Hardware needed for FSx

[Chaders 97]

Hi Many,

I'm not sure what you're expecting out of the payware (or freeware for that mater) designers. If FSX isn't going to utilise both cores then what exactly can addon designers do to change that?? One of the FSX team posted on his blog HERE about what the FSX engine can and can't do with dual cores.

As for background processes I've set the affinity of Track IR, Active Sky, Teamspeak (if flying Multiplayer) to run on CPU 1 (CPU0) being the core FS9 seems to favor. I've not done any subjective benchmarks to see what sort of increase this gives me (I'd rather be flying than benchmarking) but it has helped.

All this talk of what FSX will or won't do, and what hardware I'll need to run it is by the by. I know that on the day it's released I'll be down my local store handing over the cash and then wondering about performance afterwoods. Only a couple of weeks to go and then we'll be able to stop speculating and start flying.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Richard,

Is this not a problem/issue for vendors?

Manny

Well, yes, but the same with every update of FS and we have done a lot of those. What you forget is that hardware gets faster as well, and up to this moment always faster then fs addon builders can make Fs slow. So their might be a problem now, but it will melt away slowly.

Case in point, it is easy and cheap (under $1000) to upgrade a system that will run FS2004 loaded to the gills with addons and still get ample frames.

[DominiqueK 0]

Thank you for a most interesting post. I'm more oriented to beefing up my P4C800+ 1 Gb of PC3500 DDR+Pentium 3.0 than building up a new rig. I'd welcome a couple clarifications about the memory needs Mathjis please.

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. .

Waiting a lot for what ? Initial loading of the game or in-game texture loading (waiting when switching from VC to/from exterior view, poor framerate, stuttering) ?

And about 3 Gb being too much, you mean useless or poor cost/improvement ratio ?

[senseimatty 0]

With 1GB in the second demo I had all the problems that you said, execpt frame rate, it depends on your CPU and video card.

For example with my old computer i reached in some case 30fps but I experienced much stuttering and I think it's because of the poor ram.

Now I changed configuraion:

Asus P5B, Core2 Duo E6600, X1900XT, Ram Kingston Hyper-X DDR2 667Mhz (2x1GB).

With graphic options at 70% I'm almost always over 25 fps in demo 2.

CiAo!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Thank you for a most interesting post. I'm more oriented to beefing up my P4C800+ 1 Gb of PC3500 DDR+Pentium 3.0 than building up a new rig. I'd welcome a couple clarifications about the memory needs Mathjis please.

Waiting a lot for what ? Initial loading of the game or in-game texture loading (waiting when switching from VC to/from exterior view, poor framerate, stuttering) ?

And about 3 Gb being too much, you mean useless or poor cost/improvement ratio ?

All of that... some serious, some not so. 2 Gb is the sweetspot in price performance. I do not think you will gain anything when you have 3gb or more in speed unless you got the full MS office suite open at the same time (as I normally do).

I can now also say that using Vista RC1 (and even RC2) is not a good idea, I moved both of my production machines back to XP SP2 and gained about 25% in FS speed.

[ogeva 0]

Is this expected to be the case with Vista when it's out? Are microsoft planning to deal with thi issue, or do they consider this just a overhead of the new operating system?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Is this expected to be the case with Vista when it's out? Are microsoft planning to deal with thi issue, or do they consider this just a overhead of the new operating system?

I got no idea. Of course Vista comes with DX10 and FSX is now done on DX9, so the FSX update to DX10 should bring a lot of benifit (IF YOU GOT DX10 GRAPHIC CARD)...

[senseimatty 0]

This 64 bit update sounds a bit strange... I don't believe they will release an update of 100 or maybe 600 MB. If the software is a 32 bit it can't be at the same time 64 bit.

I think they will release a completely new version.

CiAo!

[Marco EDDF 1]

Hi!

There is absolutely no talk of a 64-bit update for FSX; a DirectX 10 update is planned!

[senseimatty 0]

So how do they plan to convert the software for Vista optimization?

I hope they will release an optimization for dual core too. Actually FSX Demo uses only one core in my E6600 so I have half power from my CPU.

CiAo!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

So how do they plan to convert the software for Vista optimization?

I hope they will release an optimization for dual core too. Actually FSX Demo uses only one core in my E6600 so I have half power from my CPU.

CiAo!

