Hardware needed for FSx

[Manny 41]

What do you guys do with your old computers as you buy/upgrade new ones?

I already have 3 desktops and 2 laptops...and I am looking at building another one.

:shock:

Manny

[DanielBu 0]

I have one mid-range PC and one 3 year old business laptop. And I suppose this won't change as long as I don't have a ful-time job :|

[Mithrin 0]

Hm I can run fsx fine on any settings, the only thing that kills my computer is the autogen. Mathijs am I right to think that that depends mostly on processing power? Graphics wise I seem to be fine since none of the new effects seem to slow down my computer too much.

Thanks in advance.

[altstiff 28]

I think the reason for that is people can't keep up. The new stuff, it comes out so fast now it's next to impossible.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

What do you guys do with your old computers as you buy/upgrade new ones?

I already have 3 desktops and 2 laptops...and I am looking at building another one.

:shock:

Manny

Yes, my house is slow filling up and even my daughter is playing her Disney stuff on a system with a 3 ghz cpu. But normally I give one system a year to the local school. As long as you make sure it is really okay and reliable they will like it.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hm I can run fsx fine on any settings, the only thing that kills my computer is the autogen. Mathijs am I right to think that that depends mostly on processing power? Graphics wise I seem to be fine since none of the new effects seem to slow down my computer too much.

Thanks in advance.

Mmmm, Autogen does not seem to cause a major hit here (did in beta2, not in beta3). The only reason I can see it cause problems is that your are overloading the GPU buffers with textures.

AI traffic does, but with all the ships and cars it has become a lot more complex. And that is for sure a cpu load.

[skydvdan 2]

Mmmm, Autogen does not seem to cause a major hit here (did in beta2, not in beta3). The only reason I can see it cause problems is that your are overloading the GPU buffers with textures.

AI traffic does, but with all the ships and cars it has become a lot more complex. And that is for sure a cpu load.

I get a huge hit from the road traffic. Even at as little as 4% I get a hit. If I crank it up to 100% the hit is incredible. The AI traffic is another hit. As well as autogen at higher levels.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I get a huge hit from the road traffic. Even at as little as 4% I get a hit. If I crank it up to 100% the hit is incredible. The AI traffic is another hit. As well as autogen at higher levels.

Yes, bit the road cars are very dense and close together, so to make them move right involves a lot of calculation. But I think that's a feature that many people will only activate in a few months when hardware is even better.

[skydvdan 2]

Yes, bit the road cars are very dense and close together, so to make them move right involves a lot of calculation. But I think that's a feature that many people will only activate in a few months when hardware is even better.

You're probably right. I like this feature though.

[bogbrain 0]

Well I bought a new computer with the below specs:-

AMD FX-60

Asus Crossfire Motherboard

2GB Twin X Corsair Memory

150 GB Raptor

320 GB Caviar

Radeon X1900XTX

Connect X1900XT Crossfire Edition

650 Watt Power Supply

And already it's out of date and have been advised to change to:-

6700 Core Duo CPU +£424

Asus P5WDH Deluxe +£180

2GB (2x1GB) Corsair Twin X DDR2 PC6400 +£180

Golden Orb Cooler +£18

Of course as you say in a few months the DX10 cards will be available and a further upgrade will probably be needed again.

When do you stop?

[bogbrain 0]

Well I bought a new computer with the below specs:-

AMD FX-60

Asus Crossfire Motherboard

2GB Twin X Corsair Memory

150 GB Raptor

320 GB Caviar

Radeon X1900XTX

Connect X1900XT Crossfire Edition

650 Watt Power Supply

And already it's out of date and have been advised to change to:-

6700 Core Duo CPU +£424

Asus P5WDH Deluxe +£180

2GB (2x1GB) Corsair Twin X DDR2 PC6400 +£180

Golden Orb Cooler +£18

Of course as you say in a few months the DX10 cards will be available and a further upgrade will probably be needed again.

When do you stop?

[gdavis101 0]

Thanks again, just finished ordering the last 3 components for my new FSX computer!! You guys were a big help~!

[DanielBu 0]

"Of course as you say in a few months the DX10 cards will be available and a further upgrade will probably be needed again.

