Simviation Forums

There have been some past inquirees as to what a good configuration would be for running FSX. I would like to address this subject as I just completed a new build for running FSX. My new Tech Spec is as follows.

Gigabyte Aluminum Full Tower ATX Case

While the sliders may be at max, the sim is only running at 40-50% of what it is capable of, maybe less. Nick will be able to explain it better than me.

Read here:
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1190754444

sounds like a sweet set-up.... mind if i ask about how much it cost to build it? 8-)

Firemonte007, the cost of my build was approximately $1,900 with rebates. It does not include an OS as I uses Windows XP from my old system.

Monkey, Nick

[quote]Monkey, Nick

I think you guys are missing the point, fps doesnt matter when it comes down to if the sim is displaying what it is capable of or not.

Even the best hardware on the market today, and, a massive overclock of that hardware will only produce on the screen an estimated 35-40% of what the title is trying to generate in code.

Monkey, could you please give me an explanation of what your quote means.

As Flite Ace points out the most important need in FSX or any other game is FPS.....once you pass 20FPS and constantly keep them you are home!!!! But, display quality is defenitly a second "Need" which can easily be gotten with a good Video card and the latest drivers.......going above 30 fps is just great and the Sim really comes alive.....I have Vista and a cheap Video card and am happy up to now. Santa will bring me (I hope) a DeLuxe Video card and with that I will be totally happy. May I point out that it is also desirable to have a hard drive with a lot of space!!!!! the more "empty" space you have the better FSX will behave. If you only have 10 GIG left for playing you are in a rut!!!! disk swapping will be awfull and degrade the Sim.....am sure that SP2 will be a great upgrade for all but specially for those with Vista.......Have fun everyone, that

Quite frankly, I don't know how the 35-40 percentage was arived at, but I do know there is such a high rate in advancment in terms of hardware tech, that combined with improvments in the program in terms of SP1 and SP2, and combined with the latest in CPU, there isn't really any point in chanting "your not getting the the wholle experience" over and over. In fact, the original performance predictions themselves are made obsolete with recent changes in the program itself.
The facts of the matter are that some users have been able to get far more than expected out of FSX, and have done so earlier than though was possible. In the end, they are satisfied, and that is what counts.

My initial post and subsequent submissions were intended to just provide factual information from the experience gained in building a new system to run FSX. I am a happy camper with this new system as it runs FSX beyond my expectations. I do hope that the information provided is informative and useful. My response to Camel_Moe is that I agree that in the end, if a person is satisfied, that certainly is what counts.