Jump to content

Hardware poll


Mathijs Kok
 Share

Your hardware (read post below poll first)  

727 members have voted

  1. 1. What's your CPU like

    • Intel Core i7 class, pretty fast
      368
    • Intel Core i5 / AMD Phenom II X4 class, more then okay
      143
    • Intel Core i3, Core 2 Quad / AMD Phenom, Athlon, Opteron
      110
    • Slower then all that
      106
    • not sure, that's the thing under the fan right?
      0
  2. 2. How much memory do you have

    • 8 GB or more
      362
    • 6 GB or more
      143
    • 4 GB or more
      170
    • 3 GB or more
      33
    • 2 GB or more
      15
    • 1 GB or more
      3
    • Not sure, for sure some!
      1
  3. 3. What's your harddisk like?

    • SSD + Storage HD
      201
    • Fast raided HD
      109
    • Standard HD
      407
    • Not sure.... that the thing that stores my documents right?
      10
  4. 4. What's your Graphics Card like?

    • Top end >$400
      160
    • High end >$250
      273
    • More then okay >$150
      220
    • More less okay >$75
      62
    • Low end / on motherboard
      10
    • No idea, do I need one?
      2
  5. 5. What OS are you using?

    • W7 / 64 bits
      596
    • W7 / 32 bits
      37
    • Vista / 64 bits
      20
    • Vista / 32 bits
      12
    • XP / 64 bits
      4
    • XP / 32 bits
      55
    • None Windows
      3
    • Not sure, looks nice though.
      0
  6. 6. How do you connect to the Internet

    • Cable / ADSL 8Mbit/s or more
      379
    • Cable / ADSL 4Mbit/s or more
      169
    • Cable / ADSL 1Mbit/s or more
      114
    • Cable / ADSL below 1Mbit/s
      38
    • Dialup
      1
    • Not sure
      26


Recommended Posts

Note that that will do nothing for FS2004 and most likely will be a bad choice for FSX. I have actually NEVER seen an SLI system run FSX well.

The extra card will help if using very high resolution only....

Thermaltake Xaser VI Full Tower

OS: Window 7 Ultimate 64-bit

Motherboard: Gigabyte UD-9

CPU: I7 980x @ 4677.4MHz as of 10/21/2010

RAM: Suoer Talent 2004MHz

Timing @ 7-7-6-20 1T

CPU COOLER: Noctua NH-D14

PSU: ABS Targan 1300W

SSD OS: Crucial SSD Sata III 128GB

SSD game: OCZ Z-Drive R2 P84 PCI Express 256GB for FSX

HARD DRIVE: 1 x 300GB Velociraptor +

3 x 150GB all at 10,000rpm

VIDEO CARD:Zotac GTX 480 AMP! 840/1680/2052

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My System:

Board: AMD 880 ASUS M5A88-V EVO ; CPU: AMD Phenom II .X4 955 BE @ 3,20 GHz ; Western Digital 330 GB ;

RAM: 4GB DDR3 ; ATI Radeon HD 6670 (1Gb DDR5) ; CPU-Cool: Scythe Katana3~ ; Win7 64-bit ; FS9, FSX+Acceleration

Best Regards Julius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

I´m new here and only by the fact that i did download the huge and totally reworked "Mega Airport Budapest" update for free; thank you (Box edition). Then i saw the nice gift for adding a post here (i really hope the one gift will be from 5, of ""FSX"" type). The Aerosoft intention is to get some comments so they can get some probing on possible future AddOn developments. Then folks lets give some meat to the bone, lets write some usefull stuff to their product developers. They produce and sell with partners for the FSX Addon market, not hardware.

UScities: LimeSim, please let the skyskrapers have a realy greater photo-resolution. These addons are used for Helicopter on close proximity; not mainly by distance aeroplane flying!

Please make the following cities: Dallas (do not forget window-glass covered skyskrapers), Miami, Atlanta, Seattle, Anchorage, Denver, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Phoenix, San Diego.

There are some other scenery that can be fitted underneath your UScitie. Therefore please extend your photo scenery for the whole city in minimum 0,3m/pixel. Many people would not mind to download

your upcoming 10Gb UScities AddOns. Las Vegas on 3Gb is a good start on that road.

scenery: It would be a great "quality feature" if you released smaller covered "regional" area with enormous phototexture (0,3m/pixel), with an extensive 3D object placement, for areas that are not so exhaustible.

What i mean is more rural areas, because urban areas would be very big work; or smaller cities in beatifull surroundings. Mesh 2 to 5 meter. Watermasking with colouring. Airports included in covered area.

Example "Colorado Springs", "Helena, Montana", "Santa Fe, New Mexico", continental Europe biggest Lake "Balaton", "Salt Lake City".

