Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest acezboy561

Would the MD-11 run on this?

Recommended Posts

Hi, Would your MD-11 be able to run on my computer or would the 747X be better?? Specs are: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ @ 2.1GHz 1024MB RAM ATI Radeon 3650 HD GC @ 512MB Not the best I know. (For FSX btw) Id rather not write my full name for personal issues. Aidan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Just being honest, I wouldn't even use that system for FS9 but each to there own, I see Videos on youtube where to me the Graphics and performance are horrible, yet the comments read 'Wow how do you get such good framerates etc etc' or FS runs great for me on my 7 year old P4..... So if your expectations are not that high then go for it...Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMD Athlon XP 3000+ @ 2.1GHz 1024MB RAM ATI Radeon 3650 HD GC @ 512MB
I saw the same proc and mem and even lower graphics card running MD11 quite satisfactory, but on FS9. Until 3 weeks ago I had a very similar config too and it gave me 5 years of happy FS9 flying. I wouldn't recommend it for FSX though. I am happy with MD11/FSX but only after getting spec in my signature.Daniel S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My PC is good, 4gb of ram and 9800GTX. But I still get framedrops in busy airports or cities. So if you are planning to avoid those en only cross them at 35000ft there wont be a problem :( If you whish to use complex addons like REX2 and MyTraffic (I use them both) you might want to consider a much better PC :(Tiemen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I can use this topic to start a siimilar question:I can use the PMDG 747 in the FS9 with 25 FPS.Can I expact the same level with the MD-11 or does she takes more Frames?GreetingsChristopher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments, do you guys know what id be getting in FPS on Medium Low?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the comments, do you guys know what id be getting in FPS on Medium Low?
Sorry, this is impossible to say. No computer system behaves the same as the next... If you get 25 FPS using the 747 then you'll get a noticeable increase using the MD-11. Or in other words, if you're satisfied with the 747's performance, you'll be even happier using the MD-11.Regards,Markus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, this is impossible to say. No computer system behaves the same as the next... If you get 25 FPS using the 747 then you'll get a noticeable increase using the MD-11. Or in other words, if you're satisfied with the 747's performance, you'll be even happier using the MD-11.Regards,Markus
I dont have the 747X... Is there any chance, I can buy it but if I get under 10FPS I can get a refund? Id rather know that my $90AUD wont go to waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no refunds, sorry.I would not try running FSX on an Athlon XP, that is ancient hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no refunds, sorry.I would not try running FSX on an Athlon XP, that is ancient hardware.
Ryan,In general your advice is the safest but in my case (as I have mentioned before!)I run the 747 and MD11 on my Athlon XP 4000 and it runs very well, I just adjustthe scenery etc. accordingly. But, the aircraft perform in all aspects very well.If I wish to have bettter scenery I then turn it up and use a default aircraft.David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no refunds, sorry.I would not try running FSX on an Athlon XP, that is ancient hardware.
I would disagree. My XP 3500 runs FSX quite competently with the sliders at medium. No problems at all with the MD11 and the 744.-Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would disagree. My XP 3500 runs FSX quite competently with the sliders at medium. No problems at all with the MD11 and the 744.-Mike
I'm sorry but where not in the dark ages anymore, you can pick up a descent system cheap to run FS9. Why are there still people out there that say my Athlon/P4 runs FS with no problems? I dont know maybe you have never seen a sim running smoothly? I'm honestly curious, and I used to crop dust on the first FS with my commodore 64.Cheers Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry but where not in the dark ages anymore, you can pick up a descent system cheap to run FS9. Why are there still people out there that say my Athlon/P4 runs FS with no problems? I dont know maybe you have never seen a sim running smoothly? I'm honestly curious, and I used to crop dust on the first FS with my commodore 64.Cheers Rob
Well, first, I graduated from FS9 back when FSX came out - and my system absolutely destroyed FS9 back then. So yes, you're right, I have absolutely no idea what a smooth running sim is. :( My computer runs FSX fine now, so why should I drop $1k to upgrade my computer when I don't have to? Sure, I'm not running every add-on known to man at max sliders, but you don't see me here kvetching about that either.-Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:(

