WILL THIS (or MY) SYSTEM RUN FSX??

[GuitarFreak]

With FSX its all CPU

The 8800GTs 640 and the GTX 768 are 384bit memory buss cards... these cards are actually BETTER for FSX than the newer 9xxx series however with the 280 that may change because they will be incorporating a higher number of TMU's and a few other changes

The 9xxxx cards are a marking joke.. unless you are coming from a slower card their use in FSX is no better than the original GTS/GTX because they reduced memory, memory buss but increased TMU's so its 6 of 1 , and 1/2 dozen of the other

CPU and memory speed is what FSX needs and it does need the right card matched to that speed. You cant put a Q6600 quad with a 8800GT and get the same result as pairing that with GTX.. the GTX will squash the GT in a hearbeat 8x or 9x in FSX

Yeah. The 280 has 1GB GDDR3 w/a 512b bus. Very nice. I'm looking forward to the nehalems coming out at the end of this year, and the octo-cores next year. That should help FSX out a bit.

[NickN]

Just so you guys know... this thread and post were made in June of 2007, a year ago

Things have changed

But the idea of what to purchase has not

the 8800GTX is still the best card for FSX in cost to performance and on the right DDR3, FSX will run much better and provide more, period.

It wont be until Intel next gen before FSX comes into its prime, which is 2 years from release.. just like FS9 took 2 years to have the hardware needed for plug-n-go performance

[NickN]

All this is easy to address

1. FS11 will not be released until either October of 2010 or October of 2011. Trains2 must go first and then development will start on FS11

2. FSX was poorly designed. It used the old FS8 engine, and, they did not take into proper consideration CPU and video card technology, or, where it was going and when it would get there.. heck they did not even take into consideration old multicore tech.

3. With the new Aces development team, the move to the larger facility and improvements to the division with management shifts they are now looking at the tech correctly and will develop based on the optimizations they should have done with FSX. This research is part of something called WAVE 2009 http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2 ... liver.aspx and Phil Taylor will be reporting on their progress as it unfolds. Phil is aware of all the mistakes and I dont see them happening again.

4. Aces is not MS. The only thing MS is responsible for budget,

[NickN]

Negative reinforcement works in the Military, not in the private sector

That wont do anything but pi$$ people off and make it worse, trust me


The issue was leadership and organization at Aces... thats been fixed now

[Moosetek13]

Wow.

Let's see.
I have a HP Media Center PC with a 2.8GHz Pentium D, 3GB ram, and an eVGA Nvidia 6800 GS 256MB ePCI (factory overclocked) video card.

I can by no means run FSX even near the limits of the game. But I can run it with very decent graphics and performance. (much due to some tweaking from NickN's well presented posts).

My nephew, Matthew, who is pretty heavy into PC gaming and has a slightly better system than me, looked at my screen and said - "Wow, how did you get the graphics so good?"
NickN's tweaks, I said.


So while it would be nice to have a top-of-the-line system to get the very most out of FSX - it is not necessary to get a very satisfying experience.

Just make the best of what you have, if you can't afford more.
And these days, who can afford much at all?

[ivan.lybe]

My system specs are:

-Motherboard: ASUS P5B (Intel P965 chipset);
-CPU: Intel Q6600@2.4GHz (don't really want to oc it);
-Memory: 2x1GB Geil Black Dragon DDRII800;
-Graphics Card: ASUS Radeon HD4850 (512 MB);
-Monitor: 22" Samsung (only stating this because it's a TFT monitor and I want to use its native resolution - 1680x1050);
-OS: XP with SP3.

My question is: how well would FSX perform on this system. Would I be able to see 40fps on KLAX or KDFW (Dallas International was the heaviest burden on my system in FS9), with some decent settings? To be honest, I really don't care much about fps, but it's a sign of computer handling software properly. It doesn't have to look really flashy, but it would be nice if it looked at least a little better than FS9 at it's best.

If it helps someone, I'll say that I've tried the demo, and I got somewhere around 40-60fps with settings I can live with and 25-35fps with settings that look really nice. The demo appears to be without the quad-core support, so if that's the case, full version of the game should perform decently.

Would it help if I added 2 more Gigs of RAM?

Would it help if I used 64bit Vista instead of XP?

What's your opinion/experience?

[NickN]

FSX will perform with medium quality and ability at best

[ivan.lybe]

Nick, don't get me wrong, but I kinda knew that myself.

Could you be more specific, please: would it meet my demands of running smoothly with those medium settings and would it help (or would it be a disadvantage) if I added two more gigs of RAM and upgraded to Vista 64?

And finally, what if did one thing I said I wouldn't do, what if I did a little oc of my CPU to 3.2-3.6GHz?

Thanx