HiI was just looking how things are going on FSX. What I see is that hardware is getting better but still I am looking over some discussions talking about 20 or 30 FTPs. It means that after 1 or 2 years we are still talking about 20 FTPs and not about 40 or 50, whatever the hardware used. The question is: what should I buy to get at least 30 or 35 FTPs, using almost all necessary sliders to the right; PMDG, level D or such these type of aircrafts; full AI traffic; and addon airports like EGLL, KJFK or EDDF from aerosoft, flytampa or others; AES; Active Sky and so on? What I see is that after some years FSX is out, we still don

See sig.

I would like to be able to use LOD 9.5 and TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD of 4096 (REX 4096 clouds). Both are killers on my system, thus can't really use them in most of situations, and 9.5 will relatively often cause OOMs due to too high memory usage. But combine that with all sliders right, a good picture quality (8xS or even 8xSQ) well - I don't think that even Chris' sig will pack such a punch when landing PMDG Airliner VC (or 2D) + FSDT KJFK + UT + Manhattan + max AG.It all depends HOW much you want. You have taken picture quality out of your calculation, and those parameters (LOD, TML and Nhancer setting) kick the performance mostly...

HiSo, what would be a good (and minimum) hardware if it exists? (just motherboard, processor, video card and memory)harpsi

Um, I don't understand the question really. Are you looking for a minimum to run FSX? Or minimum to run it as best as possible? Cuz the 2nd I think Chris already answered... as much as you can afford. And his is pretty much maxed out. Just take GTX480 instead of double GTX290.

Just take GTX480 instead of GTX290? I don't understand, I'm running 3x GTX480's

Just take GTX480 instead of GTX290? I don't understand, I'm running 3x GTX480's

Oh, mea culpa, must've overlooked something.But... does it really make sense to pay 1500$ for GPUs for FSX? Is FSX really using it?

FSX doesn't use it, but I play other games on my machine such as CoD, bad company 1&2, crysis etc which really demonstrate the 3 GPUs. FSX itself doesn't show any benefit with 2 GPUs or more. My opinion is get 1 GTX480

FSX doesn't use it, but I play other games on my machine such as CoD, bad company 1&2, crysis etc which really demonstrate the 3 GPUs. FSX itself doesn't show any benefit with 2 GPUs or more. My opinion is get 1 GTX480

What I would like to know is the best to run FSX as best as possible...harpsi

i7-980x + GTX480 + 6GB of 2000Mhz RAM, lowest possible CL, and 2x SSD (OS + FS-Disk)

See the specs for my machine in my sig - I still cant get much more than 25 FPS using planes like the superbug....

See the specs for my machine in my sig - I still cant get much more than 25 FPS using planes like the superbug....

and the problem is....... what, exactly? MSFS doesn't need a high framerate to achieve visual fluidity since the rate of change of pixels over a given second decreases with altitude. Unless you're flying very fast at very low altitudes, 25 fps is more than enough to maintain fluidity.

Intel i7 980X @ 3.8GHz | eVGA 4-way SLI Classified | Corsair Dominator GT 12GB (6x2GB) Tri-channel 2000MHz C7 7-8-7-20 with Corsair Airflow fan | 3x eVGA nVidia GTX480 Fermi SLI | Corsair HX1000 PSU (1000W)| Coolermaster HAF 932 | Corsair H50 Liquid Cooling | Windows 7 Professional 64bit | 300GB WD 10,000RPM Velociraptor - Other Games | 2x Corsair Performance Series 256GB SSD - FSX/Operating System | 3x LG E2350V LED LCD Full HD 1080P 23" Monitors (1920x1080) | Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard | Logitech G9x Gaming Mouse | Logitech G940 Joystick, Throttles and rudders | Total Cost (inc. LCD's & perpherals) AU$11,757is the 3rd gtx for frying your eggs in the morning? at least your room will be nice and warm over winter :)

and the problem is....... what, exactly? MSFS doesn't need a high framerate to achieve visual fluidity since the rate of change of pixels over a given second decreases with altitude. Unless you're flying very fast at very low altitudes, 25 fps is more than enough to maintain fluidity.

Err, no. Wrong. Maintain fluidity in the 2D view when flying heavies, yes, enough. They don't turn fast. Take any GA or anything that will turn a bit quicker, or outside view and try paning around - same stuttery effect.My opinion is, nothing less than 30fps is fluid, and 40fps (or more) is optimal. Achieving fixed 40fps in FSX is yet a dream with very nice graphics.It is a fact that FSX handles FPS differently than FS9, but I stand by my opinion, which is purely optical. Yet I have been known for having a very good sight...

See the specs for my machine in my sig - I still cant get much more than 25 FPS using planes like the superbug....

Mark, 295 is not something FSX can use, and its slower than its counterpart, 285. FSX uses only one core, which is slower than the one of the 285. Thus GTX480, 1x, would be more than enough. What you need to it, is 980x which you clock as high as it can go. That's the most you can pull out of todays machine...The point also, the poster asked what's the fastest you can get for FSX... that is it.

Take any GA or anything that will turn a bit quicker, or outside view and try paning around - same stuttery effect.My opinion is, nothing less than 30fps is fluid, and 40fps (or more) is optimal.

I have to agree with this - especially since I fly mainly GA, aerobatic etc. On the rare occasion I actually achieve 40fps on my system I can easily tell the difference between a smooth 25 and a smooth 40