Reality check (FSX)

[litterboxgolfer]

In so far as FSX is concerned, having the fastest CPU benchmarks is pretty much pointless.

Just about anything sold today is far faster than what FSX was developed for.

But FSX was poorly developed, and only I think that I wouldn't be happy with the performance that earlier generations provide. I am just so sick of running this off of a 2007 Optiplex 380, and I want realism which requires the best performance, hence higher clock speeds on the first and second cores is what I will be aiming for when running FSX (ASUS 5-way optimization).

And are you guys saying that I should view benchmark results as a view into how stable everything is?

I am not at all trying to say that Intels aren't great CPUs, because the market seems to speak for itself. However, I can fly the PMDG 777 at Flightbeam's KSFO at 25-30 FPS. I run an AMD at 5 GHz. Thats not to say that your 4790 won't get 2-5 FPS difference at the same clock, but is it really worth the difference in price? I don't know what the latest intel goes for, but my little FX is well priced at $179.99-$199.99, and it is a monster for plowing FSX with great scenery and weather with a busy airport and a complex aircraft. It doesn't seem to mind whatever I throw at it.

Really only a 2-5fps difference at 25-30fps? I just want solid performance. Because if that is the case then i feel as if nothing can run FSX with good realism (PMDG 777 and KSFO) and eye-candy turned up.

[OldAirmail]

You're right, litterboxgolfer.

You know what you know.

No use trying to argue the point.

[litterboxgolfer]

I'm not trying to be ignorant

[OldAirmail]

It may be that we just aren't understanding each other.

I look at it one way, and you look at it from a different perspective.

I've seen people spend far more than is needed, and still not get the right parts. Throwing money at a problem.


On the other hand, FSX & Prepar3d are the only "games" that I use on my computer, so I don't need a bleeding edge gaming computer.


What I have runs six monitors and a Saitek Instrument panel very well with most of the settings either maxed out, or as high as I want them.

Smooth. No jitters. No problems.

If I had more power I'm not sure what changes I'd make, if any.

[Speed of flight]

[JOBSCHEDULER]
Affinitymask=however many cores your CPU has in binary. Mine is set at =10011001, because of the die layout.
This .cfg tweak hereby makes the "single-core" performance maximum obsolete.
If one wants an intel, fine. If you want an AMD with 8 cores, great, also.
No longer does Intels single core being a few inches ahead matter. Read up on it, and remember: although not entirely relevant, plenty of other games had Intels BEST trailing by a significant margin. It's time to consider AMD more than just "the other guys". I'm not trolling, just stating. Those who swear by intel, GREAT. Your superiority complex is all in your head, however. AMD just won out Intel with all 3 big game consoles, after all.
Enough said about that topic.
To the OP, your setup will be sufficient for medium to high settings. Like has been said, all those components are far superior to anything offered when FSX was new. Those seeking everything maxed out, well that goal will elude the top available gear for a little longer yet, I'm afraid.

[litterboxgolfer]

Well, that is probably it. When I buy the computer parts, it won't be what I need but rather what I want and I will be damned if that doesn't give the best performance that is available to FSX. That is my criteria. Along with not going over the point of diminishing return when it comes to financial relations. I guess I should stay out of the thread and leave these thoughts for a different one.

Regards.

[Speed of flight]

Well, that is probably it. When I buy the computer parts, it won't be what I need but rather what I want and I will be damned if that doesn't give the best performance that is available to FSX. That is my criteria. Along with not going over the point of diminishing return when it comes to financial relations. I guess I should stay out of the thread and leave these thoughts for a different one.

Regards.

Just as I said: a seemingly innocent conversation has unspoken overtones that seem to disturb the Intel-AMD continuum.
I would say that the 4790K is probably a great processor, and judging by the stock clock speed, they may have learned an AMD-style dirty trick! All joking aside, I would safely bet that it probably scores somewhat better in bench tests, but as we've discussed here, none of that really matters as far as FSX cares, anyway.
Go get it! That thing is new enough that nobody has it yet, and I'm intrigued as to its performance for FSX anyway. Then you can plug in the R9 295X and rock anything you want. You could finish the internet while processing video and plowing bitcoins and folding. Or buy a Titan. Whatever you want. It's your money. For the most part, what others have to say, including me, is all theory anyway. Some folks are still using an Athlon 64 3500+ and doing fine with it. Don't take what others say as gospel, rather as an attempt to help. Whether you choose Intel or AMD is only the first step, really. Next is SSD or not, what GPU, power supply, and that's only the hardware. Then you have to apply the proper tweaks to FSX's .cfg file to get the best of all those new shiny parts.

