A Revelation

[Wilbert 0]

I have been flightsimming since it came out. I rarely post except when I can help someone and know what I am talking about. Most of the time I can find solutions to any problems by just reading all the posts. The reason I am making this post is to share what I have discovered and hopefully it may be of some use to someone that may be experiencing problems with FSX. My system spec are also given below.Many times I have considered giving up up FSX because of the many problems one can experience with the program but, always continued because I love the thrill of flying. What I have discovered and want to share is the fact that FSX is not only a terriffic game (the best since flightsim started) but, is also a great system test program.There are many knowledgeable simmers regarding FSX and I believe many know as much or more than the developers. I will not even begin to compete with the knowledge they possess. The revelation I want to share is a simple one. I have discovered that in order for FSX run its best, take a marriage between your MB, ram and OS settings. You can tweak FSX until hell freezes over, if that's possible but, if there is no harmony between the settings I mention, you WILL have problems with FSX or FSX will not run as it is capable of doing. This is especially true for those that have overclocked systems.I have discovered that you can make changes to CPU speed, FSB and various memory settings and run successful Memtest and even get the highest scores on OS system test, and other test like 3DMarks and etc., but, FSX may still encounter all kinds of problems. I know this sounds strange but, it is true. I am no expert but, this is what I have observed with my system. So, for those that are constantly disenchanted with the stability and operation of FSX, especailly with many addons, consider that FSX or addons is not really the problem. I believe FSX is a demanding system's test program in its own rights. Whether you bought your system complete or built your own, if you're having any problems with FSX, try setting everything to default. When you make any changes to system, test it with FSX.WilbertASUS P5Q SE PLUS/Thermaltake W0106 700W PSUIntel QX6700 Quadcore - 2.66 OC TO 3.2Vista Ultimate 64/CORSAIR XMS2 DHX 4GB (2 x 2GB)2x150GB SATA WD Raptor- No Raid/2x320GB SATA WD SE16- No Raid2x IDE Light-On DVDRW 165H65/BFG GTX2603x SILENX 120X25MM FANS + 2x 10in XCLIO Wind Tunnel Case FansDanger Den Water Cooling/Enermax temp/fan controllerFSX ACC@ 1600/1200 |UTX/ASX/FEX/MTX/ASA/REX

[scott967 62]

Running the original MSFS was the gold standard of "PC-compatible".scott s..

[mjrhealth 820]

Thats just it, you get all these users saying, oh but BF2 works fine and i get 100FPS, yes but they dont realise the huge difference between games like BF2 and FSX, FSX wil stress everything, and it will always be a good test for a new system.

[ahuimanu 50]

I will not argue at all with your observations, I fully agree. For the last 10-15 years, I have purchased new systems to coincide with the release of a new version of FS. I have always purchased a $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 "bruiser" realizing that MSFS would need it. Now that we'll have to live within the FSX ecosystem indefinitely, I will face my first system upgrade outside of the MSFS release cycle. I am hoping to build another monster this Fall which will take me along for the rest of FSX's life (may it live long, it's the last of a breed). Alas, I do not hold high hopes for our future with "flying games" played on a one-size-fits-all game box. Additionally, as I get older the games get "younger" and I am losing interest in most of what is released. I just need MSFS and a decent racecar driving game, for variety, and I'm find. So, it's ludicrous in a way that I have spent well over $20,000.00 in the last 15 years for software that cost barely a percent or two of that value. Now, when you throw in the gobs of $$$ I've thrown at Payware addons (some of it regrettably and wastefully).I am part of perhaps the first generation of childhood-to-adulthood gamers (I was born in the 60s) and find that I still want to use my PC for games because a PC is still a compellingly flexible and utilitarian device. I don't want a little computer in my pocket (iPhone) or one that is book-sized (netbook), or one that is tuned for FPS games (consoles) to play my games on, I want a versatile, all-around platform for doing numerous tasks. Still, I agree with you that the brawn in the systems I've built (and thus my contribution to the high-end component market) has ALWAYS been driven by MSFS. This fall will be my last MFSF hurrah in terms of building a new system and I'm going to go all out. When I do, I will be mindful, as you are, that a well-balanced system is required to deal with the astounding data throughput that FSX demands.I know everyone usually gets their extra muscle from OCing, but I am embarrassed at the poor luck I've had with OC'ing. Just last month I fried some RAM because I just don't entirely fathom the relationship between RAM clocking and CPU clocking. However, as you point out, MSFS likes it when EVERYTHING (esp. CPU, RAM and Mobo) are on par with each other.Thank you for your revelation, it should be helpful to someone in the future.

[Wilbert 0]

I am happy that someone found my observation interesting to reply. Like you, I have always try to be on the leading edge solely because of MSFS. I can't remember how many times I have built my system and payed top dollar for the latest CPU. The last two I bought cost over $ 1,000.00. In anticipation of FSX, I paid nearly $300.00 for an Abit MB and, of course there is always the need to also get new memory to fit. Also, I can't remember how many new graphics cards I have purchased to keep up. I remember when the MB was the most expensive part on a PC. I could have purchased almost 3 MB's for the price I paid for the last video card I bought - could you believe over $600.00 just for a video card?. Right now I have 6 working PC's, all networked and I have all these because of MSFS. I know I must have spent over $40 or 50,000.00 since involved with MSFS. The original Abit MB I bought for FSX, was not PCIe 2.0 compliant so, I recently purchased an Asus board, real cheap for less than $100.00, just so I could use a PCIe 2.0 video card, in hopes it would solve some issues I had with FSX and Overland A/C. I dont think I can keep up anymore. Matter of fact, I don't think I want to. I am soon to be 65 yrs old and have almost gone blind from starring, so many thousands of hours, at these monitors. I have also discovered that with FSX, I have spent more time "tweaking" than all the enjoyment I use to get from flying. It is like switching hobbies from "flightsim" to "tweakSim".WilbertASUS P5Q SE PLUS/Thermaltake W0106 700W PSUIntel QX6700 Quadcore - 2.66 OC TO 3.2Vista Ultimate 64/CORSAIR XMS2 DHX 4GB (2 x 2GB)2x150GB SATA WD Raptor- No Raid/2x320GB SATA WD SE16- No Raid2x IDE Light-On DVDRW 165H65/BFG GTX2603x SILENX 120X25MM FANS + 2x 10in XCLIO Wind Tunnel Case FansDanger Den Water Cooling/Enermax temp/fan controllerFSX ACC@ 1600/1200 |UTX/ASX/FEX/MTX/ASA/REX

[loop_n_roll 7]

Wilbert,Your observation is right on and explains why those with super fast processors and video cards often have poor performance with FSX. As you can see from my signature I don't have a powerful computer but it works fine for me. I admit that the default 737 over NYC isn't great, but it works well enough to be enjoyed. Good post.