Well, first, I graduated from FS9 back when FSX came out - and my system absolutely destroyed FS9 back then. So yes, you're right, I have absolutely no idea what a smooth running sim is. :( My computer runs FSX fine now, so why should I drop $1k to upgrade my computer when I don't have to? Sure, I'm not running every add-on known to man at max sliders, but you don't see me here kvetching about that either.-Mike
I agree Mike - Mine runs fine and yes I do know what a smooth system looks like.What is more I have friends who also have a similar system and have good results with the PMDG 747.It may be that some feel agreeved that they have spent alot of money for a new system and wecan run on an old one! (smile!)David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand this debate. An XP 3500 is about $50. That is less then the price of the MD11 or the 747X. Both sims 'can' run on that chip, but to be honest, why would you really want to? Is it some kind of reverse heroism? "When I were a lad..." type stuff? Until about five or six years ago, the combination of Moores law and happy coincidence meant that a complete replacement system, just a little below cutting edge, cost about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't quite understand this debate. An XP 3500 is about $50. That is less then the price of the MD11 or the 747X. Both sims 'can' run on that chip, but to be honest, why would you really want to? Is it some kind of reverse heroism? "When I were a lad..." type stuff? Until about five or six years ago, the combination of Moores law and happy coincidence meant that a complete replacement system, just a little below cutting edge, cost about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall we just stick to the original question? Before the guy spends his hard earned cash here are the factsAMD Athlon XP 3000+ @ 2.1GHz1024MB RAMATI Radeon 3650 HD GC @ 512MBFSX - Yes it will run but like total crapFS9 - Yes it will run, pretty badly but if you crank the settings down it will be flyable, so if your happy to compromise go for it. I dont care how many people want to tell themselves otherwise, those are the facts.One last thing, running a 512mb card on a system that only has 1024mb system ram will choke your system, all your going to get is ooms and pure frustration.RegardsRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would I want to run on that chip -because I want to! It runs well....
This is exactly what I don't understand about this debate. "because I want to". Fine, no argument, your right and your choice and all the best to you, but "It runs well"? What is that supposed to mean? It runs well for a six year old chip with a life expectancy of two years? It runs better then not running at all? It runs well [enough, in fact its crap but it is the best I can afford this month]? It runs well for a chip that Moores law suggests has been obsoleted 16 times over? Given that FSX struggles even on the latest hardware, and I am not suggesting that you need to drop multi grand on a liquid nitrogen cooled i7-980 OC'd to 4.77GHz with a mean time to failure of 57 seconds and the power consumption of a smaller African city, but I am wondering, from pure, mild curiousity, why you would suggest that it was OK for someone else to use this sort of chip if they didn't absolutly have to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is exactly what I don't understand about this debate. "because I want to". Fine, no argument, your right and your choice and all the best to you, but "It runs well"? What is that supposed to mean? It runs well for a six year old chip with a life expectancy of two years? It runs better then not running at all? It runs well [enough, in fact its crap but it is the best I can afford this month]? It runs well for a chip that Moores law suggests has been obsoleted 16 times over? Given that FSX struggles even on the latest hardware, and I am not suggesting that you need to drop multi grand on a liquid nitrogen cooled i7-980 OC'd to 4.77GHz with a mean time to failure of 57 seconds and the power consumption of a smaller African city, but I am wondering, from pure, mild curiousity, why you would suggest that it was OK for someone else to use this sort of chip if they didn't absolutly have to?
Calm down Paul -you sound angry that I can enjoy the PMDG 747 with my setup!My chip which I mentioned in an earlier post is a AMD 4000 and I have 2mb of marched ramplus a very good video card. My point is that nothing added to sfx and with sliders adjusted leftwards(but not completely)I can enjoy smooth play with 747 and MD11. Please note that I am not talking about scenery or AI aircraft or clouds etc.just the pleasure of using these aircraft. As I have said before -if it did not run well then I would update my system.RegardsDavid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shall we just stick to the original question? Before the guy spends his hard earned cash here are the factsAMD Athlon XP 3000+ @ 2.1GHz1024MB RAMATI Radeon 3650 HD GC @ 512MBFSX - Yes it will run but like total crapFS9 - Yes it will run, pretty badly but if you crank the settings down it will be flyable, so if your happy to compromise go for it. I dont care how many people want to tell themselves otherwise, those are the facts.One last thing, running a 512mb card on a system that only has 1024mb system ram will choke your system, all your going to get is ooms and pure frustration.RegardsRob
Ive had that computer for a good 2-4years now. I will be upgrading to a:Intel Q9550 (OC'd to 3.75 ghz)Arctic cooling freezer 7 proCorsair 750 watt4GB ram g skillEvga 9800 gtx+ ko (512mb)Asus p5q pro turboWestern digital caviar black 640gb w/ 32 mb cacheCooler master haf 932

