New Pc Can Fly Md-11x

[asanal 32]

I need your expertise advise:l have DELL XPS 420, Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q 6600. Clock Speed 2.46HZ. Memory 3072 Mb. Available memory 55%. Virtual memory 6321Mb available memory 78%. memory slot 1-4 with 3072Mb. Nvidia GF 8800 GT 512 Mb. Storage drive (4): Total 596 Gb. Total available space:420GB.When I fly with MD-11X. At major airport my FPS 4-10 and very poor performance. Low cruise 12-15 Fps and high level cruise 25-50Fps. Long flight I will get OOM and half of the MD_11 will be disappear and some airport structure like Terminal will disappear,also. Specially happens during the dusk time. This applicable to PMDG747x. Actually 747 is worser then MD-11.After long discussing with PMDG Support, no solution found it. I came conclusion it must be my PC.Now I am searching better PC and no more problems.Will you please review if the following configuration of potential PC will never have any FSX/PMDG problems and will fly with all the FSX sliders at left:CASE: CoolerMaster Cosmos S Gaming Full Tower 420W Case w/ Transparent Side PanelNeon Light Upgrade: BlueExtra Case Fan Upgrade: Default case fansPOWER SUPPLY Upgrade: 680 Watts Power Supplies (Hush Power Supply SLI/CrossFire Ready)CPU: Intel

[downscc 1,327]

IMHO your current system has plenty of power for the MD11... if you can fly FSX default aircraft then the MD11 is not much more of a demand on the system. I used a P4 single core with 2Gb ram for a long time (Dell XPS) until its mobo (or whatever) went bad.Look in the PMDG Ops wiki section for tips on improving performance. Get rid of traffic and autogen scenery, etc.What are the framerates at a major airport with default aircraft?

[C09G 0]

My friend has an i7 rig.He has i7 940 @ 4ghz and 12GB DDR3 rams.He has all sliders ultra high and No blurry, pure displays, no lag, and rendering.I've played FSX with his rig and I'm so jealous.-Vincent

[eurowing 13]

My friend has an i7 rig.He has i7 940 @ 4ghz and 12GB DDR3 rams.He has all sliders ultra high and No blurry, pure displays, no lag, and rendering.I've played FSX with his rig and I'm so jealous.-Vincent

tell us more! was it smooth on the ground, too? ai traffic? third party airport? MD-11?thanks!

[Guest]

If you intend to buy that (great!) new computer anyway (I am looking for a new computer myself right now so I've learned a few things along the way):1. seems to me the case you've chosen comes with a powerunit: I'd chose a case without PSU (that will save you money) and put that 640W in it as you intended.2. if you are buying this pc for FSX, do NOT get TWO graphics cards! FSX will not see that second card: FSX won't work in SLI or Crossfire and will only use one card. if you intend to play other games too, two GTX260's will be fine. :( Personally I will go for one single card though because SLI/CF is very driver dependent and often gives problems.3. The i7 920 is a LOT cheaper than the 940. The 920 runs at 2,66 GHz and the 940 at 2,93: not a huge difference for that much money. But... the 920 is VERY easy to overclock on all current X58 motherboards! Even without overclocking the memory and using the standard cooler, you can easily let the 920 run at 3,33! And if you've got good enough RAM (or get 1600 instead of 1333) you can even get 3,7 without too many trouble! I've never been very adventurous when it comes to overclocking (in other words: I've never done it :( ) but overclocking the 920 is so easy and cheap that I will most certainly do it! I mean, 3,33 would be great already. And in case you didn't know: FSX is heavily CPU dependent, so a faster CPU will let FSX run a lot better than a fast videocard!BTW I will buy my new computer in a week or two or at the end of this month, because nVidia is about to release new cards (around januray 8th): not that I will buy them, but the release will probably influence the price of the GTX 260 and 280 in a positive way. (I still haven't decided if I want the 260 or the 280).

My friend has an i7 rig.He has i7 940 @ 4ghz and 12GB DDR3 rams.He has all sliders ultra high and No blurry, pure displays, no lag, and rendering.I've played FSX with his rig and I'm so jealous.

Did he use the standard cooler or a special OC-cooler? What videocard does he have? And what resolution does he play on?

[C09G 0]

tell us more! was it smooth on the ground, too? ai traffic? third party airport? MD-11?thanks!

Hell yeah it was smooth on ground. I installed my My Traffic X in his rig and boom! no lag!He had over 25fps on ground with the Hearth row add on.Also my PMDG 747 installed on his rig(to see if it smooth) was gorgeous, rich texture.-Vincent

[Slick Willy 2]

Have you tried turning up the clock speed of your Q6600? I am not sure if you can change it in BIOS on a box pc. I have a Q6600 running at 3.2 with 4GB ram, nvidia 9600GT on Vista64. On final into Dream Scenerys KJFK with ASX/XG, default traffic @ 40%, Scenery dense, auto gen normal, I am getting no less then 18fps. If I run the CPU @2.4 then I get about the same results as you 5-10 fps. Willy

[Guest KSTLFF]