When do you stop?"

What kind of question is that? Unfortunately, it's Moore's law ...

[ogeva 0]

If you don't have the hardware right now, I'd wait a few more months.

Right now, these are really high end requirements. By Early February these will be more reasonable, Plus Windows Vista will be out (you're all gonna format your pcs anyway whenit's out) Plus there may be some serious adons adapted for FSX.

So if you gonna buy a new machine altogether (like I am) I suggest waiting till February at least.

In the mean time, FS9 is the best is in the best state iy has ever been, a mature simulator with great addons for all advanced aircraft, geat addon GA aircraft and great addon sceneries.

Why the rush?

[senseimatty 0]

Hi mathjis! What's your pc specs?

Why don't you post a pair of screenshots with your frame rate?

[cp 0]

Lately I read so much bull about hardware needed for FSx, we decided to post a small guide here that is based on a budget that is not astronomical and that is PROVEN for FSx beta 3. We tried to keep the language simple and will explain where needed. Your comments are welcome, but please don't tell us MS is crazy to demand this hardware. That's becoming old very fast. If you can not afford this hardware, I am sorry, MS is probably sorry. But wait 6 months and you get it for half the price and there is still a lot of life in Fs2004!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CPU

Really only on choice, the Intel Duo 2 Core rules the scene with low prices, low heat signature, low energy demands and above all, more power then ever seen before on a desktop. They really are a must. There are several kinds but the E6600 running at 2400 MHz really seems to be the best balance between price and power. Around 300 euro should get you one. Forget AMD (they will be back), forget Pentiums

Motherboard

Personally I find mobo's boring and the difference in performance is minimal between models, so I tend to buy the cheapest model that has all the features I need. Any Asus will work fine, say 150 euro max.

Memory

FSx needs two GB. Period, no discussion.

With one GB you will be waiting a lot, with three you will be spending too much. Those two strips of ram are a pain in the neck because memory is pretty expensive these days. There several kinds that can be used and they do not differ a lot in price. Get the fastest your mobo will support, most likely that will be DDR2-667. Get two strips of one Gb, many mobo's work faster with two chips instead of a single 2 GB strip. Expect to pay something like 220 Euro for 2GB.

Hard disk

For somebody like me who needs to start FS several times an hour the loading is important. On my previous system loading FSx into dense setting on Seattle, could take up to 4 minutes. That's a pain in the neck. So I spend 250 Euro on a 150 GB Western Digital 10.000 rpm disk. the fastest you can buy for SATA. Loading is fast as FS2004. I would NOT advise this disk to a simmer unless he has more money then sense.

Note: I did not go for a RAID system. Even brand new those are just a bit faster and as all disk degrade over time, not really known, but the same test done on the same disk (after a low level format) after a year of hard use can get results that are 25% lower. Raid disk suffer even harder from this for some reason.

Graphics card

Well clearly it has to be PCIe, but after that things get blurry. NVIDIA, or ATI Radeon the brands both have very good cards. FSx is still basically limited by the CPU and if you buy a card with 256 MB between 100 and 150 Euro you get good frame rates. BUT... not a good looking sim. Any additional money will allow you to activate more features that will make it look a lot better. The sweet spot seems to be around 300 Euro. Spend more and you are paying a lot for marginal gains in looks and nearly nothing in performance. Good cards are Radeon X1900, NVIDIA 7900. As FSx has a lot of textures to load getting 512 Mb of memory really helps. Compared to shoot them up games where the additional memory makes little sense, it helps a lot in FS.

Conclusion

Replacing the hard disk with a larger and better priced model, you can get this whole set for around 1000 Euro and 1000 dollar (prices in the US are still a bit better). Now this rig will get you solid fps on serious settings that get you a nice details and great views. Even under duress you will get smooth 20 fps using FPS limit. Most of the time FSx will have ample resources to work ahead, queuing textures etc so it will be smooth as silk.

Hi, every body say that 2 raptors 150 in raid 0 is the more fast? You say no, Why, can you explain your choice of just one raptor?

[Daniel Roethlisberger 0]

Is the 7900GS (256MB) enough?

