Havent given FSX a fair shake

[seahawk09 0]

Hey all,

I have come to the conculsion that I havent given FSX a fair shake in the flight sim dept that's why I have decided to upgrade my video card from a 6600 to a 8800GTX that way I will have no problems flying and the graphics will cetainly improve. I look forward to flying FSX properly.

Richard

[Snave 466]

Wrong choice. FSX is limited NOT by graphic card limitations, but by CPU speed and RAM, hard drive data transfer speeds, sound card choice and drivers, drivers and OS.

The 8800GTX is a complete waste for FSX.

Should run proper games properly though, so it's not a complete waste.

[Daniel Roethlisberger 0]

Got a 7900GS, but a fast CPU and 4GB Ram. Works well...

[maverickNL 0]

yea and if uer buying a new vid card ur better of with a 8800 gt very close to same performance as 8800 gtx but 200 euro cheaper

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Wrong choice. FSX is limited NOT by graphic card limitations, but by CPU speed and RAM, hard drive data transfer speeds, sound card choice and drivers, drivers and OS.

The 8800GTX is a complete waste for FSX.

Should run proper games properly though, so it's not a complete waste.

Does not happen a lot, but I disagree thoroughly.

First of all I see a lot of new processes handed over to the GPU that could not be handed over with an older card, things like aircraft and scenery shading do take a heavy toll on an older card, but are nearly without any load on the CPU on a 8800. In DX10 mode the in VC shading is totally done on the GPU and the CPU has no problems with it at all. This all makes it possible to set functions with the 8800 card that would not be possible with an older card. Second, the FPS is basically limited by the CPU, but how the frames look depends a lot on the GPU.

I upgraded all my machines to 8800 GPU cards. I had them without, I seen the difference. I get more frames per second and each of them look a darned lot faster. They higher you push the system (in fps or resolution) the bigger the difference.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Got a 7900GS, but a fast CPU and 4GB Ram. Works well...

I have never seen FSX use more than 1.5 GB of memory and nobody showed me a situation it used more. That means a 32 bit system capable of addressing something like 3.4 Gb always would have enough room to load FSX plus the OS and a load of Office applications. On a 32bit 2Gb system I think you can also hit the bets possible fps as long as you do not have a lot of stupid stuff that does not unload when needed.

Not that 4 Gb is a wrong choice at current prices btw.

[Robert S 75]

Given the right set of circumstances, a graphics card update can make a BIG difference to FSX as has been stated here.

To prove this, simply take a modern PC and run FSX at 1600x1200, 32 bit, with AA and AF turned on, first with a 6600 and then swapping it for an 8800 series card...

Here are actual results for FSX in which you can see that a 6600 like the OP has turned in only 9 FPS while an 8800 can return as high as 23 FPS, and as Mathijs states it's not just FPS you are shooting for here, there are shader and other effects as well.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_200...2&chart=292

In this case, the only difference is the graphics card in the system so that is the only thing making the difference in FPS. But the key to making your graphics card upgrade successful is also having the other components up to date as well, namely the CPU, -multi-core preferably - 2 gigs ram and decent HDs. So for the best results it's a whole package but assuming you have the core components it is a worthwhile investment and not a "wrong choice".

[Marc W. 0]

Wrong choice. FSX is limited NOT by graphic card limitations, but by CPU speed and RAM, hard drive data transfer speeds, sound card choice and drivers, drivers and OS.

you aren't up-to-date ... this is true for FS9 and earlier versions ... not at all for FSX ...

... simply put, the FSX engine is the first FS engine to actually really use the graphics card ...

Which of course doesn't mean that a dual core processor doesn't do wonders for FSX performance ...

[Marc W. 0]

yea and if uer buying a new vid card ur better of with a 8800 gt very close to same performance as 8800 gtx but 200 euro cheaper

... unfortunately, this new model (the 8800 GT) is VERY hard to come by these days ... at least in Austria ... my local (huge!) pc hardware store doesn't even have one in stock and also can't order within reasonable time ... most online retailers also have problems ... ... sad, as I really would like a GT too ... well, Amazon says 3-5 weeks ... mmm ...

[Daniel Roethlisberger 0]

I have never seen FSX use more than 1.5 GB of memory and nobody showed me a situation it used more. That means a 32 bit system capable of addressing something like 3.4 Gb always would have enough room to load FSX plus the OS and a load of Office applications. On a 32bit 2Gb system I think you can also hit the bets possible fps as long as you do not have a lot of stupid stuff that does not unload when needed.