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an old AMD3000+ in an older computer I haven't had running for over 2 years now. It was my back up work computer up until then. I had an Athlon 4000+ dedicated to FS9 use plus a few other minor things that I did not do simultaneously. It was completely stripped down in software terms, running around 19-20 services max. during an FS session.When I built myself a system based around an Intel E8500, the 4000+ unit became my work backup PC and the 3000+ was consigned to the back room...FS9 ran "okay" on the 3000+ system, nothing major but useable. The 4000+ allowed me to boost up settings a little and run a few addons that would never have seen double figures on the 3000+ box.Things changed with the Intel E8500 unit. It was like comparing night and day. I have a system now, slightly overclocked on air, with 4Gb RAM on a 32 bit OS, running the 3Gb switch. FS9 is smooth in all situations. FSX runs well at medium settings, although I will add that I do NOT use AI ground vehicles or AI aircraft at all. The ground traffic is a real performance killer... I am impressed with the visual appearance I get currently, knowing that things will only get better if and when I can make the jump to an i7 system or similar.If you are happy with your PC's performance that is fine. Beauty (read: smoothness and so on) is in the eye of the beholder. We all try and get the best out of what we have got. If we can afford it, we upgrade the system.But don't expect FSX to run smoothly at anything other than basic settings in a payware addon like the 747X or the MD11, or many of the recent high-end releases (I exclude many GA and Lotussim L-39) on an Athlon 3000+ with only 1Gb or RAM. The Barton core at 2.1GHz stock was released in February 2003...FSX wants the best clock speed possible and a nice chunk of RAM with lots of contiguous blocks available.My answer to the original poster's question: In my opinion, upgrade your system to something a little more state of the art, a good dual core with 4/6Gb RAM on Windows 7 (now it has been released) with a good SATA drive for FSX. Your experience of the MD-11 and/or 747X will be so much more enhanced...Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calm down Paul -you sound angry that I can enjoy the PMDG 747 with my setup!My chip which I mentioned in an earlier post is a AMD 4000 and I have 2mb of marched ramplus a very good video card. My point is that nothing added to sfx and with sliders adjusted leftwards(but not completely)I can enjoy smooth play with 747 and MD11. Please note that I am not talking about scenery or AI aircraft or clouds etc.just the pleasure of using these aircraft. As I have said before -if it did not run well then I would update my system.RegardsDavid
Not being rude here but your Athlon64 4000 with 2Gb matched Ram and a decent video card is quite different from the OP's AMD 3000 with 1G, so when you said your system ran well without making that distinction, you weren't doing anyone any favours, were you? Now you say that it runs OK, with sliders to the further left then right, and no scenery or addons. On a system between four and eight times better the the OP's. That is useful information which the OP can use to make informed decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites