Hello everyone, First of all do not know if post! Rules do not know much about this site! Well now the problem. It turns out that purchased a new pc, Core 2 Quad Q8200, 4 GB (2x2 GB) DUAL CHANNEL, Gigabyte EP45 Mother, HDD 250 GB and 80 GB SATA, 9600GT 512 DDR3 VERT Pinacle seems to me this pc any good with FSX + acceleration in Windows Vista Ultimate X64. Well here the problem because the default FSX ULTRA HIGH this whole, content purchased PMDG aircraft, installing notice a large decrease in FPS is so much that sometimes 5 to 6 seen from the inside and 18 to 26 from the outside. Usually BAe J41 of PMDG is the slower it works, I'm not happy at all, also use Active Sky! and FPS is set to infinity, most of the time flying in sparsely populated settings and frames are 20-23 inside - virtual cockpit. but when I go to a city is definitively establishing imposbile fly, opt for reducing the configuration screen, and put everything on high but equal, eh removed vehicles, ships, etc ... and I see hardly an improvement of 1 or 2 frames. Nor do I lose image quality because I think I have enough to see a decent pc! or not? :( If anyone can help I would appreciate much Greetings and excuse my English, it is bad :(

Medussa,Word of caution, sign your real name after your post, if you don't itwill be deleted by admin staff.My system is rather fast if a little old, I am not even in a possition to push the sliders up to max. I would recomend that you place all the sliders at the lowest setting and try and fly the PMDG aircraft again. If all is well then push the sliders up one at a time after you have done a test flight. If you set all settings to low and you still have low frame rates then the we are in a whole other ball game. Lower your settings and come back with resultsAll the best

Medussa,Word of caution, sign your real name after your post, if you don't itwill be deleted by admin staff.My system is rather fast if a little old, I am not even in a possition to push the sliders up to max. I would recomend that you place all the sliders at the lowest setting and try and fly the PMDG aircraft again. If all is well then push the sliders up one at a time after you have done a test flight. If you set all settings to low and you still have low frame rates then the we are in a whole other ball game. Lower your settings and come back with resultsAll the best

Lots of posts in the FS forum as well as in this one about why having more hardware doesn't necessarily translate to higher FPS. Also, setting FPS to infinite is not necessarily a good setting for FS. Try do a search on both forums and you will find further information and recommendations.FYI: I have a Corei7 rig running at 3.4GHZ with 6GB of ram and I don't run FSX with max sliders.

Lots of posts in the FS forum as well as in this one about why having more hardware doesn't necessarily translate to higher FPS. Also, setting FPS to infinite is not necessarily a good setting for FS. Try do a search on both forums and you will find further information and recommendations.FYI: I have a Corei7 rig running at 3.4GHZ with 6GB of ram and I don't run FSX with max sliders.

My understanding, which came from the FSX Hardware Gurus like Nick and a few others, is that FSX uses one core to do almost everything except the scenery loading, which can be done by up to something like 16 other threads. So the one core that is doing all the rendering and physics is really the biggest bottleneck. They also mention that the GPU is really only doing a relatively small percentage of rendering, leaving most of the work on that one core. This is the biggest reason why upgrading only the GPU may have little or no effect. It seems that the biggest changes to increase FSX performance is: Increasing CPU clock speed and getting info through the system buss as fast as possible, which helps explain why really fast memory seems to speed things up as well. Also, if your drive, where FSX resides is fragmented and not optimised, FSX will spend lots of time loading textures. This alone can slow down FSX to a crawl on even the fastest systems.I upgraded my system from a E8400 to a Quad 9650. Both are clocked at 3.6 and both ran FSX the same until I tweaked the FSX config file so FSX used a bigger percentage of the other three cores to load the scenery and the "Fiber" as Aces once called it. Now the quad is running FSX just as smooth as the dual, but with 20% more ai traffic and one more notch denser on autogen.The J41 hits my system harder than any other Addon I have, but I am still getting a very solid and smooth 29.5 FPS locked at 30 FPS in the thickest of REX generated weather. The gorgeous VC of the J41 has more than a handfull of very high resolution textures and a good handfull of Polys, which probably contributes to the load on the system.JB

My understanding, which came from the FSX Hardware Gurus like Nick and a few others, is that FSX uses one core to do almost everything except the scenery loading, which can be done by up to something like 16 other threads. So the one core that is doing all the rendering and physics is really the biggest bottleneck. They also mention that the GPU is really only doing a relatively small percentage of rendering, leaving most of the work on that one core. This is the biggest reason why upgrading only the GPU may have little or no effect. It seems that the biggest changes to increase FSX performance is: Increasing CPU clock speed and getting info through the system buss as fast as possible, which helps explain why really fast memory seems to speed things up as well. Also, if your drive, where FSX resides is fragmented and not optimised, FSX will spend lots of time loading textures. This alone can slow down FSX to a crawl on even the fastest systems.I upgraded my system from a E8400 to a Quad 9650. Both are clocked at 3.6 and both ran FSX the same until I tweaked the FSX config file so FSX used a bigger percentage of the other three cores to load the scenery and the "Fiber" as Aces once called it. Now the quad is running FSX just as smooth as the dual, but with 20% more ai traffic and one more notch denser on autogen.The J41 hits my system harder than any other Addon I have, but I am still getting a very solid and smooth 29.5 FPS locked at 30 FPS in the thickest of REX generated weather. The gorgeous VC of the J41 has more than a handfull of very high resolution textures and a good handfull of Polys, which probably contributes to the load on the system.JB

More cores can be helpfull but only if FSX is tuned per the NickN guide. I don't know anybody who can max out all the sliders(including AI) in FSX and get decent framerates.

