Bombayduck 7 Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Hello there everyone! I wasn't sure where to post this topic, but assumed that it would be fine posting it here. As many other fellow FS2004 simmers, we are becoming the victim of the fact that the industry is producing more products for the FSX market than for the FS9 market. Ofcourse we do understand that FSX has more possibilities than FS9 and that the graphics are significantly better than FS9. If one would like to have the latest greatest, they would first have to skip over to the FSX engine, and then ofcourse restart again with buying all the add-ons. So I have decided to order the FSX package here available in your shop, and install it on my computer. But having two really big files on my computer like FSX AND FS9 would probably really slow down my computer alot. So I was wondering what would be the best solution. I was thinking about doing a complete system restore (so it looks like the pc just came out of the factory) and then installing my product. Would this be a good solution, or are there other better ways??? Wish you guys a nice weekend, and thanks in advance. Swayze (Belgium) Computer specs: Acer Aspire 8930G * Intel Core Duo processor T6400 (2.0 GHz, 800 MHz FSB, 2 MB L2 cache) * 18.4" FULL HD 1080p ACER Cinecrystal LCD * Up to 2303 MB NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT TurboCache * 4GB DDR3 * 320GB HDD * DVD-Super Multi DL * 802.11 a/b/g/Draft-N-WLAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome 22 Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 It will be hard to get a reasonable fps on FSX with just 2.0 GHz, especially with add-ons. Unless you want to run it on minimum settings. You'd better stay with FS9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombayduck 7 Posted November 28, 2009 Author Share Posted November 28, 2009 So if I would go on with FSX, and run it on medium settings, what would the fps be as average you think, and how much on minimum settings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassis 1 Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Stay with FS9... trust us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernhardS 24 Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Swayze, I have changed to FSX 1,5 years ago and honestly I would never ever go back to FS9 again. There are too much advantages in FSX. But with a 2 GHz comp you will really have no joy with FSX. I have a CoreDuo 3,33 GHz and that is minimum for running FSX with scenery addons and with an airplane like PMDG B747 or MD11. If you only use MS default scenery and airplanes maybe you can use your comp, but not with good addons. Bernhard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James A 39 Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 So if I would go on with FSX, and run it on medium settings, what would the fps be as average you think, and how much on minimum settings? It would also depend as to whether you use a lot of AI C*&$!! I don't, therefore, any sliders before you get to the AI settings max out but, slide all sliders to Zero for AI junk..... I don't have an issue then as most of my flying is on VATSIM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome 22 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 It is very difficult to tell what fps you will be getting. What also is important is which frame rate is sufficient for you. Maybe you're the kind of person that doesn't care about 10 fps? If you have the possibility to borrow FSX from someone, try it out on your system and see how it runs. That would be the best way for you to get an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombayduck 7 Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share Posted November 29, 2009 Well I must say that I am not well known with all these things. But would I be able do get fps like 25-30??? Because I think this would be good enough if I would also be using World of Ai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 But would I be able do get fps like 25-30??? In my opinion, No you will not be able to get that high an FPS in most scenrios. A 2GHz processor is really too slow for FSX, the 9600 Mobile graphics card is also not going to be enough and you must also keep in mind that laptops run their hard drives at 5200 rpm (as opposed to desktops which are at 7200rpm and some upto 10000 rpm.) As suggested above - if you cannot get hold of better hardware then do yourself a favour and stick with FS9 - you will be much happier for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombayduck 7 Posted November 30, 2009 Author Share Posted November 30, 2009 In my opinion, No you will not be able to get that high an FPS in most scenrios. A 2GHz processor is really too slow for FSX, the 9600 Mobile graphics card is also not going to be enough and you must also keep in mind that laptops run their hard drives at 5200 rpm (as opposed to desktops which are at 7200rpm and some upto 10000 rpm.) As suggested above - if you cannot get hold of better hardware then do yourself a favour and stick with FS9 - you will be much happier for sure! Thanks all you guys! Guess that if I wouldn't have known all of this, I would have come into real big problems with my computer. Kind regards Swayze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted December 1, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted December 1, 2009 But having two really big files on my computer like FSX AND FS9 would probably really slow down my computer alot. Files on your harddisk have no influence on the speed of your computer, why should they. Only when they get loaded into memory they start to have a tiny effect, only when they are being processed by the CPU (when you run FS for example) do the files influence your performance. I got over 8.000.000 files on my server (FS products tend to have loads of separate files) and I can assure you that does not affect performance at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombayduck 7 Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 Files on your harddisk have no influence on the speed of your computer, why should they. Only when they get loaded into memory they start to have a tiny effect, only when they are being processed by the CPU (when you run FS for example) do the files influence your performance. I got over 8.000.000 files on my server (FS products tend to have loads of separate files) and I can assure you that does not affect performance at all. Thanks Mathijs, but I have decided not to buy FSX as everyone here says it wouldn't be nice flying with such low FPS Thanks anyway;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted December 1, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted December 1, 2009 Thanks Mathijs, but I have decided not to buy FSX as everyone here says it wouldn't be nice flying with such low FPS Thanks anyway;) If you like to fly 747's from LA to Frankfurt I will not challenge your choice. If you are into other kinds of simulation do not listen to the people that tell you it will not work. There is a large group of people who misunderstand FSX and why are very vocal about it's problems. As always people that are happy are silent and people that are not post on forums. The vast majority of sales we do are for FSX products at this moment. These are not silly people. I will add 3 images. All show FSX with details FS2004 can only dream about. The Catalina has 4 times more polygons then FS2004 can show and the scenery behind it is way too complex for FS2004 to show. The glider has mode polygons then the PMDG FS2004 FS2004 model and the alps behind it are mode dense then FS2004 could handle. And it get 149.4 fps average. I hardly ever see fps below 30 and as you see (and as many many people seen during the shows we attend) what I see does not look bad. In fact I can say honestly that whenever I see FS2004 I find it outdated and 'flat'. Honestly, we do not mind if you prefer FS2004. We got a lot good stuff to sell for that sim and we are very happy if you buy it. But do not take the forum users as representative of what is happening. If somebody is unhappy about FSX that's fine. We only get into a problem when they start telling others that they will be unhappy as well. There will be a larger posts on this in a few days where I explain what settings I use to get my results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisager 16 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 No-one in this thread is badmouthing FSX in general (nice change), just advising the OP that his computer specs are at the low end. I agree with those saying that a 2GHz laptop computer will struggle with complex scenery in FSX. You may be OK with default scenery and addon aircraft that are developed and optimized specifically for FSX (there are several of those, now). If you can afford it, the simplest way to find out is to buy it and try for yourself - if it doesn't work to your satisfaction, put it in your drawer until you upgrade your computer. FSX is likely to stay with us for a while, after all. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombayduck 7 Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 Dear Mathijs, Ofcourse I understand you willing to sell a product, and I don't accuse you of being wrong, but would it really be a good step for me (please reconsider checking out my pc-specs) by changing over to the FSX engine as apparently many are still saying my computer isn't strong enough for it. And you can be honest, because by me staying with FS2004 will not make a less client of yours, I will always keep buying your latest products. Amsterdam is already on the list, and I would love to have the airbus-project etc but accept that FS2004 just isn't good enough for it. And as I have now learned that the processor actually 'makes or brakes' a computer I guess I'd better just wait for the next computer to come by. Should I wait or just go for it, risking bad frames etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts