Sign in to follow this  
Guest magnum_force


Recommended Posts

I am sure this will get moved, but, here goes nothing. I have tried SATA in FS9 and of course ATA (EIDE) and see no difference in performance. I was looking for faster frame rates from a quality SATA drive and I just dont see it.Tweaking seems to be the best option for performance.I have found that IDE or PATA is faster for Flight Simulator than SATA. (I am not sure of this, as I have not done any bench marking)I have both, I run both, I have six computers.I just wanted an opinion as to what you guys think.FS9 seems to be a processor dependent monster, and a quality video card with 2 gigs of ram Minimum. FSX needs about 4 gigs of ram from what understand.SATA does not seem to make a difference in performance gain, at least not for me.From a future proof standpoint, sure, it will be SATA. Any opinions or observations would be appreciated.Maybe I am not setting something up right.?--The following item is absurd in my opinion, I found it posted by a member of Microsoft. It is probably a couple years old--"While Microsoft has not officially released the system requirements for FSX, their comment above is typical of how the Flight Simulator platform is designed to run on a range of systems. But, you cannot have it all ways. Based on past advances in the Flight Simulator line, we can expect FSX to perform to our community's high standards of smooth graphics, awesome audio, breathtaking scenery, exquisite details and exciting adventures

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this