Simviation Forums

Hello, returning to flight sims.

You have more or less my very own configuration (sole difference, mine is an Athlon 62 X2 6000 dual core at 3.1Ghz) and FSX, once you tell it you have a second core you'd like it to use as well, works well enough... for small and/or simple planes, midrange scenery complexity level and low to average default AI density.

If you desire a superior AI density and/or the use of more complex airplanes than simple ones, FSX is not for you. Not without slow downs.

And do not forget the legendary (in)stability issues of this version of FS.

Renouncing a little under the glamor of the graphics, you can always go to FS9. Once you pimp its graphics up, even only with freeware add-on, it can keep up with medium graphics FSX BUT resulting a lot lighter on the rig, not to add way more stable, than FSX so you can use all kind of planes AND all settings of add-on AI with no appreciable slow-down.

Upping the RAM to 8GB would be a good step. Probably the simplest, cheapest and most beneficial upgrade.

Is the stability problem why so many hated FSX a few years ago?  Or just that it was a resource hog? 

You advice about being able to pimp out FS9 rather than gimp FSX sounds sound. 

Ram is maxed out on this ten year old box.

Say a new computer is in my future, would FSX Gold be unstable with windows 7?

You know what? FSX Gold is cheap enough that most people could afford to pick up a copy. And so is FS9. I don't have a high end PC and I can run FSX just fine. Yes, I get some minor stutters in detailed airports but once I start to taxi to a runway all is fine. PC maintenance is key to good performance. Now if you need to download huge Gigs of complex scenery you will run into the dreaded anomalies and stutters that has been the bain of FSX fans for years. So I say dive in and "take off". 

Hello Strategic retreat, I am interested by your phrase about FSX : "once you tell it has 2 cores" . Can you explain how to tell it to FSX ?