Your comuter has enough juice to run FSX at 3/4 slidders to the right. You need to config your system. One thing you did not mention is your OS. I just looked at your card and you are at 512mb Little low for FSX But your CPU has plenty of power. if you got the cash than by all means get yourself a new rig. But if you want to stay cheep upgrade your card to a gig. Im an ATI guy, so I cant recomemd a card from invidia, but I am running the new ATI Radeon 4870 x2.Here are my specs and my slidders are 3\4 with addon scenery like blue print, usaterrain x ASX and a few other things. On the ground like MEM or LAX im getting around 15-20 FPS and that is smooth. At cruise I get 25-35 and my target is 35FPS. Anyhow, my specs;ASUS 790FX MOBOAMD 9950 2.6 I can OC it up to around 3.1, but 2.6 is just fine4gb DDR2 RamATI 4870x2 ( this card has to 1gb cores) bad &@($* cardPSU 750W I would not go anything less than thatWater cooled system, and if you are going to build ths rig, you better know what you are doing with this type of cooling system for obvious reasons250 and 500gb 7500 SATA HD you can go to 10k for faster dataMy point is this, you got the CPU go and get your self a really good card with 1-2gb of mem and add a stick of RAM. if you are runing vista 32 you will need to upgrade to 64bit to access all the ram.Hope this helps you and good luck....OH Up date your Directx to current version of 10. That will help you alot with what you have now.

[Tabs 2,790]

As far as I'm concerned there's really no way to run FSX with all the sliders on full at what most of us would call satisfactory performance level. The limit is the CPU and those aren't getting better nearly as much so as video cards have.

[Guest D17S]

True story. Nothing today will run FSX full on. Let's tune it up: For a Q at 2.4, start FSX and pull up the scenery tab. On the left side, everything can go to 100% except Water - Must - go to 2xLow (and stay there). On the right side of the scenery tab, Everything goes OFF. Weather tab to cloud draw/60 mi and Detail-detailed/max. Go to the traffic tab. Again Everything goes OFF. On the Graphics tab, turn off Bloom and DX10. Set Frame rate to unlimited. Now fly the plane somewhere below 10K. A metro approach is most demanding. Note your FPS. You are now going to spend those extra Frames. Start bringing up Scenery Complexity and Autogen. Keep 'em coming til you're frames have reduced to ~ 20 FPS. From here, it's a tradeoff. Want some traffic? Trade traffic for SC/AG as you want . . . but you Cannot have it all. Once you're happy, lock your frames at 20. Want higher FPS? Trade SC/AG/Traffic for FPS as desired.

[Gary A 8]

Without any particular claim to expertise my opinion as follows.1) I have read many a forum and many a review by folks that invested in two GPU

[Tabs 2,790]

Without any particular claim to expertise my opinion as follows.1) I have read many a forum and many a review by folks that invested in two GPU's that claim no benefit. As a matter of fact one recent review that I read the user experienced extreme performance degradation in FSX using two video cards.

This is just a consequence of FSX being a CPU limited application - SLI can only help applications that rely primarily on the GPU - this is why you see such a huge gain from SLI/Crossfire in games like Crysis - those are modern engines that use the GPU instead of the CPU for the majority of the graphical stuff.

2) I have read countless posts laying claim that Nvidia rocks for FSX. Something to do with shaders and the fact that FSX is not a shader intense program? While ATI is a shader driven card?

Not sure what this means - all modern video cards use shaders. Shaders are programs game developers can write for the GPU that the card uses to create custom effects etc. Prior to shaders, video cards had a stock set of things they could do and that was it - it was very limiting to developers.Both ATI and Nvidia cards are designed to execute Direct3D shader programs. It's just like how AMD and Intel CPUs are both designed to execute x86 CPU code.FSX depends primarily on the CPU, not the video card and shaders. The ATI cards actually have one really good advantage in that they can use their shader streams to do really high levels of antialiasing with no real performance hit.

5) PSU should be 1000w minimum 750w but what the heck.

This is ridiculous - almost no one needs a 1kW PSU.This will calculate an estimated power draw for a system based on the components and amount of overclock etc:http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jspI personally have the Corsair 620HX, which is more than enough power for most systems and, most importantly it's very clean power - the 12V rails are rock solid and don't fluctuate. Many PSUs are extremely variable and will put out more or less power on those all-important rails depending on load, temperature etc.

[Gary A 8]

This is ridiculous - almost no one needs a 1kW PSU.This will calculate an estimated power draw for a system based on the components and amount of overclock etc:http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jspI personally have the Corsair 620HX, which is more than enough power for most systems and, most importantly it's very clean power - the 12V rails are rock solid and don't fluctuate. Many PSUs are extremely variable and will put out more or less power on those all-important rails depending on load, temperature etc.

Ryan your advice is good and sound and I would expect a good quality 750w PSU to operate sufficiently in most high-end applications.Thermaltake Toughpower 750W ATX12V 24PIN SLI/CROSSFIRE Ready ATX Power Supply 140MM Fan Active PFCMy recommendation for a 1000w power supply is based on:a) Not knowing current power demands.b) Not knowing future demands i.e. over clocking, adding GPU