Not that 4 Gb is a wrong choice at current prices btw.

Yes, but beside of FS, I use my computer e.g. for games (COD4 and Crysis need a very fast system..).

But mainly, I bought the computer to be able to fly with FS X and apart from the Wilco 320, I'm very happy with the sim. I'm looking forward for VFR Paris

[Snave 466]

you aren't up-to-date ... this is true for FS9 and earlier versions ... not at all for FSX ...

... simply put, the FSX engine is the first FS engine to actually really use the graphics card ...

Which of course doesn't mean that a dual core processor doesn't do wonders for FSX performance ...

Absolute rot! FSX uses DX9 and Shader Model 2.0. Only the beta dx10 demo uses ANY of the GTX cards upper-level features. And SLI is still barely accommmodated, even after SP2. HOw many of the GTX pipelines are in full operation under DX9 with FSX?

On what facts do you base this assertion?

The plain and simple FACT is that the marginal extra gains of the GTX over, say, the GTS are simply not justifiable by the price differential. Hardocp long since proved this:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MT...W50aHVzaWFzdA==

So I would be very interested in what articles or technical papers you have that justify your theory?

[Marc W. 0]

Absolute rot!

(QUOTE "snave : "FSX is limited NOT by graphic card limitations" )

yes, it is

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Absolute rot! FSX uses DX9 and Shader Model 2.0. Only the beta dx10 demo uses ANY of the GTX cards upper-level features. And SLI is still barely accommmodated, even after SP2. HOw many of the GTX pipelines are in full operation under DX9 with FSX?

On what facts do you base this assertion?

The plain and simple FACT is that the marginal extra gains of the GTX over, say, the GTS are simply not justifiable by the price differential. Hardocp long since proved this:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MT...W50aHVzaWFzdA==

So I would be very interested in what articles or technical papers you have that justify your theory?

Simon, we were discussing the use of a modern graphics card for FSX, you said that those would do swat, we said they do make a difference. I can fully agree with you on the issue of the KIND of modern graphics card, I don't think that apart from ample memory the speed and number of pipelines don't matter a whole lot when it comes ot FSX.

But anybody who moved up from a cheap card to a modern 8800 or the likes will know it makes a lot of difference, both in number of frames and in how they look.

[seahawk09 0]

I think i trust Mathjis on this topic guys

[Snave 466]

The assertions made for the most modern cards were made with the previous background that FSX would be upgraded to a fully-complaint DX10 platform.

Now that we know that isn't ever going to happen, the time to reflect on the precise level of performance overheads is now, free of the burden of rash assumption and simple belief in the tissues of lies told by hardware marketeers who want to sell you stuff based on its `x%` improvement over last weeks model. YES, a good card is required to make the most of FSX. BUT NO, the `mostest` graphic card will NOT benefit your FSX performance by any amount commensurate with the costs involved. NOT UNLESS THE REST OF THE SYSTEM IS ALSO CAPABLE OF MEETING THE CHALLENGE.

So we are back to performance benefits:

I say that a GTX is a waste. I do NOT say that an 8800 is a waste. Re-read what I said, and understand better. Just bunging in a top-of-the-line graphics card will benefit your FSX performance LESS than bunging in an upper-middle card - and also adding some more RAM or upgrading the CPU.

I don't see how anyone in their right mind could think that blowing the budget on a graphics card would be a superior choice to a balanced upgrade across the whole system. The facts speak against this, I speak against this, and frankly, so do all the benchmarks that have ever been carried out on FSX. It still requires as much RAM as you can find, as much raw horsepower as you can afford. The one area where it does NOT max out the performance capabilities is in the grpahics department. DX9 and Shader 2.0 does not even scratch the surface of the capabilites of the current generation of cards, so there is simply no call - NONE - for a top-of-the-line card. Not when choosing one slightly below the bleeding edge could leave residual budget for upgrading other things that are actually more important to overall sim performance.

The marginal increase in fps and performance between the GTS and GTX cards proves this to be the case, and there is no reason for anyone to `choose` to believe one person over another. I simply read the facts and report them, and verify them as correct (or else I wouldn't report them as such). If you want to provoke a ######ing contest, go find a forum that wants such peurile antics.

[OSU 0]

and there is no reason for anyone to `choose` to believe one person over another.

Then why do you argue so hard that your view is the only correct one and we should all listen to you? That everyone else is ill-informed and that you have all the facts? Not just in this thread but in all threads.

