Simviation Forums

This is no reply or any problem with my pc.Is just one thing the really makes me mad.I know the computers companies need to sell products.
But what makes me crazy is-Fs2004 has 5 years and not even the latest pc can run it in perfect condition, not even the latest video cards and fast memory, can make this sim's just be installed, maxed and lets play.And then we read the min req. and its just crazy.Maybe in 2020 we have a pc that can run fs9.And in 2050 we have one that can run FSX at HALF POWER so i will be close to my 80's.NICE!!!
Sorry guys is just an idea that really freaks me out.
But its funny FS2004 can be only played in 2020 because so far no hardware can hold it. .Unless you spend $2000 on a pc for a game that is down for $20 hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I was able to max out FS9 on my three year old dual core AMD, 2gb ram, and 7950gt... and FSX plays very well in my i7 system now...

yes, new hardware can run FSX fairly well, but you've got a point there...

simply pushing all sliders you see far to the right on FSX is hardware suicide... no computer to this day can run it like that

i'll bet even FS9 won't run that well of you do that on a top-notch system today...

but this matter isn't as serious as it may sound... the FS sliders are not scales of hardware potential... you need to realize that FS wasn't made to be run at max sliders... ever... it's just not intended to do that

some settings will bog down your hardware VERY easily, because some things in FS are simply not optimized for performance... take the .wav sounds and .bmp textures for example... or the fact that even the small autogen houses and trees have texture maps that are HUGE for the size they normally appear on screen...  

as you increase some sliders, they will weigh exponentially higher as the graphical benefit they yeald keeps ever decreasing... so eventually you get to a point where, to gain 1% of graphics, you must have 2 times as much computing power... and so on...  :o

FS can be better thought of as a benchmarking tool... a tool that's made to present a formidable hardware challenge, and should never be completely maxed out

it's always a question of "how high can you go", really  ;)

Cheers

I was able to run FS2004 maxed out on my old single core 4.0 MHZ CPU. The problem is that FS2004 doesn't support multi core systems. Therefore you will always get better results with a single cores system and high processor frequency than with the new multi cores with lower CPU frequency.

That sounds weird, Manuel. I can max out FS2004 with my Mobile Core 2 Duo system with 17-26 FPS (26 locked), very smooth..

Sounds to me like you have some weird problem anyway, 757200ba.

:-/

Yeah.. this is strange. I haven't run FS9 for years now.. but my last FS9 computer (o'clocked AMD3700, 7800GTS, 2GB of fast DDR2) not only ran smoothly with all the settings cranked up.. I had loads of add-on AI..

Even at Ohare, with AI all OVER the place, every gate AND lined up for takeoff.. I couldnt get FS9 to even hiccup.

FSX is a different story..

.Maybe in 2020 we have a pc that can run fs9.And in 2050

No my friend in 2020 we will be invaded by monkeys I mean Apes and they will rule a new world..

seriously at least FS2004 works , Have you try the default FSX? they made a software to an nonexistence computer ,they BEARLY fix some of the issues with SP1 and SP2 But there is no computer Yet capable to run this program full set in fact IHO think that's the real reason that was WHY MS Dumped ACES .

FSX is really much worth and made thousands of people Buy/Waste expensive machines which still can't run well at full set up ,Flashes , trouble with the DX10 ,etc ..

I dunno whats up with this system

I was running FS9 maxed out on a 7900GTX and a AMD x2 processor in 2006

FSX is really much worth and made thousands of people Buy/Waste expensive machines which still can't run well at full set up ,Flashes , trouble with the DX10 ,etc ..

I wouldn't say MUCH worse..

Lets face it...

It doesnt change because at cutting edge time a top end FS9 system was 2grand and thats about the same for FSX on triple the clock per clock ability

so in reality it is cheaper today to by a FSX system than it was to buy a FS9 top-end. You are getting 3 times the system ability for the same price

yes, new hardware can run FSX fairly well, but you've got a point there...

simply pushing all sliders you see far to the right on FSX is hardware suicide... no computer to this day can run it like that

but this matter isn't as serious as it may sound... the FS sliders are not scales of hardware potential... you need to realize that FS wasn't made to be run at max sliders... ever... it's just not intended to do that


Cheers

Then why did they let us do it? :-?

THis is my current machine for FS9 (so far im not interested on FSX).I guess this can take FS9 ok. I know that FS9 might not use the dual core but, hey! its was for

not really

The video card is 256mb and that will hold it back and its not the better 7950 either

a 450 watt PSU?

The processor is a Intel Pentium D 820 processor.
So in your opinion for this contraption works on FS9.
I need RAM, PSU, and a 512 video card.
I know is asking to much but, any ideas, and please stay on mortal prices.
I know im asking a lot but... MANY THANKS.

The processor is a Intel Pentium D 820 processor.
So in your opinion for this contraption works on FS9.
I need RAM, PSU, and a 512 video card.
I know is asking to much but, any ideas, and please stay on mortal prices.
I know im asking a lot but... MANY THANKS.

If that is a P35 chipset motherboard then it has the ability to run Core2, DDR2 800 to 1066 memory in a proper clock with that C2 with a minimum of 5-5-5 timing and a PCIe 512MB video card.. at the very least a decent one. All of which will need a 600watt PSU

When I was running FS9 I had a 7900GTX 512 on a AMD x2 clocked to 2.8GHz which will run circles around a Pentium D. .those things are real old news

Its not the CPU speed as much as the design. A AMD 3000 or x2 series running 2.8Ghz is the same as a Core2 running 1.8-2.2. That does not mean you can go out and buy the cheapest used C2 you can find either.. You need to find the one that will allow the right multiplier clock to the memory speed you intend to run to get the most out of it.

So yes what you have is second-rate at best for what you are trying to do

I will look later when I have time and see whats available