Take your time, read reviews, tweak, overclock, whatever. Somewhere is the luck factor that seems to go unnoticed. I'm getting ready to reformat my HDD, and do a fresh install of everything again. FSX is a very labor intensive program, and has high demands. Everything I know about computers was all in an effort to make FSX work better. All anybody can really do is help you do what seems to work for them. Take advice accordingly. However, at the end of the day, it's all up to you, anyway.

Best of luck, and see you up there!

[FridayChild]

What about Prepar3d? I read that was developed from the FSX code, so does it share its limitations (not being able to benefit from multiple cores) or has it been reworked to be more multicore friendly?

[OldAirmail]

That's a good, and an interesting question.

This'll be short (or as short as I can be ).

I'll also skip a lot, hopefully those who know all the details won't get too upset.



First - the Bad.

Lockheed Martin bought the simulator rights from Microsoft for education & training ONLY.

They very clearly state that it must be used for those purposes AND NOT for entertainment.

They do not define the educational requirements in their EULA (End User License Agreement).

They do say that the educational use can be in your home.

They DO NOT, in any way, ask for you to prove that you are a student.



My personal belief is that if you can learn anything at all from the use of Prepar3d, then you are involved in an educational experiance.

There are those that disagree with me and feel that you must be enrolled in a training/educational program.

I am not a lawyer (nor a politician, peeping Tom, cannibal, mass murder, or any other disgusting creature.), so please consult with a lawyer if you feel the need.



The Good

If you read anything about how bad Prepar3d (aka P3d) is, you can pretty much ignore it, that was about Prepar3d V2.1x.

P3d V2.1x was absolutely horrible for most people.

P3d V2.2x is, in my opinion, almost like FSX BUT much better.

(This is the program that litterboxgolfer should be getting (if he's still reading this thread))


Most BUT NOT ALL FSX software will work with P3d.

All of my flight hardware, yoke, throttles, etc., work without any problems.

Many (but not all) flight sim software companies charge little or nothing to use their software in P3d.



My system is certainly no longer in the mid-gamers level.

It works well with FSX. Most of the settings are near the top, and I have no complaints.

However the same machine WORKS BETTER with Prepared V2.2.


Go to the Prepar3d site and read the System Requirements for V2.

Your specs in the first post should be acceptable if not great (eventually you will want to replace the video card, but that could happen later).



And the interesting

Prepar3d is still 32 bit software.

But there are some external processes that are 64 bit.

Where FSX was only able to use a few threads, the 64 bit part is free to use what is available.

With version 2.2, Prepar3d is now able to offload some of the processing onto your video card.



Do I really like it? Almost ALL of my flight time is in P3d.

Oh, yeah. I just bought a second SSD just Prepar3d.

[litterboxgolfer]

Something tells me that I am getting a vibe from you to go look into P3D. I haven't really looked into it at all. I think that is due to some things concerning support for eye-candy and realism and PMDG, but I don't have a single brain-cell that would allow me to uphold a conversation concerning the topic. I have no room to speak.

[FridayChild]

Can you tell me, should I decide to buy Prepar3d, what happens after the purchase? I suppose I must use a credit card. After that, will I get a download code, or will they ship the install media? I'm located in Italy.

[OldAirmail]

Prepar3d is download ONLY.

After you do download it, you can burn it to DVD disks if you want. But the most important step is to print out your purchase info.

You'll get several choices of where you want to download it from.

If the one you choose says it'll take 29 hours and 48 minutes (or some other way to long amount of time ), just cancel and choose another site.

I've downloaded it several times (LOOONG story) and as best as I can recall it generally takes somewhere between 18 & 22 minutes.


I've had FSX for a couple of years now, X-Plane 10 for about a year (recently uninstalled), and now Prepar3d V2.1x to V2.2x.

As far as FSX is concerned, I still think that it's VERY good, especially with all the add-ons that are available.

Actually BOTH look very similar in their raw "fresh install" state. As time goes by you will want to add more stuff.

The beauty of P3d, as I said before, is that as of now, you can use most of the FSX add-ons. And there's tons of it, both payware and freeware.

But P3d is being developed and FSX is no longer being worked on, except be sim add-on companies.



Free planes & free scenery.






Whichever one you choose, there's good time ahead.