Good Hardware For Fs9

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Hi, friends!

I guess time has finally come for me to get a new PC. Due to the summer holiday season it is not a good part of the year to spend extra money this way.

But after reading hundreds of hardware/software-related posts, seeing other simmers' screenshots with high FPS counter, getting blurry ground textures on every flight, suffering system freezes once it gets hot outside plus seeing all these previewed great addons to come and buy (Madrid, Leipzig, Frankfurt, etc) I can no more stand my now aging PC. I'm even quite close to having my wife convinced that it is a necessary expense.

Recenty there has been an interesting discussion on buying new equipment here: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=18112

Mathijs adiced Waleed on spending much less money since he is planning to use FS9. OK, so here comes my question.

As you may know from another hot discussion I am in the 'FS9 camp'. Thus I'm planning to continue using FS9 and its numerous addons after exchanging my PC. Mathijs explained that buying an extra PC with double or quad core and high-end graphic card makes no sense for FS9 since it will not use it at all.

As I am NOT a computer specialist, I must say I trust these words.

So what processor / mainboard / graphic card / RAM would you, captains, recommend to have a very fluent and troubless fun with FS9 equipped with megahubs (EDDF, EGLL, EHAM), complex payware airliners, AS real-world weather, UTE and AI?

As for the graphic card I've read much good about GeForce 8800 (I hope I'm right). Now I'm in the ATI radeon camp but I have nothing against switching over if necessary.

Another question: would you recommend buying a separate sound card? Could it significantly improve the FS9 experience?

I also fly on VATSIM and know it may give me ATC separated from aircraft sounds. But what about the general impressions?

I have a 5.1 speakers set but I guess FS9 doesn't work in that system.

And the last question, which may seem a bit silly. If I buy such equipment, but with a single-core processor, and decide to try FSX again one day, and possibly (?) take to it for good, wil I have to invest in another PC?

Or maybe the price difference between a very good single CPU and a good double / quad (plus whatever else is necessary to operate it) is worth some extra money more to invest with future in mind? Or you think it's better to buy cheaper specifically for FS9 and in case of a possible FSX switch sell and buy again?

Thanks in advance for your time, patience and assistance.

I appreciate any suggestions since this is a hard decision for me and my technical knowledge won't let me make it on my own.

Best regards,

Rafal

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

CPU:

I would still pick a Intel duo2core CPU because even on single core applications they are very hard to beat. The problem is that you need a fast one and there for an expensive one while for FSX a cheaper one might do as all cores are used. E6600 or even E6700.

COOLING:

Important for you as even mild overclocking will help you a lot. Get a big brandname cooler, they are not expensive. Check coolers from Zahlmann or CoolerMaster

MOBO

Not really important, depends a bit on the features you need. I like Asus.

MEMORY

2 Gb DDR2-800, anything more makes very little sense for FS9 (but will help Vista)

SOUND

On board if you are not a HiFi freak. Gaining FPS with additional sound cards is only possible if you take the very expensive cards and even then you are talking percentage.

HARDDISK

2 disk, as large as you need in RAID setup (takes a bit of time to setup and you REALLY need a good backup but it's worthwhile). I like Seagate, but there is very little difference between brands.

GPU

The most difficult. Keep in mind that FPS depends on CPU and the GPU determines how the frames look. This is NOT AT ALL the same with other games where FPS depends on the GPU a lot. In your case this is where I would advise to save some money and upgrade later. For example a ATI Radeon HD2900 GT card can be found under 80 Euro and even this one would not be stressed at all by FS2004. Don't be tempted to spend serious money on this part for FS2004, it's wasted. NVIDIA has something like the GeForce 8500 GT in the same price range. Good cards, good value for money when you use FSX. I challenge anybody to show me the difference between a 70 Euro and a 500 Euro card in FS2004.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Mathijs,

Thanks a lot for a fast and detailed response!

I have already calculated everything. The set similar to what you suggested will cost me about 2000PLN.

It's about 590 euro, exactly as much as I expected to spend. It's going to be a good piece of PC I guess.

Just a few more short questions if you don't mind.

