Will my computer run FSX well?

[navymmw 0]

I know you have heard of a lot of these but latley I have been considering switching up to FSX. Anyway here are my specs:Intel Core 2 quad processor Q6600 @ 2.44GHz, 5GM of RAM, Nvidia 8800GT 512MB and Windows vista 64-bit.

[Tabs 2,790]

Yep - basically the exact same specs I'm running aside from video card (which doesn't matter that much anyway for FSX, it's more about CPU and RAM)

[Guest Mower]

Gonna run a PMDG mod...then cut AI traffic back to #### near zero...heh, otherwise you will see single digit FPS on the ground.

[craig_read 43]

First.. no PC can run FSX well at max settings at the moment I'm afraid.. the hardware isn't here yet.. My rig runs FSX well I'd say at the settings I use.. I agree with the above, with add on scenery and additional more complicated aircraft your FPS will definitely suffer.. BUT you have a great CPU there which you're not really utilising.. I have a very similar spec.. I would just not be comfortable saying you'll get amazing mind blowing performance because that's just not the case.. and I would stress.. it's not the case for ANYONE.. none of us can currently..Here is my spec, I took a lot of time deciding and had a budget that covered this setup at least twice over.. so this wasn't financially limited.. It was just a requirement to run FSX well, and that was it.. everything else wasn't as important.. and this is what I came up with.. Q66004GB RAM9800 GTX+Asus P5K-E (P35)I am getting excellent performance in the air with very high FPS using the MD-11 and the 747X in VC.. I always fly in VC never in 2D... So long as the scenery is not too detailed on the ground I get what I would call good frames on the ground.. With scenery.. like Heathrow.. I get decent frames on the ground.. You will not get perfect fluid frames in FSX with top class scenery and detailed aircraft (like the MD-11 and 747X) unless you are willing to spend enourmous amounts of money on some kind of super computer, and even then the hardware is just not here yet to do it.. The performance issue is an inherent problem of FSX.. NOT.. scenery.. NOT.. the developed aircraft.. You will have these issues regardless.. better scenery and aircraft just make it marginally worse.. I see so many posts on so many forums flaming developers for poor FSX performance, when in reality they had poor FSX performance as it was freshly installed out the box anyway.. It's an unreasonable expectation which frustrates many developers..So I will give you my personal view of it.. with my rig there are some stutters now and then on the ground with good scenery like Heathrow, it's noticable when ramping up engines to full throttle on the take off roll, you can hear sound distortions and the screen can stutter a little, now I usually advance throttles much slower and this seems to reduce the stutters.. These are times I get some performance drops and it can creep occasionally, but I wouldn't say it damages the playability of the simulation at all... and I would say that these problems are consistent no matter which aircraft I use.. so it's an inherent FSX issue.. not addon issue.. and I find this is acceptable to me.. Once in the air, performance increases quite rapidly and landing performance seems good.. quite fluid.. no real stutters or show stoppers (with the 747X and MD-11 here).. I am pleased with the performance in these cases.. The performance of my rig however will be significantly higher than yours.. the reason?... I have a Tuniq 120 Tower and run my Q6600 at 3.6GHz... This makes a massive difference when it comes to FSX performance.. I would take a look at overclocking and consider its benefits.. The GFX card difference between our machines (although mine is a higher spec) will make next to no difference at all in FSX performance, I would say your card is more than capable of delivering, it's the CPU that needs the kick to get you a better quality simulation.In summary.. To say your PC will run FSX perfectly would not be accurate.. it won't.. but no ones will.. it's unreasonable to expect any PC spec you can come up with today to give you maximum performance.. because none will.. not even the latest intel extreme chip with 16Gb and Quad SLI.. it just won't happen... From my experience... your computer is capable of running FSX with the PMDG MD-11 or 747X with good performance with scenery on the ground... As for in flight.. absolutely no problem whatsoever.. you will get very good performance in the air.. Your CPU is highly overclockable.. and you would get a big performance improvement from the 3.6Ghz boost.. Would I have purchased your rig? YES.. In my opinion you made all teh right choices.. (although 5GB is OTT in my opinion.. in fact 4GB for me is probably OTT).. I purchased a rig almost identical to yours.. with the sole intention of using if for the MD-11 and 747X from PMDG along with various sceneries in FSX.. I had a higher budget too, looking at much higher spec machines, but after extensive research decided this was the best route for me despite not spending my whole budget (actually about half, the higher chips offered very little benefits that I could see and the overclockability of the Q6600 more than compenstated).. I wouldn't hesitate to get FSX with your system.. I wouldn't hesitate in purchasing the 747X and the MD-11 when it is released.. your system is capable.. and would be even more so with overclocking..I've talked a lot there.. I think that is an accurate and detailed account of what you can expect.. FYI.. I ignore actual FPS.. the actual FPS is irrelevant.. it's what your perception is and how smooth you think the simulation runs.. I find my system which is the same as yours practically runs FSX to my satisfaction with scenery and the complicated aircraft addons..Happy flying :)Craig

[craig_read 43]

Oh I forgot.. I am using Vista 64x too!... And I am finding it royal pain in the butt!... lol.. I am considering dual booting XP32.. for my FS requirements.. I've had nothing but trouble with vista 64 lately.. However.. I will say PMDG aircraft work fine.. and FSX seems to be ok.. FS9 was more tricky.. but a whole bunch of other software I run... gives me the typical Little Britain response..'Computer says noooo' or perhaps... 'Vista says nooooo'... lol.. if you don't laugh you'll cry ;)RegardsCraig

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Hi,I tried FSX under both XP 32 and Vista 64 and it is better under Vista (it's about the only part of the FSX box that is anywhere close to reality).TIPS:* Set UNLIMITED frame rate* Set water to no higher than LOW 2.x (you get the neat water effects sans detailed reflections - major killer)* Disable bloom (unrealistic anyway) and you can't see it from the flight deck really considering the performance penalty for having it enabled* Disable AutoGen (my rig runs OK with it, but it doesn't look very good IMHO - better to invest in photo scenery)* Disable AI - it's useless. Fly on VATSIM instead. :)If you want I'll post my FSX.cfg file so you can see the settings I'm running. Runs very well indeed (even with complex add-ons).http:// img377.imageshack.us/img377/2346/fsxfi3.jpgI'm currently getting between 38-42 FPS in the flight deck. The add-on is the LSH MD2006.Flight deck:http:// img60.imageshack.us/img60/4820/fsx2sh0.jpgRemove the space after the http://Best regards,Robin.

[Guest Mower]

>* Disable AI - it's useless. Fly on VATSIM instead. :)Got to disagree there bud: without other aircraft on the ramps it's deserted and thoroughly unrealistic. And my experience with VATSIM is that it's hit and miss as to how much traffic you get on the ground at a given airport, in fact, depending upon your airport of choice, it's often #### near empty.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

OK... take that one as you want. :)Best regards,Robin.