New system on it's way... what to expect FS-wise

[Omag 2.0]

Hi all,

After lots of deliberation, my girlfriend ordered our new system. Due to the requirement of beeing mobile, we've choosen a Dell laptop

specs:

Intel

[AMDDDA]

I'd say that you'd be a lot better off with FS2004, as the processor can't handle FSX that well, and in FS2004, you can probably crank it up all the way and still get 20-40 FPS (I don't know actually, but I know you can have EVERYthing 'cept traffic all the way up, and you would get acceptable frames).


Also, since it's a dell... and a laptop, no overclocking ;S.

[N. Chapman]

those looks similar to my specs but mines a 2.6 ghz processor and only 2 gb of memory. and of all things its a MacBook Pro

here is a link to some shots that i took in FSX
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18117893@N05/sets/72157604294169735/detail/ yes that is AF1

this was taken as well in FSX
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/585/2008327111720234nq3.jpg

[a1]

Why a 5400 RPM HDD? Better off with at lease a 7200.


It should do well in FS9 but not the best. Good computer though.

[Omag 2.0]

Dell offers systems, the harddisk was the basic one, switching to a fatser one did make it more expensive. We reached our budget with this set-up anyway.  ;)

[Slotback]

Should run fsx ok-ish, but would run fs9 fantastically. I'd go with fs9.

[Fozzer]

Should run fsx ok-ish, but would run fs9 fantastically. I'd go with fs9.

It will fulfill all your actual, realistic flying dreams, at low level, full scenery, (rather than just taking fancy screen shots of Cigar Tubes in FSX at 50,000 feet AGL), with just about everything wound up to the Max, in trouble-free, problem-free....

....FS 2004.... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

...Enjoy......!

Paul...G-BPLF... 8-)...!

Socket A AMD Athlon 2600XP (2.1 GHz.....nVidia 7800GS 256MB AGP....2.3 GB RAM.... ....!

[Slotback]

Most people would argue that fsx is better low level than fs9. I agree.

[Fozzer]

Most people would argue that fsx is better low level than fs9. I agree.

I mean that FS9 settings can be Maxed out, and "smooth " flying can be achieved at low level amongst complex Autogen objects.

On a low spec computer the settings in FSX would require reducing considerably to prevent stuttering.

I like to run my FS9 with all the settings wound to the Max to get the full benefit of the scenery...and still achieve.."smoothness"... ...!

Which is why I still do not run my version of FSX......
......especially in Multiplayer, in the company of many other Pilots!

Paul....G-BPLF....Low, Fast....and Smooth!.... ...!

...and none of my F9 Configuration Files need constant tinkering with, and various MS downloads, to get the Sim to run successfully...
...it does what it does, straight out of the Box......!

[Slotback]

You must renember that the lowest autogen setting in fsx is higher than the highest in fs9. It's not about settings, it's about playability. You need one patch, just like fs9.

[Fozzer]

You must renember that the lowest autogen setting in fsx is higher than the highest in fs9. It's not about settings, it's about playability. You need one patch, just like fs9.

Already having used FS 2004 successfully since its first release, I purchased FSX on the day it was released and immediately observed the problem of running it at similar, or even reduced settings as FS2004.
To obtain the same "Smoothness" as FS 2004 at maximum settings, the FSX Autogen had to be turned down to almost zero....the landscape appearing bare!
Dense Autogen scenery, together with "smoothness" at low level, is the most important aspect of the Sim for me.

I was so disappointed with the lack of scenery at acceptable Frame Rates (compared to FS 2004), that I have rarely used it since....
..and observing the Various FSX Forums, since its release, and the constant attempts to improve the various (continuous) problems, leads me to enjoy my daily problem-free flying with FS 2004, rather than constantly fiddling about with the FSX .cfg files to get the program to work in any acceptable way...!

Life it much too short for constantly sitting in my chair and messing with FSX, updating downloads, and various .cfg modifications...
...(observe the FSX Forum)...

...trust me.....!

The Flight Sim was meant for Simulated flying straight out of the box, not curing the Designers problems via the internet.

Just imagine all those Users who purchased the FSX "Game" from the Game Shop, and have no access to the internet to cure all its problems!
(A phone call to MS completes the Registration).

My Children and Grand Children's previous MS Flight Sims ran successfully when first installed straight from the box and required no urgent contact with the Internet to enjoy them.

Which is essential for any "Game" not requiring an Internet connection to enjoy.

For me, FS'98, FS 2000, FS 2002, and FS2004 have worked satisfactorily for me....straight out of the box... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]...!

Been there...got them all...used them all...including FSX......!

Paul...G-BPLF... 8-)...!

P.S. My only real gripe with FSX is that the poor Aces Team too far took much notice of all the daft, stupid, unworkable, suggestions from all the Flight-Simmers...and incorporated many of them into FSX...straight out of the Box... ...!
..otherwise, a gentle upgrade from FS 2004 would have been very nice...for most Folks... ...!
...Maybe FS XI... ...!

[Slotback]

Like I said, all you need to fix performance is a single relatively large patch that improves smoothness by over 200% - one patch just like fs9 that installs the same way as fs9.

[djt]

Also, since it's a dell... and a laptop, no overclocking ;S.

Why not?