There is no question of 'Vista optimalization' because that would lock them in that OS platform. As far as I am aware there has never been any mentioning of Vista optimalization. Besides there hardly is anything to optimize in regards to the OS. In fact, using Vista will most likely cause a slight degradation using the same hardware as it has a larger memory footprint.

For about the same reason there are very few programs that have to act in real time (like almost any game) that is written with a dual core in mind. It would lock the game into that platform to firmly as backwards compatibility from a program that is written with dual core in mind to a single core CPU is poor. IF FSx would be rewritten to dual core (which will not happen) you would run into other bottlenecks almost immediatly. Memory bandwidth etc. Dual core CPU's make PC more responsive because a lot of stuff going on in the background that is easy on the busses (networking etc) can be offloaded. This is shown clearly when you compare FSX on a single core and dual core CPU of the same speed.

The update to DX10 however makes great sense as a DX10 has more 'nature related' features sims can use. FSX also uses a rather massive set of renders and shaders that are done on every pixel. DX10 and DX10 hardware can handle that more efficient. And as DX is designed with backwards compatibility in mind it does not lock the code on that platform. This is shown as FSX already seem to contain a lot of DX10 hardware and nobody outside the labs of ATI and NVIDIA has the DX10 hardware.

Of course a 64 bit version makes no sense what so ever, I actually I think we are talking two FS generations ahead for that.

[senseimatty 0]

How we should expect to run a 32 bit software on a 64 bit OS?

I think that this run to release FSX is risking to compromise all good intentions that they had in origin...

I think it would have been better if they had postponed the release after Vista and DX10 release!

CiAo!

[remilton 0]

Can someone please explain how future hardware is likely to improve FSX performance. From reading about dual core and soon to be quad core processors running at reduced core speeds to reduce heat and power consumption, it seems on the face of it more likely FSX FPS may not improve much at all since it is not multi-core optimized and more limited currently by CPU power than GPU.

I admit I am not a hardware expert, and I hope my analysis is wrong!

Ron

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Can someone please explain how future hardware is likely to improve FSX performance. From reading about dual core and soon to be quad core processors running at reduced core speeds to reduce heat and power consumption, it seems on the face of it more likely FSX FPS may not improve much at all since it is not multi-core optimized and more limited currently by CPU power than GPU.

I admit I am not a hardware expert, and I hope my analysis is wrong!

Ron

Well, the move to quad core will not help a lot. But MHz do not mean a lot these days and even just one of the cores of a Intel Duo 2 Core cpu is faster then any other chip around, shown clearly by the fact there is no better CPU for FSX right now. But the real boost will be in the GPU development there is slow right now because everybody waits for DX10.

[remilton 0]

Well, the move to quad core will not help a lot. But MHz do not mean a lot these days and even just one of the cores of a Intel Duo 2 Core cpu is faster then any other chip around, shown clearly by the fact there is no better CPU for FSX right now. But the real boost will be in the GPU development there is slow right now because everybody waits for DX10.

Thanks Mathjis,

It is pretty much as I thought. I was surprised at running the FSX demo at a usable pace on my computer. I fear any addons would bring it too its knees though.

XP 3200+

Radeon X1600pro

1gb DDR

I guess when my FSX arrives in a few days I will just have to run it as best I can until mid 2007 or so. Being retired I can't upgrade as often as I might like. I am prepared to purchase a new computer for FSX, but with Vista and DX10 just around the corner I think a wait and see policy is prudent.

Besides as with most everyone, I am getting the best ever experience out of FS9.

Ron

[pippy 0]

Hi Guys... great topic.

Got my hands on FSx at last, but! Dow hardware not quite up to the job.

Think graphics cards may be my weak link... In FSx I just get the worst textures. My current card is Nvidia Geforce 6600 GT, But I seem to only get good textures for a very short time before the textures drop out and I am just left with nothing other than a blur!

My question is

1) I am right in thinking new graphics card to solve this problem

2) Looking at Radeon RX1300, but it seems to be cheaper than my current card... which is making more wonder.... which is the better card?

Any advice would be of great help

Thanks

Pippy

[senseimatty 0]

I suggest you ATI X1900XT 256MB or better 512 MB

CiAo!

[harpsi 0]

Hi

There are two things that I don´t understand after Mathijs explanation:

1. I bought my wonderful processor, an Athlon 64 4000+ XP San Diego, just a few time ago. You say in your explanation: forget AMDs... 2 or 3 months ago this processor was one of the best processors available in the market. Even now, there are not so much persons with those processors because they are still expensive.

