Calm me down about FSX and framerates

[Guest Jake Lee]

Good day all. I just purchased and installed FSX with the first service pack. My normal computer is on the fritz (Windows won't start even in safe mode -- any help here?) so I'm having to use a computer from my mom's work. I'm pretty comuter illeterate. The computer I'm using now has .99 GB RAM and I'm pretty sure my normal computer has ~2-3 GB RAM. With FS9 and the PMDG 744 I get great rates, locked at 25 FPS I get no lower than 23 FPS. But on the crappy computer (.99 GB RAM) with FSX locked at 25 FPS I'm getting ~9, even with the default aircraft. Looking at the performance requirements for the 744 it says for best performance 2 GB RAM. So my question is, are the low framerates in FSX due to the low RAM? Can I expect that when I use FSX in the 2 GB computer with the latest service pack and the PMDG 744 my rates will be much better (close to 23 when locked at 25)? Sorry for the long read and thanks for any help!- Jake

[xender 459]

In fsx, the 747 is very heavy in frames, even on my machine (see signature). Thanks to god, the MD11 is another history. Another GB of ram will be good to get better performance, but you will gain more from a faster processor (or overclock it!).Don't expect very good famerates on FSX with the 747.PD: you should install the SP2 too.

[michal 44]

>computer from my mom's work.:-badteeth> But on the crappy computer (.99 GB RAM) with FSX locked at 25>FPS I'm getting ~9, even with the default aircraft. Jake,It all sounds normal to me. When you said "computer from work" this is normally a very strong indication that this computer has a very crappy video card, totally unsuitable for gaming. At my work for example I have really fantastic computers with lots of RAM - all latest CPUs and hardware but their video cards are very ordinary and hence you really can't use them for any gaming. So you may try to add RAM but I don't think it will do you any good - this computer, possibly even its motherboard, video card, etc are simply not meant for gaming. Don't blame FSX for your problems, blame rather the accountant in your mom's work who did not feel people should be playing games on this PC ;)Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[Guest Jake Lee]

>In fsx, the 747 is very heavy in frames, even on my machine>(see signature). Thanks to god, the MD11 is another history.>Another GB of ram will be good to get better performance, but>you will gain more from a faster processor (or overclock>it!).>>Don't expect very good famerates on FSX with the 747.>>PD: you should install the SP2 too. Both computers have a pentium 4 processor. My personal computer has an enhanced video card as well. So, generally speaking, the rates with the 747 in FSX aren't very good? I don't want sluggish flying. - Jake

[Guest PPSFA]

The MD11 is much more FPS friendly in FSXJayXPPro SP2FSX SP2AMD64 FX-60 Dual Core 2.61 GHz8800GTS-640 megs2 Gigs Kingston RAMFEX-GEX-UTUSA-FSGenesis-and a bunch of other stuffComputer optimized by www.fs-gs.com

[tfm 169]

No, it's not the RAM; or more accurately, it's not JUST the RAM. The 747X will not give you 23 fps on a Pentium 4 when it matters (ie, when you're approaching or taking off from a major airport) whether you give it 2Gb or 4Gb. I suppose if you turn off / down absolutely every setting in FSX and make sure you only use airstrips in places like the sahara desert, you just might get away with it: but then what's the point of using FSX rather than FS9?FSX and FS9 are completely different beasts. FS9 can work OK on some of the old Pentium 4 PCs. But FSX really struggles. Even with the most modern kit now available, FSX takes a lot of nurturing if you want it to deliver reasonable fluidity in all conditions; and for best results, quite a lot of money, too. On top of that, the 747X is probably the most resource-hungry of the available add-ons.Let me give you an idea of what I mean: I've spent the last few months buying kit and fiddling around with it to get reasonable fluidity in all conditions. I've ended up with an E8600 @ 4.3GHz with 4Gb of DDR3-1600MHz RAM, an 8800 Ultra graphics card and fast SAS hard drives. You can get faster computers - but not much faster. On this setup, taxiing the 747X at the Aerosoft Heathrow X in bad weather can bring my framerate down to about 15-18fps, which is the absolute minimum that I would regard as useable. Using default scenery, or stock aeroplanes, it's obviously much better - but you get the point.Unless you have very low expectations, trying to run FSX on either of your Pentium 4 PCs will give you masses of frustration and very little pleasure. And trying to run the 747X within FSX on computers like these is just asking for disappointment.If you don't want to buy new kit and learn how to overclock it, then I advise you to stick with FS9 - which is still a perfectly good application - and avoid the frustration of trying to squeeze FSX into yesterday's kit.Tim

[Tabs 2,790]

> Both computers have a pentium 4 processor.>> My personal computer has an enhanced video card as well. So,>generally speaking, the rates with the 747 in FSX aren't very>good? I don't want sluggish flying.Jake, that honestly sounds quite old to me - can you post the complete hardware specs? What exact video card, how much RAM etc?.