Coming Back After A Long Time

[Trans_27 Pilot Chase 59]

Hi guys,Well, back in January I started having less and less time to sim. Infact, I was on my old xp system still enjoying FS9 when I left. Since then, I have accomplished alot in RW, but I'm looking to start having some time for the hobby I enjoyed for years.Since I left, I've purchased a new laptop since my old desktop stopped working and was at the end of it's life expectancy anyways. I ended up purchasing myself a Gateway 6860FX which has been a great computer for everything I have done so far. For those not familiar with the 6860, the specs are Centrino T5550 @ 1.83 (It's quite the little workhorse), NVidia 8800 GTS 512MB (I up the clocks when I game), 4gb ram, vista home prem-64 bit, 320gb hd @5400rpm (have intentions of 2x200gb 7200rpm in raid) and 17" screen at 14x9. It's a great little laptop and is very capable from what I've noticed so far.Here's where my questions need some answers/opinions:What tweaks are a must for FSX to run smoothly on my system? Im just looking for some good performance on a sim that looks decent. I'm not expectings the sliders to be at the right, but I'd be happy if I could get most in the middle. I figured I might as well buy a couple of things over the next few months that I'll enjoy. I used the PMDG737 alot when I flew on vatsim with vcair. If anyone knows of a 737ng that can compete, let me know.GA was a great past time. Carenado and the DF A36 and B58 could keep me busy and happy for hours. I was able to get my hands on my A36 and install it on my lappy with FS9 but it seemed like I had to many issues and just went on and took it off. The RXP avionics were great. Does anyone know of some nice GA with modern day avionics for FSX that will work on vista 64?And how about some nice scenery? I loved Fly Tampa and the develeper that realeased the Portland area scenery (forgot who it was) but I believe I'll try and see what they have out for FSX.As far as enviroment textures go, do they looks pretty decent as is, or is there something better in detail that will also help system performance?Cant wait to hear some opinions! Thanks guys! :(

[greggerm 312]

the specs are Centrino T5550 @ 1.83 (It's quite the little workhorse)

Don't expect too much - a 1.8ghz processor, no matter what the flavor, will be overwhelmed by FSX. It really is that processor heavy. Right off the bat I am going to do what I HATE doing, but I recommend you use FS2004. Your systems processor is much better suited for that platform than FSX - especially if you are targeting sliders in the middle ranges. You will likely need low sliders to make the sim perform admirably. If you proceed with FSX...There are no major .cfg tweaks to put in play. Your biggest and most useful adjustments will come from the in-game sliders. At your computer spec level, .cfg line tweaks will eek out tenths of framerates, rather than whole ones. Not worth the effort, in my opinion. GA is fantastic in FSX - in fact, general aviation is really where FSX shines the most. FS2004 is considered these days to be an airliner's sim, while FSX with it's richly enhanced terrain and scenery is more well suited to the low and slow crowd. Those rich enhancements come at a cost though, and they demand a lot from your system. The RXP set (FlightlineT and FlightlineN) are available for FSX should you go that route. Works just like you remembered! The Eaglesoft Cirrus SR-22 series is a great little airplane. Sporting the Avidyne panel displays, it is a good performer both as a simulated airplane, and in the framerate sense! There are many other GA airplanes with good marks as well... many of the Carenedo series planes are making their way over with either free "temporary" updates to get them working, or new versions specifically tailored to FSX.

And how about some nice scenery?

This is where FSX is lagging a bit. Many FS2004 developers have yet to jump into the FSX arena due to the added complexity of working with FSX. FlightScenery (who did Providence and Portland) were the creme-of-the-crop in FS2004, however addons like that are non-existant in FSX. With the introduction of the service packs, FSX did obtain more capabilities for scenery designers to take advantage of, however I personally have yet to see a Portland-esque scenery addon yet.

As far as enviroment textures go, do they looks pretty decent as is...