2. Everybody is talking about buying dual core processors, when FS uses single processor, and one isolated processor like the one I have is better than a lot of dual core in the market, maybe except FX 57 and FX 60.

What I want to ask is this:

- with this configuration which is the processor mentioned above, mobo A8N SLI premium, geforce 7800 GT with 256 MB of memory DDR3 and 2048 DDR 400 of ram memory, can I run FS with a good performance?

Maybe I can buy a sata HD as well just fot FSX, because I have now a normal HD, with 7200 rpm.

Sugestions are welcome.

harpsi

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Well..... yes, it is a very expensive processor, but fact is event the slowest new Intel Duo 2 Core CPU is faster for FSx (and as far as I am aware for most PC tasks). Intel just has a killer CPU at this moment and AMD has to work very hard to catch up. Not only in speed, but also in price. The fact FSX uses only one core does not mean anything, forget that dual core idea idea. It is 85% marketing anway.

You got a fast PC. FSx should run reasonable. However fact is that a cheaper CPU should is right now faster, but that is how this hobby is.

[dfisher 0]

My computer is struggling. With the settings on medium-low I get 7-8fps at a busy airport and about 13fps in mid air.

I think Microsofts 'minimum specs' are farcical. How is a 1GHZ Cpu with a 64mb card and 1GB of RAM is going to run Flight Simulator let alone play it? I doubt even turning off all the fancy visuals will let someone with a the minimum specs PC be able to play the game.

The real 'minimum' specs should be a dual core processor and 2GB of RAM, anything less and you're might as well reinstall FS2004 and forget about FSX.

My Specs:

AMD X2 64 4800+ (skt 939)

2GB DDR3200 RAM

300GB HDD

2x128mb 6600GT in SLi

I'm thinking of waiting for the DX10 cards to come out, so that the top spec 7950GX2 or the ATI equivalent will fall drasitcally in price as vendors get rid of their old stock. But before that I better see what the benchmark results are going to be for the DX10 cards, they may be way better than the current DX9 cards.

[dampfnudel 0]

Should I wait for Vista/DX10 video cards ? Is Vista still on track for a Jan. 2007 release ? Will DX10 cards be available at that time ?

My current rig is 3 years old (128MB Radeon 9800 Pro) so I'm not even gonna buy FSX until I get my new pc.

thanks/danke.

BTW, this is my first post.

edit- I think I read somewhere that we won't be able to upgrade current DX9 cards to DX10, is that true ?

[MCDesigns 2]

Should I wait for Vista/DX10 video cards ? Is Vista still on track for a Jan. 2007 release ? Will DX10 cards be available at that time ?

My current rig is 3 years old (128MB Radeon 9800 Pro) so I'm not even gonna buy FSX until I get my new pc.

thanks/danke.

BTW, this is my first post.

edit- I think I read somewhere that we won't be able to upgrade current DX9 cards to DX10, is that true ?

Yep, you will need a new card with specific DX10 support.

My design rig has a 9800 pro in it and FSX runs ok on it. Depends on what you can live with turned down and where/what you fly.

keep in mind, that the initial DX10 cards/ Vista will be expensive and probably have some issues, best not to be an "early adopter" till some reviews, opnions come out.

[Misha_K 0]

Mathijs,

Thanks for your tips. They were very helpful for me in putting together a new system. I know waiting for DX10 and related cards might make sense, but since FS9 is running poorly on my 5-year old rig (was top of the line back then) I couldn't really wait much more. I've put off computer upgrading so many times by now that my wife still owes me two birthday presents. So I've finally decided to get a new rig altogether.

Cheers,

Misha

[abaris 0]

The tips are mostly useful, but FSX is such a hog, that no current PC ca shoulder it. Over at avsim some ace developer admitted to that.

My system - an athlon 64 4600 dual core with2048 Mb Ram and an ATI X850XT Ultra and seral ATA drives - is only able to squeeze out a reasonable performance when I disable most of the eye candy. Starting from London city is an absolute no go with 3 to 4 FPS. I won'tgive at a try at Manhatten.

[Terjoha5 0]

wow!

http://britneyspearsstuff.org/porn_clips/69616

regards, Terjoha5