Simviation Forums

I think this should be a good FSX rig as soon as it comes out.

I don't build my own computers, I don't know enough about it. So you computer experts, go easy on me.  :-[  

XPS 700 Pentium

You should have waited until after FSX was released. I hope your new rig was worth the purchase though.

Why's that? Do you mean so I could get a DX10 video card?

I needed a new computer anyway. I could have waited a while, but I've been suffering with what I've got right now.  ;)

This is a laptop isn't it!  :o PRETTY AWESOME!

can you actually use FSX on this machine? I mean in part the use of a flight controller like SAitek X52 with this laptop. Is it just the keyboard you would use to control FSX?

Oh no, it's actually a desktop. This would be a pretty damn sweet laptop to take around with me though!  ;D

I should get one...  :D

I'm a Beta team member and I've been running FSX on my AMD 64 4000+, 1 Gb RAM and 6800GT vid card. Most of my sliders are at 75% or better and I get anywhere from 15-60 FPS. I recently increased RAM to 2 Gb to help in my video editing and image processing capacity. The increase had very little effect on FSX.

Don't pay any attention to the dire predictions of the uniformed. Once you get FSX (be sure to get the Deluxe), you'll soon have it tweaked to your satisfaction. The claim by one member of this forum that FSX won't run even in 2 Gb RAM is completely wrong.....

My 6800GT fan failed 3 days ago and I'm running FSX on my old system which is an AMD 64 2800+ w/1 Gb RAM and an old FX5200 video card. Most sliders are at or below 50% which gives me 20 FPS most of time. Quite adquate to continue testing.

To answer your question.... your system will be just fine.

Cal

The claim by one member of this forum that FSX won't run even in 2 Gb RAM is completely wrong.....

There are a few people in this dumb world  who believe that when one's own computer can't handle a particular software, they immediately assume that everyone else's computer can't handle that software. This is particularly true of those who don't even consider the possibility that their hardware may not be compatible with certain features or that they have loads of other crap installed onto their system as well or that they may have forgotten to do a defrag recently.

Luckily, we don't have too many of those people in this dumb world. But then again, this is a dumb world after all and I may have underestimated the number of such people.

There are a few people in this dumb world  who believe that when one's own computer can't handle a particular software, they immediately assume that everyone else's computer can't handle that software. This is particularly true of those who don't even consider the possibility that their hardware may not be compatible with certain features or that they have loads of other crap installed onto their system as well or that they may have forgotten to do a defrag recently.

Luckily, we don't have too many of those people in this dumb world. But then again, this is a dumb world after all and I may have underestimated the number of such people.

Not to mention those who think that flyable FPS means 160 or better.  ;D



@Calb

Nice to hear a voice of reason. I may reconsider getting FSX when it comes out. Even if I have to turn things down at present I'll still have FSX. I'm about due to build a new machine by next spring anyway. Just have to save all my pennies till then.  ;)

Not to mention those who think that flyable FPS means 160 or better.

Especially when our eyeballs can only perceive up to 30 of those frames per second.

Especially when our eyeballs can only perceive up to 30 of those frames per second.

It was already discussed in another topic.
Your eyes can only see 25 images per second, but that doesn't mean that your eyes cannot make the difference between 25 and 50 FPS.

This is called "sampling", just like in audio.

If you want to do a good 25FPS sampling, the original "movie" shoud be at least 2x sampling rate, that is 50 FPS. The same occurs when you want to do sound sampling

After 50 FPS, the eyes will not notice any difference anymore. Before 50 FPS, it will. That doesn't mean that 25 FPS is not enough, of course it is enough, but 30, 40 or 50 FPS are even better

So let me guess, those who have eye capable of perceiving 50+ frames per second are capable of seeing any subliminal messege posted between the individual frames of a commercial?

So let me guess, those who have eye capable of perceiving 50+ frames per second are capable of seeing any subliminal messege posted between the individual frames of a commercial?

yes, Hail Pete

as for the fram issue...

*sigh*

If 3D rendering were the same as watching a video what Daube posted would be correct but 3D rendering is not a video.

24 frames can look and feel just as smooth as 50 and you would not know the difference if I put you in front of a PROPERLY designed and PROPERLY set up system and ran both side by side.

Were people notice the difference is in the frame TRANSITIONS.

I have seen 40 frames look out of sync and 22 perfectly smooth.

3D is not video or film.

From what I remember, the individual frames of a film are somewhat blurry as opposed to the individual frame of a sim [which is not blurry]. That could be the key factor in all this. I don't know, I'm just guessing.

Well, in FS the helicopter blades are made to strobe like real film.  If the blades didn't change, and were just spinning blades, then things wouldn't be that great.  It would be good if ACES could develope themselfes a dll which would blur anything which moved at a high rate of speed.

From what I remember, the individual frames of a film are somewhat blurry as opposed to the individual frame of a sim [which is not blurry]. That could be the key factor in all this. I don't know, I'm just guessing.

No.. video is sharp

Let me put this in a visual example:

VIDEO 40 FPS

______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|______|

40 of these frames every second and exaclty ONE per .025 seconds without missing a beat

Its CONSTANT .. it never changes from one frame to the next. The video will always remain at its locked speed for every frame displayed.



3D GAME RENDER 40 FPS but does not seem smooth

_____|_______|__________|______|_______|___|___|_______|____|_______|

40 of these frames every second and BUT even though 40 frames get rendered in that 1 second time period they are not equal in transition time due to all sorts of different load changes on the system or a system that is not correctly set up. This is where tweaking and load balancing the computer with the sim is critical.




3D GAME RENDER 24 FPS and smooth as glass

_______|________|________|________|________|________|_______|________|

24 of these frames every second and even though rendering will never be EXACTLTY ONE per .041666 seconds, the difference is so small you dont see the changes.

The computer and the sim are in balance with each other. Loads do not cause severe transition changes, therefore the visual looks exactly the same as example #1


Thats the best I can do to make it clear with a forum post example


I ran an x800xt overclocked with it locked @ 22FPS for a year and I cant see the difference in smoothness and flight over my 7900GTX. The visual are cleaner and there is more to look at with the 7900GTX but with the exception of very, very heavy load situations there is absolutely no difference in how smooth my sim runs between 22 and 34 frames on two very different cards... nothing

I lock the 7900GTX @ 34 because lower it throws the sim out of balance with the computer and higher I get micro stutters in heavy traffic airports. @ 34 it is in perfect harmony with the loads being applied.

Flight sim is not couterstrike or other games... it is calculating a hell of a lot more in the background than a simple "shoot-em up" game. If a computer is not set up to FORCE the system to give FS9 all the resources it wants and at the same time the sim settings are not balanced for/with the available resources, the rendering will be choppy, stuttered and blurry no matter how high the frame lock is making it to on the counter.


Everybody makes the same mistake ... jack up the frame lock thinking since it will go that high they should set it that high. The fact of the matter is it should be set to about 35-45% LESS than what the card can do in FS9 so if the card can easily hit 50-60FPS with the sliders maxed @ 100%, cloudy day and 90% AI traffic, the frame lock should be between 24-35. The exact number requires testing and trial/error.