And as far as provoking a ######ing contest?!? Give me a break, you do that all on your own. When someone states a contrary view to your own, you break out a thesaurus and berate them to no end.

Snave, I'm sure you have a wealth of knowledge and information, but finding a better way of imparting that knowledge would do wonders for all involved. Your rants and tirades are getting old and quite frankly ridiculous.

Now, start berating me for stating my thoughts, it won't do any good as I really don't care what you might think of me or my opinions.

[ManuelL 71]

I think it really depends on where your priorities lie. For me the decission goes like this: Currently I have windows xp and G7800GT card.

Upgrading to vista makes 200-something euros, better graphics card adds 300 - 450 euros. So I would end up with around 600 euros. For this I will get dx10 with some (rather harsh) shades in the cockpit, nice looking - but not very realistic - water (usually there ar not so many reflections when there are a lot of waves). In addition I would be able to turn the graphics sliders in FSX up a little further and have more objects and less blurries.

On the other hand, if I get myself software addons for 600 euros (I don't think I will), I could get flight environment x (adding more variety and better graphics), photorealistic landscapes and airports and last but not least complex aircraft with a better physical model and more system depth than any of the fsx aircraft.

As I personally don't care so much about fancy graphic effects and don't mind occasionally blurry landscape tiles as much as I care for a realistic flight model, I would rather choose option 2.

Or safe some of the 600 euros to get things I can use in the real world out there and not only in my flightsim.

[Guest Dag]

I love my dual 8800GTX and even before the specs shown in my signature, they were a benefit. I upgraded from an ASUS EN7800GT Dual, which is also redicilously expensive. I needed DX10 capability so I went for the 8800GTX.

Tell me how stoopid I am and I will have a good laugh at ya, I am entertained by the posts in this thread.

Best from the money waster

[Marc W. 0]

And as far as provoking a ######ing contest?!? Give me a break, you do that all on your own. When someone states a contrary view to your own, you break out a thesaurus and berate them to no end. Your rants and tirades are getting old and quite frankly ridiculous.

Which is why Snave was banned from several other places, most prominently Flight One ... why Aerosoft still let's him post here eludes me ...

[Marc W. 0]

... unfortunately, this new model (the 8800 GT) is VERY hard to come by these days ... at least in Austria ... my local (huge!) pc hardware store doesn't even have one in stock and also can't order within reasonable time ... most online retailers also have problems ... ... sad, as I really would like a GT too ... well, Amazon says 3-5 weeks ... mmm ...

rumor also has it, the 8800GT gets very very hot ... can anyone confirm this?

Thanks!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Which is why Snave was banned from several other places, most prominently Flight One ... why Aerosoft still let's him post here eludes me ...

Mainly because we have looser rules than other forums, I don't like to play police when some person feels offended. Snave has very strong opinions, and he words them strongly. But he does not violate any rules I have in my mind for this forum. If he does he will know it. I know Flight and many other US based forums have different rules.

[Robert S 75]

It is SO ironic that what Mathijs is preaching here, is tolerance...and it's the very thing that Snave violates all the time for others.

But trust me, everyone here knows the score when it comes to our resident source for entertainment...it is humorous indeed to watch him dig a hole for himself, then try and tunnel out through a completely different path than he arrived!

Oh, and as far as breaking out the thesaurus, I would instead recommend a dictionary for you Snave...for the word isn't "peurile" but rather "puerile".

[Cris B. 120]

It is SO ironic that what Mathijs is preaching here, is tolerance...and it's the very thing that Snave violates all the time for others.

But trust me, everyone here knows the score when it comes to our resident source for entertainment...it is humorous indeed to watch him dig a hole for himself, then try and tunnel out through a completely different path than he arrived!

Oh, and as far as breaking out the thesaurus, I would instead recommend a dictionary for you Snave...for the word isn't "peurile" but rather "puerile".

I must concur with you, Ripmaster, Snave can be brash and down right rude at times but as Mathjis states, Snave can make some good points. Most of the time, though, I see Snave as a form of "comic relief".

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings Snave but I just call'em as I see'em! :wink:

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I must concur with you, Ripmaster, Snave can be brash and down right rude at times but as Mathjis states, Snave can make some good points. Most of the time, though, I see Snave as a form of "comic relief".

I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings Snave but I just call'em as I see'em! :wink:

Snave is like the Stig, has no feelings.

And for those who do not know the Stig, get a life outside FS.

[Marc W. 0]

get a life outside FS.

There is a life outside FS? :shock:

uh well ... back to topic ... whatever happened to SP2 for FSX?