FS9 does it have an overkill level

[jfri 42]

What I mean is there some system requirement for FS9 which would be sufficient to get rid of all stuttering and give say 25 fps all the time no matter what you throw at it in regard of addon maxed settings etc. Meaning it would be pointless to spend more money on a more powerful system since it would be overkill for FS9?Lets assume we use fsautostart and our system is not incorrect configured. What could such system be? Mine must be below itMy systemAMD 64 3200+NVIDIA 6600GT 256M DDR31 Gb 400 MHz RAMTwo IDE HDWin XP Home

[Noel 4,502]

Yes, by all means. Any of the recent high end machines will run FS9 at the highest of settings with very or extreme density autogen, using the most complex payware and will run perfectly smooth with fps over 40 all the time no matter what you throw at it. I just put this box together and I have all the addons running and yes it's totally smooth. The slightest of "hitches" can happen when using the VC on the PMDG 747 when turning while taxiing around very complex large terminals, but even this is very minimal, and comes from textures loading as you turn, but as I say it's minimal. It's a pleasure to run FS9 as it should be run. You can build a machine to do this now without too much expense, mine build withstanding as I paid a huge premium for my QX. NoelQX9650 w/ Retail HSF|8GB Muskin PC-6400|ASUS P5E|EVGA 8800GT @700|Seagate SATA 2 x 4|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro|Vista 64--soon to be installed

[Ray Proudfoot 8,958]

I've just built a system based on a E8400 3GHz Penryn feeding an Abit HD3870 X2 1Gb graphics card on XP with 2Gb of RAM running at 1920*1200 on a 24" monitor. Around a 3rd party EGLL with Ultimate Traffic on 100% frame rates are into the 40's. I've never seen FS9 so fluid and of course it's totally enjoyable.FS9 has a new lease of life! If only I could say the same for FSX because when that's installed I'll be brought back down to earth with a bump!New CPUs don;t cost a fortune so it's a good time to upgrade if you're staying with FS9.

[Guest Jeffhew]

I've got to go with Ray on this one. The E8400 is fantastic. FS9 has finaly met its match in the dual core arena. All sliders to the right and 100% traffic (including lots of GA), and my frames stay in the 50's at all but the most demanding airports. Doesn't matter what aircraft or other addons I throw at it. I don't think I've seen my FPS drop to below 30 more than a couple of times. Flight sim the way it was meant to be! Maybe in 5 or 6 years , we'll have systems that can do the same for FSX ;).Regards,Jeff

[Magic Man 2]

I'm running FS9 across 3840x1024 in addition to panels on a 24" at 1920x1200 with all sliders at max and get no slowdowns.Have my frames locked at 30fps.

[jfri 42]

I'm curious about your system since you both have a Raptor and the new 7200.11. Is the new seagate as fast as raptor? If you read the specification you might be inclined to believe that.

[jfri 42]

>I'm running FS9 across 3840x1024 in addition to panels on a>24" at 1920x1200 with all sliders at max and get no>slowdowns.>>Have my frames locked at 30fps.And what is your system?

[Noel 4,502]

>I'm curious about your system since you both have a Raptor>and the new 7200.11. Is the new seagate as fast as raptor? What do you mean by fast, seek time, continuous read time? The 7200's don't have the random access time because of their slower spindle speed. I have 4 250GB 7200.11 drives and they have excellent transfer rates but not very good access times, if you want to quibble about 7/1000's of a second :().QX9650 w/ Retail HSF|8GB Muskin PC-6400|ASUS P5E|EVGA 8800GT @700|Seagate SATA 2 x 4|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro|Vista 64--soon to be installed

[jfri 42]

>>I'm curious about your system since you both have a Raptor>>and the new 7200.11. Is the new seagate as fast as raptor? >>What do you mean by fast, seek time, continuous read time? I was thinking about practical FS use. In average how long time it will take the HD to load things.

[Magic Man 2]

>>I'm running FS9 across 3840x1024 in addition to panels on a>>24" at 1920x1200 with all sliders at max and get no>>slowdowns.>>>>Have my frames locked at 30fps.>>And what is your system?E6850, 4GB RAM (XP so just over 3GB in use), 8800GTX.

