Do I Have The Juice To Run Fsx?

[Guest aharwin]

Hi - I am new to the forum so forgive me if this is a topic that has been around and around.My system: 2.8ghz, 3gb ram, Nvidia8500GT, XP sp3, plenty of disk space.I can run FS9 at 25fpm locked with all sliders set to max with no issues at all.I have tried several installs of FSX but anything greater than the default settings causesthe sim to stutter. I have installed FSX SP2Fpm bounces around anywhere from 23 to 9. The graphics are no whereas detailed as they are on FS9. From what I have read, I feel my machine is more thanadequate to run FSX at a high level.What can I do???? :(

[Art_P 6]

Hi - I am new to the forum so forgive me if this is a topic that has been around and around.My system: 2.8ghz, 3gb ram, Nvidia8500GT, XP sp3, plenty of disk space.I can run FS9 at 25fpm locked with all sliders set to max with no issues at all.I have tried several installs of FSX but anything greater than the default settings causesthe sim to stutter. I have installed FSX SP2Fpm bounces around anywhere from 23 to 9. The graphics are no whereas detailed as they are on FS9. From what I have read, I feel my machine is more thanadequate to run FSX at a high level.What can I do???? :(

The 8500 GT is not adequate for FSX. 8600 GT is minimum and 8800 GT is optimum. The CPU is very important. 2.8 ghz isn't much information. I ran FS9 very nicely on an AMD Athlon XP 2800+.

[fsx_missionguy 0]

I feel my machine is more thanadequate to run FSX at a high level.What can I do???? :(

No way, dude. You have a minimum machine for running FSX, and should probably reduce sliders from the default owing to a very low-end video card and lack of multiple cores.I have a fairly high-end FSX system (in my view). It's a Quad-Core Pentium 2.83ghz with an nVidia 9500 running Windows XP SP3 and not much else. It's merely adequate for FSX, in my view, and probably wouldn't improve much with more cores. I cannot run anywhere near full sliders. FSX just wasn't designed with multi-core technology in mind primarily because it wasn't a given that the processor industry would go that way at the time some critical FSX design decisions had to be made. vNext will (my guess) take full advantage of mutli-core technologies in order to scale performance of the software to the hardware.It was later updated (SP1 and SP2) to offload some tasks where it could to other cores, but still doesn't fully take advantage of multi-core technology.My 2c.

[Guest aharwin]

No way, dude. You have a minimum machine for running FSX, and should probably reduce sliders from the default owing to a very low-end video card and lack of multiple cores.I have a fairly high-end FSX system (in my view). It's a Quad-Core Pentium 2.83ghz with an nVidia 9500 running Windows XP SP3 and not much else. It's merely adequate for FSX, in my view, and probably wouldn't improve much with more cores. I cannot run anywhere near full sliders. FSX just wasn't designed with multi-core technology in mind primarily because it wasn't a given that the processor industry would go that way at the time some critical FSX design decisions had to be made. vNext will (my guess) take full advantage of mutli-core technologies in order to scale performance of the software to the hardware.It was later updated (SP1 and SP2) to offload some tasks where it could to other cores, but still doesn't fully take advantage of multi-core technology.My 2c.

Thanks- Thats what I was looking for. Any idea what processor is currently ideal at this time? I'm due for a new machine soon so I might as well take advantageif I can. I generally by Dell.

[kiwikat 506]

Now to offer a different opinion...I'm running FSX on my laptop- 3GB ram, E6700 2.66 ghz, 8600m GT 512 mb. I can get 35 fps solid with most of my aircraft, with high settings. You DON'T need a supercomputer, not even a quad core, to really enjoy FSX. You DO need to mess with your settings. You DO need to add in cfg tweaks.I've got a friend who runs FSX on a 3 year old AMD machine with a 7600 graphics card and he enjoys FSX at 25 fps. Not minimum settings either.I'm really quite tired of people going off saying you need a 1500 USD tower to run FSX.As for getting a new computer, build it yourself! Dell is a complete ripoff as is any other brand name. Buy the parts and throw them together yourself.

[ryanbatc 12,770]

Can you be more specific about the CPU? Is it a Core 2 Duo or Quad CPU running @ 2.8 GHz? If it is just a P4 2.8 then no - it won't be enough to turn up settings to high.But make sure you install SP1 and SP2 etc. Run water 1x high with that video card, no bloom, no shadows, low-med autogen. AI traffic 30% (planes), boats/cars etc (10%)

[Guest aharwin]

Now to offer a different opinion...I'm running FSX on my laptop- 3GB ram, E6700 2.66 ghz, 8600m GT 512 mb. I can get 35 fps solid with most of my aircraft, with high settings. You DON'T need a supercomputer, not even a quad core, to really enjoy FSX. You DO need to mess with your settings. You DO need to add in cfg tweaks.I've got a friend who runs FSX on a 3 year old AMD machine with a 7600 graphics card and he enjoys FSX at 25 fps. Not minimum settings either.I'm really quite tired of people going off saying you need a 1500 USD tower to run FSX.As for getting a new computer, build it yourself! Dell is a complete ripoff as is any other brand name. Buy the parts and throw them together yourself.