Becuase, where I will order my pc, the 7900 with 512 MB Memory is about 400 Euro dearer !!

If my 7900GS won't be enough, I'll buy a better later.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Is the 7900GS (256MB) enough?

Becuase, where I will order my pc, the 7900 with 512 MB Memory is about 400 Euro dearer !!

If my 7900GS won't be enough, I'll buy a better later.

Sure 256 is what MS advises. I got the feeling that 512 will be a better investment though.

[Daniel Roethlisberger 0]

Yes, of course your right, but at the moment, I don't want to pay 400 Euros more for the 512.

[Manny 41]

I built a new Core 2 Duo E6600 PC. Overclocked it to run at 3.3Gh

ASUS MB

2 Gig Ram.

2 x 250 in SATA RAID 0.

Ran FSX Beta and FSX Demo (The newer version).

I am getting 15-20 FPS with 90% sliders to the right. Its hardly using the 2nd core.

Don't know how much of that FPS I am going to lose once I add Ultimate Traffic and set it to 50%. What about Ultimate Terrain and FSGenesis mesh?

How do you guys plan to provide sceneries and add on aircrafts that would not consume processing cycles from the primary core?

There simply ain't room for addons as for as the primary core is concerned.

I looked at the Intel Hoirizon and all I see are Quad core. Not 9Ghz machines.

Manny

[MCDesigns 2]

How do you guys plan to provide sceneries and add on aircrafts that would not consume processing cycles from the primary core?

There simply ain't room for addons as for as the primary core is concerned.

I doubt there is anything that can be done in an addon for this. It just depends on what is coded to use what. Best bet is to not make the addons so detailed....but we know that ain't gonna happen, LOL

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I doubt there is anything that can be done in an addon for this. It just depends on what is coded to use what. Best bet is to not make the addons so detailed....but we know that ain't gonna happen, LOL

All processes that run as part of FSX use the same core as FSX does, there is nothing that can be coded to prevent that. Of course addons in the form of a executable will use the other core.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi mathjis! What's your pc specs?

Why don't you post a pair of screenshots with your frame rate?

The screenshots would all show 18 fps as that is the setting I use. I prefer to use superfluous cpu cycles to work in the background to make FS smooth. Spending all cycles on getting the highest fps is just about the most stupid thing you can do to FSX.

But I keep those 18fps using Very Dense setting on all sliders and every location in Fs.

[Chaders 97]

Hi Manny,

Why not do what I do with my 6600 and ensure that some of the background stuff has its affinity set to the second core. It's not an ideal situation as it's a lttle tedious setting them up but untill the OS's and programs use two cores effectively it certainly helps to even the loading.

[Manny 41]

Richard,

What FPS are you getting?

BTW.. I don't have too many unecessary processes running in the Background. I am not trying to get 1 or 2 FPS here and there. But I was musing about the big picture.

Where are the payware vendors going to park their paywares when their potential customers don't have room?

Lets take this logically.

1. I have my sliders to 80% and I get 20FPS and in my Overclocked hotshot machine (3.4GHz Core 2 Duo) and I am happy with the default FSX running. There is no point in me reducing the sliders to 60% and then using payware to make it look better. That doesn't make sense. Why would I want to not have Bloom effect, but pay money to get a scenery?

2. Now, I want to improve from my default (80% sliders). The first few addons would be 1. Ultimate traffic, 2. FSGenesis Mesh and 3. Ultimate terrain.

Now, I have 20 FPS - x FPS = ?? FPS

3. Now, I am going to add a payware airplane... lets say... the PMDG 747 the queen.

Now, I have ?? FPS left

4. Now I want to add Aerosofts Frankfurt and German scenery...... Would I be able to run this now? even 1 year from now if I get a new machine then with Quad core would I be able to run any better? The answer to this is not likely.

When I installed FS9 on my old machine.. I had 75FPS to startwith.. after all my addons..it has dropped to 15FPS.. still flyable... but the 60FPS that I lost was the currency I had to pay for the paywares.

In FSX, how do payware vendors expect their customers to pay, when they may not have this FPS currency left?

Is this not a problem/issue for vendors?

Manny