The stock FSX clouds and water are good - much better than stock FS2004, and very close to the addons available for FS2004. The addon environments (FEX, REX, etc.) are head and shoulders above the stock, however they can impose performance penalties if you use the higher resolution textures. If you go with FSX, keep the environment stock for now. See how it goes, then update as needed. You may wish to invest in the Ultimate Terrain X series, which will provide you with FAR better coastlines, roads, and lakes/rivers. It has a negligable performance hit, and significantly improves the areas I fly in. Also worth a look is Ground Environment X - GEX is a ground texture replacement set which greatly improves the default. Again, minimal to no performance hit. All that said though - be forewarned - your laptop seems a little bit lightweight for FSX. Don't want you purchasing anything only to be greatly disappointed! Good luck with your decisions, and welcome back!

[Trans_27 Pilot Chase 59]

Don't expect too much - a 1.8ghz processor, no matter what the flavor, will be overwhelmed by FSX. It really is that processor heavy. Right off the bat I am going to do what I HATE doing, but I recommend you use FS2004. Your systems processor is much better suited for that platform than FSX - especially if you are targeting sliders in the middle ranges. You will likely need low sliders to make the sim perform admirably. If you proceed with FSX...There are no major .cfg tweaks to put in play. Your biggest and most useful adjustments will come from the in-game sliders. At your computer spec level, .cfg line tweaks will eek out tenths of framerates, rather than whole ones. Not worth the effort, in my opinion. GA is fantastic in FSX - in fact, general aviation is really where FSX shines the most. FS2004 is considered these days to be an airliner's sim, while FSX with it's richly enhanced terrain and scenery is more well suited to the low and slow crowd. Those rich enhancements come at a cost though, and they demand a lot from your system. The RXP set (FlightlineT and FlightlineN) are available for FSX should you go that route. Works just like you remembered! The Eaglesoft Cirrus SR-22 series is a great little airplane. Sporting the Avidyne panel displays, it is a good performer both as a simulated airplane, and in the framerate sense! There are many other GA airplanes with good marks as well... many of the Carenedo series planes are making their way over with either free "temporary" updates to get them working, or new versions specifically tailored to FSX. This is where FSX is lagging a bit. Many FS2004 developers have yet to jump into the FSX arena due to the added complexity of working with FSX. FlightScenery (who did Providence and Portland) were the creme-of-the-crop in FS2004, however addons like that are non-existant in FSX. With the introduction of the service packs, FSX did obtain more capabilities for scenery designers to take advantage of, however I personally have yet to see a Portland-esque scenery addon yet. The stock FSX clouds and water are good - much better than stock FS2004, and very close to the addons available for FS2004. The addon environments (FEX, REX, etc.) are head and shoulders above the stock, however they can impose performance penalties if you use the higher resolution textures. If you go with FSX, keep the environment stock for now. See how it goes, then update as needed. You may wish to invest in the Ultimate Terrain X series, which will provide you with FAR better coastlines, roads, and lakes/rivers. It has a negligable performance hit, and significantly improves the areas I fly in. Also worth a look is Ground Environment X - GEX is a ground texture replacement set which greatly improves the default. Again, minimal to no performance hit. All that said though - be forewarned - your laptop seems a little bit lightweight for FSX. Don't want you purchasing anything only to be greatly disappointed! Good luck with your decisions, and welcome back!

Greg, thanks for the response! I would love to stay with FS2004, infact I installed it a while back and downloaded a couple of things, and with max sliders, I locked at 60. The only thing that upset me was the problems between Vista 64 and my addons. My DF A36 and B58 installed, but the avionics were useless since the garmin trainer wouldn't run. And from what I've read, the PMDG 737 wont run with Vista, especially 64bit. It's been a while since then, but has compatibility between FS9's wonderful addons and Vista 32 or 64 really changed? I'll say one thing, I never have liked FSX much at all, and if there is any chance I can get my addons off of my old computer and make them run on Vista64, then I'll do exactly to FSX what I did in the past and rip it off my hard drive. I loved FS9 and it looked beautiful with all the addons that had become available in the 3 or 4 years it had been out. Within a year, I actually hope to build me a decent little desktop, money is the only problem. Until then, the 6860 will have to work.