Lots of posts in the FS forum as well as in this one about why having more hardware doesn't necessarily translate to higher FPS. Also, setting FPS to infinite is not necessarily a good setting for FS. Try do a search on both forums and you will find further information and recommendations.FYI: I have a Corei7 rig running at 3.4GHZ with 6GB of ram and I don't run FSX with max sliders.

Right there with ya, my Core i7 is at 3.5 I think, with Corsair DDR3 on EVGA X58 board. I use FTX ASA REX 2 and the JS4100 along with the Real Air Duke and I can't get mine sliders up to max, espcially Autogen and Traffic, they stay down there pretty far. Tweaks do nothing by the way, for me anyhow. You need make sure u got the latest Drivers and DeFrag that computer of your and stop looking at the FPS slider thingy.

Lots of posts in the FS forum as well as in this one about why having more hardware doesn't necessarily translate to higher FPS. Also, setting FPS to infinite is not necessarily a good setting for FS. Try do a search on both forums and you will find further information and recommendations.FYI: I have a Corei7 rig running at 3.4GHZ with 6GB of ram and I don't run FSX with max sliders.

I was looking at a simular system, what settings on the sliders do you run? Do you think the i 7 is any advantage in FSX or would a quad core be fine?Michael Pare

I was looking at a simular system, what settings on the sliders do you run? Do you think the i 7 is any advantage in FSX or would a quad core be fine?Michael Pare

Nope, get the i7. I had Dual and Quad before and i7 is the best and its so easy to overclock.

Tweaks do nothing by the way, for me anyhow. You need make sure u got the latest Drivers and DeFrag that computer of your and stop looking at the FPS slider thingy.

With my quad, the tweak that makes the biggest difference for me and also allowed me to load the other three cores up as much as possible was the, "FiberFrameFraction" I think thats what it's called, and the "Bufferpools". I played with different settings on those two and was able to ballance out a good load between the rendering and the scenery loading. I could probably go a bit further, but I can't complain now, as Track IR panning through the J41 VC and the sim frame rate is really smooth and consistent and thats all I ask for.JB

I didn't want to overclock anything as it shortens the processor life and I need the machine to last at least 4 to 5 years.Michael Pare.

Hello everyone, First of all do not know if post! Rules do not know much about this site! Well now the problem. It turns out that purchased a new pc, Core 2 Quad Q8200, 4 GB (2x2 GB) DUAL CHANNEL, Gigabyte EP45 Mother, HDD 250 GB and 80 GB SATA, 9600GT 512 DDR3 VERT Pinacle seems to me this pc any good with FSX + acceleration in Windows Vista Ultimate X64. Well here the problem because the default FSX ULTRA HIGH this whole, content purchased PMDG aircraft, installing notice a large decrease in FPS is so much that sometimes 5 to 6 seen from the inside and 18 to 26 from the outside. Usually BAe J41 of PMDG is the slower it works, I'm not happy at all, also use Active Sky! and FPS is set to infinity, most of the time flying in sparsely populated settings and frames are 20-23 inside - virtual cockpit. but when I go to a city is definitively establishing imposbile fly, opt for reducing the configuration screen, and put everything on high but equal, eh removed vehicles, ships, etc ... and I see hardly an improvement of 1 or 2 frames. Nor do I lose image quality because I think I have enough to see a decent pc! or not? :( If anyone can help I would appreciate much Greetings and excuse my English, it is bad :(

Andres Soler

I was looking at a simular system, what settings on the sliders do you run? Do you think the i 7 is any advantage in FSX or would a quad core be fine?Michael Pare

Hey, look at taking account of everything I say I started to set up FSX and really started fsx walk very well, maybe you would recommend a GTX 260 video card up! as we continue to set up FSX I will be saying! Thank you very much to allAndr

I didn't want to overclock anything as it shortens the processor life and I need the machine to last at least 4 to 5 years.Michael Pare.

Your wrong.

Your wrong.

How so? doesn't making it run faster cause more heat and stress thus shortening it's life span?Michael Pare

How so? doesn't making it run faster cause more heat and stress thus shortening it's life span?Michael Pare

I guess it would really depend on how aggresive the OC is and how high the temperatures are.But I'm sure if you had two identical systems and one was OC where the other wasn't, the one that wasn't should theoretically last longer, how much longer, really depends.JB