Where do you suggest I look for the best cfg tweaks given my system?Thanks!!!

[fsx_missionguy 0]

I can get 35 fps solid with most of my aircraft, with high settings. You DON'T need a supercomputer, not even a quad core, to really enjoy FSX. You DO need to mess with your settings. You DO need to add in cfg tweaks.

Anyone can get 35 fps with almost any computer by "messing with settings" and "doing .cfg tweaks" depending on where one flies and with which aircraft, and adjusting about 9,000 other variables.Out of the box, however, the OP's computer is not up to the task of running FSX at the default settings (which is what he asked) without the occasional dip of FPS into single digits or the occasional stutter.

[Guest aharwin]

Anyone can get 35 fps with almost any computer by "messing with settings" and "doing .cfg tweaks" depending on where one flies and with which aircraft, and adjusting about 9,000 other variables.Out of the box, however, the OP's computer is not up to the task of running FSX at the default settings (which is what he asked) without the occasional dip of FPS into single digits or the occasional stutter.

Yes- I noticed in looking at some of the cfg tweak guides out there it is pretty extensive. What is microsoft thinking in putting out a simthat needs so much alteration to get it to perform properly? I don't get it. I imagine there are plenty of people out there like myself whoreally enjoy fs but find it frustrating to have to go thru so many procedures to enjoy it.

[sargeski 16]

Yes- I noticed in looking at some of the cfg tweak guides out there it is pretty extensive. What is microsoft thinking in putting out a simthat needs so much alteration to get it to perform properly? I don't get it. I imagine there are plenty of people out there like myself whoreally enjoy fs but find it frustrating to have to go thru so many procedures to enjoy it.

If you are running FSX with SP2 on an adequate computer, there is no really need for any substanial config tweaks. You mainly adjust your configuration sliders to acheive optimum performance. Prior to SP2 things were a bit different.

[fsx_missionguy 0]

What is microsoft thinking in putting out a simthat needs so much alteration to get it to perform properly?

FSX is a complex rendering of the entire world, with extremely high detail in some areas (notably around the 21 highly detailed airports which include things such as moving jetways, etc.) Most consumer-oriented computers simply are not capable of displaying all that complexity. Microsoft, to its credit, still includes the complexity so that as you get better, more higher end hardware, the simulation scales up with you.That's the theory. And it's a good one I hope they don't change.The reality of life, however, is that the masses of people want all that complexity on their 4-year-old Windows XP computer that has 512k of RAM and an nVidia Sucko-Min 700 onboard video card and are disappointed, loudly so, when they bump into the reality that their computer isn't a Cray.

[Guest Alphahawk3]

Now to offer a different opinion...I'm running FSX on my laptop- 3GB ram, E6700 2.66 ghz, 8600m GT 512 mb. I can get 35 fps solid with most of my aircraft, with high settings. You DON'T need a supercomputer, not even a quad core, to really enjoy FSX. You DO need to mess with your settings. You DO need to add in cfg tweaks.I've got a friend who runs FSX on a 3 year old AMD machine with a 7600 graphics card and he enjoys FSX at 25 fps. Not minimum settings either.I'm really quite tired of people going off saying you need a 1500 USD tower to run FSX.As for getting a new computer, build it yourself! Dell is a complete ripoff as is any other brand name. Buy the parts and throw them together yourself.

I will weigh in with my 2 cents here.....Dell may not be a ripoff but it is certianly not the way to go. You can build much more machine for less money. I now have a new i7 920 build. FSX runs great on it. Sliders are all ultra high but it is not perfect....that is a result of the program. Before I had an P4 3ghz..it ran FSX pretty darn good...had some sliders maxed out....autogen was none and had to stay away from big cities...I did not fly there anyway as I only fly GA. But I had a plane in my hangar for more than a year before I could fly it...an SR 22. With the P4 3ghz could only get 6FPS max. The avionics in that plane required a lot of CPU and I did not have it. I do now and it is no problem. I have an SF 260 and it worked great with the P4. The P4 had a 7600Gt in it by the way. I thought that when I got my i7 I would not see the autogen spiking...but it still does....it is built into the program that way. I read a lot of threads that say their autogen never pops in. That can't be unless Phil Taylor and MicroSoft are wrong. According to them FSX has no alpha belnding for that so that is why the autogen pops in when you get close to it in the aircraft....but you will find many tell you their PC does not do that. You can build a PC that will run FSX very well for around 800 bucks...Q6600...E8400...lots of choices. I went this way in hopes of having the right M/B when Intel comes out with the new i7's in a few more months...but I may be surprised if they change the socket. Plus I owned a Dell and could do nothing with it....not even a new M/B...so much of their stuff is propriotory...it will not fit. So you don't need to spend 1500 bucks but you do need to learn some tweaks....Nhancher....settings and so on and you will do fine.