the sliders down and properly tweak the cofig file like everyone else does in EVERY MSFS version produced

Dont get me started... I can rip this one to shreds and there is no argument that works

[NACAOG]

If I understand you - many software authors put out junk that doesn't routinely work.
If I understand you - you are recommending that I turn down the "sliders" to a minimum until FSx works.  - Ummm, been there- done that - sliders at a minimum STILL RESULT IN FREAKIN' BLACK TRIANGLES.    THE THING IS BROKEN FOLKS.   IT D O E S N " T  WORK.

There has never been a single MSFS title released that would run as expected on the 'mimimum hardware requirements"

That is not just true of Microsoft Games


buy better hardware, drop the sliders to where it runs, no matter how low, and forget it.

SP1 will help but but not on the hardware you are running unless you are willing to fly with the sliders down and properly tweak the cofig file like everyone else does in EVERY MSFS version produced

Dont get me started... I can rip this one to shreds and there is no argument that works

[Nick N]

[quote]If I understand you - many software authors put out junk that doesn't routinely work.
If I understand you - you are recommending that I turn down the "sliders" to a minimum until FSx works.

[Nick N]

and something else I find interesting from FSPassengers site...

NACAOG wrote:
I've been running FSx now for 2-3 months - I have found that the combination of the purchase price plus the (seemingly) required
hardware upgrades necessary to produce the kind of tantalizing video you see in YouTube etc. is exhorbitant when compared to the
freeware flight simulators available. So - if you are planning on dumping TONS into your P.C. hardware upgrades, FSx is a great way to
go. If you have a "typical" hardware configuration - you will get nothing close to the kinds of resolution you see all over the
place . . . . .
don't be decieved by this "bait and switch" approach to marketing that MicroSloth is infamous for. If you're running previous
versions of
FS - stay with them.

you have been running FSX for 2-3 months?

AND THAT was posted by you> Author: NACAOG      12 Posts

[Nick N]

And I am trying to figure out how this thread has 1546+ views when it was just posted 2 days ago

hmmmmm... spam linked?

[Brett_Henderson]

I've always had a gripe with manufacturer's, on the box, "minimum requirements". It's not just Microsoft and it's not just games. You gotta do some research before buying ANY piece of software before expecting to get optimum performance. That's just how it is.

Correct me if  I'm wrong (but I'm not)... You can purchase the components and build the equivalent of a Dell 4700 for under $300. If a person expects to run a latest generation computer game on a $300 computer; there's no point in even discussing it with them. FSX requires nearly $300 worth of RAM alone, and nearly twice that spent on a video-card. Ten minutes reading just this forum and you'd know that much.

When FS9 came out, it took a $2,000+ computer to run it well (and you couldn't max it out). Same for FSX. A $2,000 computer will yield incredible results today.. right now. I run it on a computer that could be build for WELL under $1,000. Granted, not maxed out, but I never expected that.

Just like FS9... in a year or two, a $2,000 computer will give you that "OOOH AHHH" results with FSX too.. And when FS11 comes out, we'll be hearing all this again.. *sigh*...

[NACAOG]

Sorry you feel that way, Nick.

I guess I dont get your point whatsoever as to the "precise" timeline of when I acquired and first posted problems here of elsewhere.  My apologies if the timeline doesn't meet some kind of expectation you have for "legitimacy".  

Instead of focussing on the "consistancy" of the post - perhaps you have something constructive to offer ?  I'm glad you have not experienced these problems.  I encourage you or anyone else that doubts the veracity of these statements to do a simple Google on -  "FSx" + "black triangles"

The search results will speak for themselves.   The problems are manifest.

[Nick N]

[Nick N]

[quote]Sorry you feel that way, Nick.

I guess I dont get your point whatsoever as to the "precise" timeline of when I acquired and first posted problems here of elsewhere.