Simviation Forums

One of my favourite people NickN, who has made FSX possible for most of us with his technical and tweaking advice, has the slogan that the fault does not lie with FSX it is a hardware problem.

I am now about to install an i7 940, the second level gaming chip in the new Intel series,

into an x 58 motherboard, with new and expensive DDR3 RAM.

I will be retaining my previous 8800GTX videocard which is overclocked by only to a small amount.

The expert opinion is that this set-up will give me little improvement on the previous arrangement.  Only the i7965 Extreme will make a difference.

However the difference in Australia for the CPU is about $1000 against $A2500.   A new GTX 280 video card is close to a $A1000 if I was to install one.

If the satisfactory running of FSX depends on the next highly expensive generation of hardware, or the skills necessary to over-clock, or meet the cost of new cooling then after two years what sort of monstrous program is this?

Few except those with the top equipment, or great clocking skills report the game running really well ...  I know this is relative as many are happy with presentations that others do not accept.

In a recent post one poor member asks why his scenery is so poor, its because his sliders are so far to the left on his equipment, that it will be no great improvement on the 1995 version of the game.

I guess there is absolutely nothing that can be done about FSX now, but FS11 whatever bells and whistles it has, must be able to be run on the average gamer's hardware at the time.  Yes I mean gamers, because those with low end computers should never expect to run graphic intensive applications.

But please please in FS11 get the fundamentals right, then worry about ATC and the rest later.

I did not say it would make little difference.. you will see an improvement

[quote]
The magic in i7 is the communication rate between the memory and the CPU, and, the operations per clock as the CPU speed increases

When I posted I expected to see a 25-35% difference it was based on the 965 @ 3.2GHz. The 940 is based at 2.93GHz so although you will see a nice improvement which I do not doubt you wont see anything spectacular unless you clock that processor

Unlike the 965, the 940 is base multiplier locked. Changing the 965 base multipler is simple which is why they get top dollar for the proc. The 940 can be clocked assuming the motherboard allows Bclock access and access to Vcore and a few other voltages.

When is enough, enough ?

That's a tricky question.

We all have to agree that there's no way that software and hardware people are going to be on the same page, when they are both pushing the envelope. And would we really want it any other way ?

If FSX would have run smoothly on year-old, average gaming computers when it came out.. where does that leave the people willing and able to get the latest hardware ? Are they suppose to just sit there with hardware that's way more capable than the software of the day saying,, "ooh ahh.. look at my bench-marks" ?

Who are you going to cater to, if you're in the business of selling hardware and software ?

Thank you all for your very thoughtful replies.   But I have upgraded three times for FSX and still haven't got there.  I think that is too much consideration for hardware designers.

If FS11 pushes the envelope it should only push it once.

In spite of our hardware, the game still required the knowledge of NickN and others to make it work.  How were amateurs like me ever to know about the cfg tweaks, nHancer, the right drivers, shutting down processes,you name it?  The advice Nick and others gave frankly must have been worth millions across all of the users.

I was in a computer shop and a man and his son were looking to buy FSX.  I asked them about their computer, and I said that unless they were prepared to upgrade, tweak and adjust, their home machine was useless.  In the end the left with FS9.

And yes the hobbyists and the technically minded can do wonders with overclocking, but for most of us it is a foreign language.  Frankly it is to most consumer techs as well.  I have found some people who I think might be able to give me that assistance but it then brings in further costs - case and cooling.

Sorry to whinge (an Aus term), and to sound like a bleater.  And yes Nick I may have to face facts and go back to one screen, but what a shrunk experience that will be.  

I have been a real supporter of FSX, but I am beginning to wonder if I will be ever able to afford the $A4000+ required for the machine that can run it out of the box .. on top of the $5-6k I have already spent.

In a market economy these things are all a matter of choice I know.  I have just found it exhausting trying to afford the best.   Sorry all.

Sorry all

No need to apologize .. you're just giving an honest recount of your experiences

Brett:

 You upgrade 3 times since FSX came out? You either single or have an very understanding wife  ;D

It is rather sad that we have to strife so hard to get FSX to run at max with decent FPS or atleast to our own individual preference.

My opinion is just that one does not have to go top hardware to get FSX to run decently. Yet that is purely my opinion. A decent rig with the right tweaking and decent add-ons can give you some very pretty eye candy at some very smooth frames.

I take my machine as an example, far from top notch, yet I am having a great time in FSX, ofcourse I only fly small props as my realism sliders are maxed, that making FPS outcome better.

I guess it is all about finding a balance  :)

Yes FM you are right of course.

Recently I flew from Plockton(UK10) to Dyce (Aberdeen) in the Carenado Mooney with the Orbx VC,  right across the Scottish Highlands including the Caledonian Canal and the great lochs. UTX Europe and GTx (sorry mental lapse) made for a stunning flight over a three screen matrox.

But I have never really got major airports to run well, and I have to back of the sliders and lose the detail that in many cases I paid for.

It is a matter of expectations, and I suspect Brett is right I have probably picked the wrong time to upgrade.  And Nick will invoke his preacher forbears to tell me salvation only comes to those who listen carefully.

Mac, I fully agree with you and share the frustration with big airports. I avoid them by all means which is sad since I paid for them.

Try telling myself small GA's are not meant to get close to them makes me feel a little better

:-? I would have to agree Nick's avatar "FSX runs fine... the
problem is you or
your system" I don't have super computer like most of you ,But I feel FSX very confortable, Little heavy in Big cities ,but its ok , I seriosly doubt a bit with Nhancer it takes too long to load  :o but that's all..

this is my personal opinion  

[quote]The people I am sad about, are those who bought FSX, found they couldn't run it, put it on the back shelf and went to some other simulation.

First Alrot its great to see you back on the site.  I am getting great pleasure from your Citation and Cessna 310.  In the real-world I logged many hours flying a 310, they're very challenging in an engine out situation if gear or flaps happen to be cycling but the old girl cruised at a genuine 180 indicated.

Brett you are always comforting.  Yes I am psychologically effected by my diminished wallet.

However not to drag this on too long I still assert that FSX was poorly designed and should not have been two years ahead of the hardware.  Even that may have been acceptable as future-proofing if in fact the game architecture had taken account of the future.  It was designed for single core non-threading CPUs not the duos and quads that reached the consumer market only shortly after.

My wish for FS11 is a little like yours.  Sure it can stretch the hardware but at the same time the designers need to really understand their own product.  And tell us.

Last, I am the product of a line of dour Scots migrants to NZ.  Money is hard to come by- therefore I expect to be able to use what I pay for.   It is no consolation to me to be told that I can get better value than FS9 at lower settings, while being told that one day I can enjoy all the benefits of FSX when I can afford the hardware ...  or someone invents it.

And I didn't buy FSX to fly country VFR ....  I bought it to fly the lot, country, city, small props, tubes, IFR, real weather.  The whole deal.