[jfri 42]

>I've just built a system based on a E8400 3GHz Penryn feeding>an Abit HD3870 X2 1Gb graphics card on XP with 2Gb of RAM>running at 1920*1200 on a 24" monitor. Around a 3rd party EGLL>with Ultimate Traffic on 100% frame rates are into the 40's.>I've never seen FS9 so fluid and of course it's totally>enjoyable.>I had hoped for reports of such good FS9 performence on less powerful systems than yours. Does it really take a current highend system to get perfect performence in four year old FS9? And I might point out that I had a resolution of 1280*1024 in mind.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,958]

<>In a word no. But, the CPU is relatively cheap so it makes sense to go for a E8000 series processor. Where you could save some money is with the graphics. A 8800GT should be more than adequate for FS9 at 1280*1024.Those are the two components that determine frame rates. Whilst I don't need 100+ fps in clear skies I do need high frame rates when flying into major airports. With Ultimate Traffic at 100% and a good quality 3rd party airport (Fly Tampa KSFO) frame rates stay in the 40s. That's where the powerful components count.Another reason I bought the 3870 X2 is because it maintains high frame rates at high resolutions - in my case 1920*1200. At 1280*1024 things are far less demanding hence me suggesting the 8800GT.Hope that helps clarify the situation. :-)

[jfri 42]

>In a word no. But, the CPU is relatively cheap so it makes>sense to go for a E8000 series processor. Where you could save>some money is with the graphics. A 8800GT should be more than>adequate for FS9 at 1280*1024.>It's not cheap for me. And for my part I would need new mb RAM videocard and also likely new PSU. Also new S775 mb only have one IDE channel so I also need new harddrives. My current situation won't allow that. A CPU I would call cheap isIntel Celeron 420 1.6GHz FSB800 512KB Boxed (with cpu-cooler!) Socket775 Of course low in today standard. But how does it compare to a AMD 64 3200+?>Those are the two components that determine frame rates.>Whilst I don't need 100+ fps in clear skies I do need high>frame rates when flying into major airports. With Ultimate>Traffic at 100% and a good quality 3rd party airport (Fly>Tampa KSFO) frame rates stay in the 40s. That's where the>powerful components count.>I think the eye only require 24 fps for a complete smooth experience and that we loose 3 fps by having FPS counter displayed. So we need 21 fps displayed.>Another reason I bought the 3870 X2 is because it maintains>high frame rates at high resolutions - in my case 1920*1200.>At 1280*1024 things are far less demanding hence me suggesting>the 8800GT.>Otherwise I have seen a Sapphire Radeon HD3850 512MB DDR3 TV-out HDTV DUAL DVI RETAIL AGP card.

[Noel 4,502]

>I had hoped for reports of such good FS9 performence on less>powerful systems than yours. Does it really take a current>highend system to get perfect performence in four year old>FS9? And I might point out that I had a resolution of>1280*1024 in mind.Do you mean by "perfect performance", "perfectly smooth" and at least 25fps, at 1280 x 1024? If that is your target, then you could get by with less for sure. I can tell you exactly what my machine runs FS9 at so you can do your own homework on Tom's and look at the CPU charts and see what CPU will afford you the performance you seek.I normally run my QX at 3.5GHz. It's stock clockspeed is 3.0GHz. It does 3.5GHz with no change in vCore, nor special cooling. I will run higher, but I just don't need it currently. FSX will change all of that. Quite frankly I am enjoying FS9, "as it's supposed to be", that I don't want to watch this performer be brought to its knees. I'm really happy to run FS9 at this level it is truly a perfect simulation now, virtually. This QX had no problem running at 4.0GHz. OK, nuf of that. I run FS9 at all sliders RIGHT, 9m - 38m terrain, ActiveSky 6, FDC, Active Camera, at 1600x 1200 w/ 4xAA, 16xAF. With the PMDG 747, at KLAX, KSFO, KJFK, I have frames locked at 40, and that is where it stays, no matter what the weather. I DO have traffic at 50% I believe. I do have clouds at 60miles, max density, 7 layers in AS6.FPS can stay locked on 60 in the VC at altitude, but on the ground in a big terminal it may chug along at 42 fps at the worst. The sim is silky smooth. Occasionally while turn in VC mode in the PMDG it will hitch a little. Active camera seems to amplify this issue. Occasionally an audio file related hiccough can happen, but it's pretty darn minimal. I read it's an issue from Steve Lacey's blog I believe.Do that math and you should be able to surmise what CPU and GPU you require to get to your, "perfect performance."QX9650 w/ Retail HSF|8GB Muskin PC-6400|ASUS P5E|EVGA 8800GT @700|Seagate SATA 2 x 4|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro|Vista 64--soon to be installed

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

An E8400 with a motherboard that will take everything else you already have will do the trick.Gary