Aerosoft concentrate on the above "scenery" post, every aeroplane is mostly done. I need no more planes. The post above is uniqe and will be a money maker, because it will just be a stunning experience.

I need to put an end on this, thank you for reading!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was using a stock Wortmann Terra PC-Home 5100, which I upgraded slidly by adding 2GB of extra RAM and a new ATI Radeon HD5770 after killing my old graphics card last year.

So this is my setup:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

Asus Mainbord

4.00GB RAM

ATI Radeon HD5770 1024MB

750GB HDD + 1.750GB of external space

running on Vista 32Bit.

I am mainly running FS9.1 on this machine which I tweaked to the max and in since a few months it is working perfectly and I for sure won't change that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again!

So by this poll Aerosoft (and the reading competition) can conclude that the users of FSX are using the utterly best processing computer power with the best operating software regardless of GPU, because FSX eats CPU to breakfast. But i beleive that the reality is not as this polling shows. I beleive that the more frequent hobby users use these computer systems, the other more casual flyers might not invest 1000€ to build a full blod computer rig, and they might not been surfing to this site to make a computer hardware vote. So the lesson is that Aerosoft can make AddOns that have choosing option for a low or high capacity computer to satisfy everybodys computer rig.

Since competition is also reading (and adjusting their AddOn product strategy), they should also give a free download to us.

I have builded my own computer, but i have used the planets fastest Dual Core avaible, Intel i5 670. It is unlocked by the motherboards special feature, and is slightly overclocked to 4GHz. This dual core have special feature that i need: Power efficiency; even in the slight overclocking (breakingpoint of power usage increase). I have not the fastest rig for FSX, but i beleive it have the best performance compared to power usage. I have 30 FPS, in smooth vision without any stutters when not panning or turning (only microstutters in the latter) with max settings in HD, but with some sacrificing to free up CPU to eliminate those stutters, in the very demanding UScities Chicago (no autogen, photoscenery would be covered) in DX9. 60 FPS in photoscenery.

Otherwise the GPU do not need to be a monster. The HD5850´s GPU is only working on 30% in 1920x1200, Anisotropic + Antialias, but the memory is full (on extreme scenery + autogen there is to be blurry on the outer radius, no video memory left). A good advise to those who are thinking to buy a new Graphic card: Do not buy 1GB, you will need more with HD screen, Antialias + Anisotropic setting, and FSX.cfg high setting on LOD radius, full autogen, REX2 HD clouds ... Could someone add a link to a comparison of these greatest Dual Core vs. Quads because i just recently read the difference in FSX performance between Quad and 6-core is close to zero.

A gift to Aerosoft for the free update download (really apreciated):

Scout out the competitions holes in their FSX AddOn product lines. There are a clear big hole in one segment if we are taking the Aircraft section. Everyone have made the Boeing passenger carriers in an advanced utterly high quality FSX AddOns, but the very European Airbus is out of that section, by some exception of your A300 on 800Mb. I measure quality on GB. The competition just came out with an other Boeing, that is 757 on 3GB, that is Ferrari quality. Do not cheat with bundles of planes, any smart people like the simmers, do see through its value, despite its bundle.

I recommend as an Euro-Patriot the worlds most successfull Passenger Carrier in these days; the Airbus A320 in Ferrari quality in any feature and aspect; that is you are expected to surpass PMDG in this production. The most serious attempt by an competitior is on 400Mb, i expect no less of 1,5GB on the next release, in a really nice Box edition.

Thank you for reading!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My system specs:

Hi all

So, the PMDG 737 has been released.

My question is whether or not my system can run it. I have various add ons including the PMDG 747 and md-11. Any advice would be gratefully received. My system spec is:

Q9450 @ 2.66GHz (4 CPUs)

4 gb ram

500 gb wd 'black' hard drive

Nvidia GTX 260

Windows 7 32 bit

Massive fan of PMDG - in my opinion the best add ons out there for FSX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Well, for at least a decade the computers in my household were updated on a rotating cycle of about 6 months each. Lately though, there has been a slowdown. The fact is that almost nothing out there is making our current machines break into a sweat, and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future.

That means that even as forward-leaning as I usually am, I find it hard to justify any recent hardware upgrades.

Not even X-plane 10 is tempting me, since my current machine is running the demo at nearly max settings.

Surprisingly enough, my hardware needs seem to have at least temporarily plateaued. (Imagine that!) :lazy_s:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made the same observation. I never used PCs as long as in the last few years. I guess there are several reasons. Developers had to adapt to multicore processors, the dominance of the consoles with outdated hardware in the mainstream gaming market and the age of most flight sim engines. Seems to be too expensive to develop something from scratch today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...