E6600 or even E6700

OK, I found E660 for about 130 euro. My question is (forgive me my very limited hardware knowledge): my present 4-year old processor is AMD Athlon 64 2.01 GHz. The E660 I may buy is 2.4 GHz. The difference from the point of view of the GHz parametre doesn't seem significant, but of course the trick lies somewhere else (except for the 2 cores), right?

HARDDISK (...) 2 disk

You mean TWO hard discs physically? If so, why two?

GPU (...) Don't be tempted to spend serious money on this part for FS2004, it's wasted

All right, sounds reasonable to me. But do you think there will be no need to change the mainboard and/or the CPU when it comes to replacing the GPU for a better one in future?

Best regards,

Rafal

[Marc W. 0]

OK, I found E660 for about 130 euro. My question is (forgive me my very limited hardware knowledge): my present 4-year old processor is AMD Athlon 64 2.01 GHz. The E660 I may buy is 2.4 GHz. The difference from the point of view of the GHz parametre doesn't seem significant, but of course the trick lies somewhere else (except for the 2 cores), right?

Yes, the GHz aren't as important as they used to be ... what counts is how much work is done per cycle ...

You mean TWO hard discs physically? If so, why two?

Yep, Mathijs was talking about RAID (I assume RAID-0 or striped RAID), which means you have two physical hds and the OS splits the data on those two, in order to get better performance.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Marc,

Thanks a lot for your reply!

Now both questions are clear to me.

Best regards,

Rafal

[Robert S 75]

Let me add one more thing to this PC soup

I see you are configuring a PC for FS9, and I think given the hardware specs you should be able to get FS9 looking spectacular! That being said, the latest driver sets from Nvidia is having major problems rendering true Anti Aliasing (this feature removes jagged lines from images on the screen...the higher the AA, the better the image looks).

It is not the card that is the problem, so an 8500 GT series will suit you fine but look for an older driver version, like around the 9x.xx series and NOT the recent 1xx.xx series. It will make a BIG difference in image quality!

For more information on the AA issue, see this thread:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=58863

Good luck!

[Waleed Nuseibeh 0]

O.K., I am officially lost here.

Two hard drives for quicker info is understandable, but what I do not get here is how do you configure this, and how do you tell the system to split the info on two hard drives?

I do not know if I am making any sense regarding this, but I originally thought I would get a raptor(10,000rpm) for my fs, and leave the regular hd for the family.

I figured I could find a way to split the raptor to use for both fs9 (main), and fsx for when I want to try the great looking f-16 when it comes out.

I say split, as I noticed that fsx files get mashed in with fs9 if installed together, and then I have to physically uninstall both and delete all entries and start fresh to get things back to normal for fs9.

I am totally confused.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

O.K., I am officially lost here.

Two hard drives for quicker info is understandable, but what I do not get here is how do you configure this, and how do you tell the system to split the info on two hard drives?

I do not know if I am making any sense regarding this, but I originally thought I would get a raptor(10,000rpm) for my fs, and leave the regular hd for the family.

I figured I could find a way to split the raptor to use for both fs9 (main), and fsx for when I want to try the great looking f-16 when it comes out.

I say split, as I noticed that fsx files get mashed in with fs9 if installed together, and then I have to physically uninstall both and delete all entries and start fresh to get things back to normal for fs9.

I am totally confused.

You mobo manual will have all the information on connection two disks (you really need simular disks for that) in a raid configuration. It will be at least as fast as a raptor as a lot cheaper per gigabyte. FSX files should NEVER be mixed with FS2004 files, they install in different directories.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs,

Thanks a lot for a fast and detailed response!

I have already calculated everything. The set similar to what you suggested will cost me about 2000PLN.

It's about 590 euro, exactly as much as I expected to spend. It's going to be a good piece of PC I guess.

Just a few more short questions if you don't mind.

OK, I found E660 for about 130 euro. My question is (forgive me my very limited hardware knowledge): my present 4-year old processor is AMD Athlon 64 2.01 GHz. The E660 I may buy is 2.4 GHz. The difference from the point of view of the GHz parametre doesn't seem significant, but of course the trick lies somewhere else (except for the 2 cores), right?

You mean TWO hard discs physically? If so, why two?

All right, sounds reasonable to me. But do you think there will be no need to change the mainboard and/or the CPU when it comes to replacing the GPU for a better one in future?

Best regards,

Rafal

Gh's do not say it all, but you are right. there has not been a lot of progress in CPU speed if you look at it per core. That's one reason why FS2004 is so limited at this moment. But you should be able run that CPU at 3.2 Ghz rather easy.

The mobo will have a 775 socket for the CPU and a PCIe interface for the GPU, both seems very future capable at this moment, so I do not expect you to need to exchange anything unless you want to go for those complex dual GPU systems. But you need to be a hardcore gamer to get any use out of that.

[Egbert Drenth 52]

Yep, Mathijs was talking about RAID (I assume RAID-0 or striped RAID), which means you have two physical hds and the OS splits the data on those two, in order to get better performance.

Be advised:

If you configure your disks in a Raid-0 configuration you double your disk failure probability,

since it takes only 1 of the 2 drives to fail and loose all your data.

Meaning: If one of the 2 disks fails, the data on the remaining disk is also useless.

Therefore make sure you have a solid backup solution.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

As for the hard discs I will probably go for one good and fast 320GB HD.

Both for saving some money and due to my limited will to learn RAIDing.

Anyway I will use all other advice in my purchase decision so thanks again to Mathijs and everyone who contributed to this discussion.

Best regards,

Rafal

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Be advised:

If you configure your disks in a Raid-0 configuration you double your disk failure probability,

since it takes only 1 of the 2 drives to fail and loose all your data.

Meaning: If one of the 2 disks fails, the data on the remaining disk is also useless.

Therefore make sure you have a solid backup solution.

Indeed, indeed, that's why I wrote that you needed a good backup option. Been there, had that, screamed loudly about it.

But seriously, catastrophic hard disk failures are rare and small issues are handled the same way as on a single disk. So indeed you run double the risk, but double a very small risk.

[Marc W. 0]

Be advised:

If you configure your disks in a Raid-0 configuration you double your disk failure probability,

since it takes only 1 of the 2 drives to fail and loose all your data.

Meaning: If one of the 2 disks fails, the data on the remaining disk is also useless.

Therefore make sure you have a solid backup solution.

True but then - how often do good harddisks fail, if treated properly? Not so often ...

You gotta backup anyway, to be protected against power surges, theft, software problems, data corruption and even own stupidity - all of this has happened to me already, but (lucky me) so far never a hd failure ... and with the backup, it's no problem if the machine breaks down.

To get the best of both worlds, you can use RAID 5, sort of a combo of RAID 0 and 1 - data redundancy paired with increased performance ... in fact there are several other RAID configurations.

[Robert S 75]

So indeed you run double the risk, but double a very small risk.

- Mathijs has put the risk into perspective, but let's all remember why raid 0 was suggested in the first place: you get a noticeable performance increase by running in raid 0 configuration! So it is certainly worth the risk and do not be intimidated about setting it up - it's a piece of cake ;-)

Also, regardless of your HD choice, as has been said in this thread before; backup - backup - backup!!!

Oh, and just because you asked: raid 0 works by joining two or more identical, seperate, physical hard drives and combines them into one logical drive as seen by the OS. So for example, if you take two 250GB SATAII drives and configure them using raid 0, you will "see" just one 500 GB drive. You can partition it any way you want to, as in a C:\ partition of 200GB, plus a 300GB D:\, etc. The magic of this happens with a chipset on the motherboard that controls access to the drives.

It is much faster because data is written across both drives, so that read and seek times are greatly reduced as they are coming from two sources at the same time. This vastly improves installation and game loading times!

There are of course additional raid configurations, as Marc points out. While this does not cover every type, it is a good starter's guide for the average desktop user:

http://www.poweroid-video-editing.co.uk/Re...rage/RAID_0.asp

Don't be afraid of going two hard drives in raid 0!

[trisager 16]

This vastly improves installation and game loading times!

Well ... Among other things, my Dell XPS420 came with RAID0 enabled on two 7600 RPM 500GB disks. It also came pre-installed with Vista, and as part of my efforts at getting reasonable performance from FSX with Vista I tried reinstalling everyting without RAID0, using one HDD for the OS and the other for FSX. I have to say that I was unable to detect any difference with regards to performance, neither with FSX nor with the standard office applications that I use. I doubt that FS9 would be any different.

The RAID controller in the Dell is an on-board Intel ICH9R. It is of course possible that you will get better performance with a higher-end controller. Try googling "RAID games performance" to see what other users say.

Tom

(PS: Replacing Vista with XP was a big performance improvement, but it doesn't look as pretty and I miss the nifty "Search" box on the Start menu).

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Well ... Among other things, my Dell XPS420 came with RAID0 enabled on two 7600 RPM 500GB disks. It also came pre-installed with Vista, and as part of my efforts at getting reasonable performance from FSX with Vista I tried reinstalling everyting without RAID0, using one HDD for the OS and the other for FSX. I have to say that I was unable to detect any difference with regards to performance, neither with FSX nor with the standard office applications that I use. I doubt that FS9 would be any different.

The RAID controller in the Dell is an on-board Intel ICH9R. It is of course possible that you will get better performance with a higher-end controller. Try googling "RAID games performance" to see what other users say.

Tom

(PS: Replacing Vista with XP was a big performance improvement, but it doesn't look as pretty and I miss the nifty "Search" box on the Start menu).

As hard disk access obviously IS faster on RAID 0 (for Microsoft Office or FS, it's the same way of loading files after all) there must be something happening after the files are loaded that slows it down to a speed that is not RAID 0 worthy. Obvious candidates are virus scanners of course (and on Vista, Windows Defender). The RAID controller actually plays only a very minor role on RAID 0 level, the on on the Dell mobo is certainly capable of handling the disks at their native speed.

[trisager 16]

As hard disk access obviously IS faster on RAID 0

That's what I thought, too. Perhaps less obvious when applied to the real world: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=1

My own experience agrees with those findings.

Tom

[Marc W. 0]

That's what I thought, too. Perhaps less obvious when applied to the real world: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=1

My own experience agrees with those findings.

Tom

Well, this only says that you don't always get twice the performance (but even a 70% increase is good, wouldn't you say?) ... besides, the "overhead" thing they are talking about doesn't apply if you deal with large files ... for small files, the disk access time is minimal, so no problem there anyway.

I bet there are scenarios where RAID-0 doesn't help, but in general it's a big asset ... especially in those cases where your hd normally feels slow

[trisager 16]

Well, this only says that you don't always get twice the performance (but even a 70% increase is good, wouldn't you say?)

I'd think 70% improvement was great, but I'm not sure where you got that from. Quoting the summary:

"f you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."

Tom

[Marc W. 0]

"f you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop."

Well, to each his own opinion. From my experience, with desktop pcs RAID-0 is seldom used by non-informed users buying cheap pcs, but rather by experienced pc users who often build their own pcs. Some of them should know what they are doing, wouldn't you say?

Here, for flight-simming though, often large files are accessed (for example VFR Germany - almost all sceneries files are between 10 and 50 MB in size (!)) and loading times hence can be significantly reduced.

With respect, I believe this quote is so completely wrong for the simmer, that arguing about it seems a little strange ...

Dunno, perhaps the author of this article from 2004 had your average websurfer / email-writer in mind - I do believe that there, the gain could be minimal. Most likely, the controller used is the culprit.

To quote from this page one of the many critical responses to this "review" :

AMDScooter is right on. Onboard RAID (and most cheap raid cards such as Promise) are technically software RAID cards and usually do not offer any speed increases over 5%. True hardware RAID cards offer speed increases at about 40% (as shown in the past). This varies of course with the implementation but on average hardware RAID has been shown to increase performance much more than these cheap RAID impelementations. Regs needs to look into what he's talking about more because performance advantages are not lost in advertising.

Well, anyway - not my place to advertise striping ... I just love it

[trisager 16]

Your use of quotes around "review" seem to indicate that you think that the data they present as the basis for their conclusion is invalid or manipulated?

The point about possible benefits from higher-end RAID cards (i.e. not on-board) was the one I made above, although Mathijs seemed to think it would not make any difference. I don't know as I haven't tried. But it seems to me that there is no need to spend extra cash on Raid 0 on a FS9 machine, unless the buyer is willing to pay for a high-end controller card.

Tom

[Marc W. 0]

But it seems to me that there is no need to spend extra cash on Raid 0 on a FS9 machine, unless the buyer is willing to pay for a high-end controller card.

Well, sure

It's like no need for spending cash on a BD-player if you haven't got a HD-televison set.

But if you got it, it's worth the expense ...

btw: the controllers aren't THAT expensive ...

[Robert S 75]

LOL, - several additional qualified opinions on the benefits of raid 0:

http://tweakers.net/reviews/515/9/raid-0-h...g-pagina-9.html

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/394/6

When I did a search however, I could find an equal number of those in support of raid 0, and those against it.

So a coin toss at this point? Given all the data I came across, my opinion about Raid 0 as being clearly superior in terms of performance has changed. I'd now say it depends on how you are using the PC...for general office work (net surfing, email, editing documents), I'd say no way. But for the gaming niche, I'd say it is the way to go.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Well, time to thank all people who helped me in my choice.

Mathijs, Marc, Ripmaster, Chris and Manuel - my respect to you, guys.

In return you get free tickets for my first long-haul fligth on the system tomorrow.

I have bought:

CPU - Intel core2 duo E8400

GPU - 8800GT

MOBO - Asus

RAM - 2 GB DDR-2

Good power supply and cooler

The results? Tears coming to my eyes (with happines).

Have a look down at the screeshot. See the FPS counter?

And you must know it is with:

- addon ZurichX from FSDreamTeam

- Level-D 32-bit repaint

- AES in action

- live weather via ActiveSky (connected to the net)

- all sliders max to the right (including autogen)

- AI traffic at 100% (with new stereo sounds)

- ground shadows

- aircraft shadows

- Ground Environment Pro textures

- Ultimate Terrain Europe

Thanks again, time to fly.

I'm looking forward to flying to the new MAF2008.

I'll buy it as soon as Oliver releases the new AES version compatible with it.

Best regards,

Rafal

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Another flight today (not long-haul yet - I didn't have enough time).

This time Zurich - London. Again a lot of fun and satisfaction. I wish you could see the smile on my face.

The conditions were as follows:

- GEProII + UTE with all sliders max to the right (complexity, autogen, clouds, visibility, etc) + ground/aircraft shadows on

- sceneries of FSDreamTeam Zurich Kloten + Aerosoft London Heathrow 2008

- Level-D 767-300ER (32bit repaint)

- AI traffic (WOAI + custom) at 100%

- ActiveSky real weather (a lot of clouds, plus rain at LHR)

On touchdown at Heathrow I had around 20 FPS. It is enough for me to have a smooth life-like landing. What a pleasure!

The first time in my life I experienced anything else than a slideshow at a complex hub with lots of planes.

To sum up, I could recommend a similar PC to anyone with medium budget and FS9 in his mind.

Is everything perfect? No, of course not. I have some problems with famous blurry ground textures (even though I locked my FPS at 25). They were acceptable in flight bur rather bad while approaching over the city of London. By the way: is there anyone having crystal-sharp ground textures (with addons like Heathrow 2008, GE, UTE, AI and RW WX) in the London area?

I also had some non FS-related problems with nvidia drivers (I'm new to GeForce, I was used to the ATI stuff and maintenance), while trying to install older ones to cope with AA problems. Eventually I stayed with the ones delivered on the CD (with the GPU): 6.14.11.6932. And I'm ocassionaly getting such a message while turning on the PC: 'CPU over temperture error, press F1 to resume'. I've googled a bit and found tips that it means CPU is too hot. However it is not the case since everything is cold and fresh and nothing happens after.

Best regards,

Rafal