Hi,I'am thinking about buying a new computer:I7 860 oveclocked at 4.2asus P6X58D-E corsair dominator 6 Go DDR3 1600Mhz C8Nvidia GTX 480 1.5 GoWestern digital 1To 64 Mo 7200tr/mn Caviar blackCoolmaster Haf Xcooler Master GX power 750 wSeven pro1 year warrantyWill it be enough for FSX or should wait another couple of decades? :( Will I need to tweak the the FSX cfg file ? :( Will it stop blurries, stutters? :( Will it still struggle to give more than 20 fps? B) Thanks

Before we can give a good answer to you we need to know your current specs.

Will it be enough for FSX or should wait another couple of decades? :( Will I need to tweak the the FSX cfg file ? :( Will it stop blurries, stutters? :( Will it still struggle to give more than 20 fps? B) Thanks

In order:- definitely another coupla decades needed!- probably - if you are running e.g. a complex plane with PNW levels of scenery, + AS/RC4/FSPAX/etc- no, see probably, above- no - but you'll have to trade blurries, maybe!I suspect your suggested spec is as close to ideal as you'll get now. Check out John Venema(sp?)'s spec at the Orbx fora - he seems to be running stuff beautifully, but even then he isn't running stuff maxed out.Will you enjoy FSX? Almost certainly. Will you run it like FS9, with all maxed out? Nope. But I still reckon you'll enjoy the bang for buck. Go for it, I'd say. I've not regretted my upgrade, but I am now resigned to a "another few years before perfection" position.

In order:- definitely another coupla decades needed!- probably - if you are running e.g. a complex plane with PNW levels of scenery, + AS/RC4/FSPAX/etc- no, see probably, above- no - but you'll have to trade blurries, maybe!I suspect your suggested spec is as close to ideal as you'll get now. Check out John Venema(sp?)'s spec at the Orbx fora - he seems to be running stuff beautifully, but even then he isn't running stuff maxed out.Will you enjoy FSX? Almost certainly. Will you run it like FS9, with all maxed out? Nope. But I still reckon you'll enjoy the bang for buck. Go for it, I'd say. I've not regretted my upgrade, but I am now resigned to a "another few years before perfection" position.

Yeah, I definitely agree with Paul Yorks here. It WILL NOT stop anything. It will run more smoothly unless you have some other apps or badly fragmented HDD, junk (temp files) or bad scenery or addons (e.g. landclass). After trying FSX intensively for the past month or so (I had stopped using it after I installed it in February), I realized what a piece of crap full of bugs garbage FSX really is. But with some knowledge on tweaking it and knowledge of some basic rules of OS, memory management, video cards, etc... I will probably get it to run well on my E8400 with my new ATI Sapphire HD5770 card.But FSX, just like that other piece of crap - FS2004 - is very negligently designed, programmed and it was released by Microsoft in a manner just like they released their "latest fad" in 2001 - Windows ME (Millenium). FSX is unfinished business and unfinished and immature as an application. I came to this conclusion after reading postings from many well-informed power users, programmers etc... and from my own experience working with computers (I work in technical support). But with a faster system, it should be smoother with a bit better frame rates. But the problem is, ADD-ONS! ANY add-on, like PMDG, Radar Contact, airport payware sceneries, etc... can cause serious issues.Good luck though. You'll probably need it! haha! :( :( :( B)

After trying FSX intensively for the past month or so (I had stopped using it after I installed it in February), I realized what a piece of crap full of bugs garbage FSX really is.

Wow, some of us must really have the blinders on when we happily use this product day in day out,and fly all around the world, thinking this is the best flight simulator ever.. :(

I have same CPU and almost the rest of your new system matchs a lot of what I am curently running. I overclocked my CPU to 3.8 and have not tweaked anything else. I leave my FSX config alone. I run FSX with all slider maxed except I turn off ground scenery shadows and water set to one notch below top. (forgot what its called). Anyhow, it runs fsx at a consistant 30 fpos when flying GA. At JFK with Aerosoft manhattan x and Dream team JFK, Ai set to 70%, I get 21-23 fps. I still get blurrys from time to time, especially with high speed jets over megascenery scenery. I dont have stutters, but get an occasional pause (every 2-3 mins)while it loads scenery. I plan to get an SSD drive soon to aleviate this.Hope this helps.Rob

Since my PC specs has been referenced ( pretty much the same spec but i7 [email protected] and twin Veloraptors with dedicated RAID-0 controller), I don't use any fsx.cfg tweaks at all and usually run all sliders maxxed except water 2.X High and vehicle traffic at 16% I don't fly heavies and generally stick to non-urban areas and my FPS is around 30-40 on a single 2560x1600 30" monitor.Couple of tips for you, take them or leave them:- I use the autogen density slider (and only that slider) to control performance. Maxed in rural areas, Dense in urban areas, Normal at large international airports- I also don't have vehicle traffic set higher than 16% because anything more is unrealistic IMHO, and I use my traffic speed tweak to set them to 60mph max- I just use FSX AA and leave the nVidia CP to set AFx16 and the visuals are perfect to me (see my vids and screenshots)- I run FSX in Windowed Maximized mode which is smoothest for me- I don't run Antivirus or any other external weather apps (I just use my own weather themes)- I don't use any 2048 or 4096 textures for aircraft or clouds- Having the twin raptors in RAID-0 eliminates blurries - I don't fly complex FPS hogging aircraft (I think the Aerosoft A320 is a step in the right direction in that respect)- I use Windows 7 64-bit with at least 6GB DDR3 1600 RAM- I only run 37 processes in Windows and disable Window Indexing completely. Keep Windows lean and mean!- I rarely defrag my HDSo with those caveats above I've been enjoying smooth consistent FPS in FSX ever since I upgraded to my i7 920 about 18 months ago. No blurries, no stutters, smooth flights, and no tweaking.So my answer would be, most definitely it's possible.

Wow, some of us must really have the blinders on when we happily use this product day in day out,and fly all around the world, thinking this is the best flight simulator ever.. :(

Sorry Bert, I was a bit too upset and exaggerated as we all tend to do after a frustrating experience. FSX is pretty good and I love the experience and amazing feeling it can give me. I have in fact done 3 full world trips with FS2004 but no world trips yet with FSX-waiting for some of the medium range payware planes to come out like the PMDG 737NGX and an Airbus A320 series with equal complexity.Flight Simulation started for me in September of 2003 but I did not start flying intensively until the end of January of 2004, with my first "world trip" beginning with a flight from Katmandu, flying straight over Mount Everest and landing in Bagdogra, India, using the default King Air 350. I then decided to continue my route from city to city ... and I haved amazing memories from then on, though also some amazing frustrations because of the bugs in FS2004, though OVERALL, FS2004 was pretty stable for me. The biggest issue I face now is actually FSX with its out of memory errors in WinXP 32-bit. I will see if I can fix these or will have to give up and go (back) to my Windows 7 64-bit. An out of memory error really ruined my flight today and ruined the entire experience too. It was my first flight with Radar Contact and I could not find a way to resume Radar Contact from the last saved position so I had to basically land without any ATC. It really ruined the whole beautiful feeling of going all the way with some pretty good ATC support. That interaction with ATC and following directions gives me a feeling of a certain "competence" or "accomplishment. A feeling I also get when I fly online with VATSIM (which I still have yet to do in FSX, and which I have not done since 2007 mind you!)The irony is this: If Microsoft has made add-ons themselves for FSX or at least made a better simulation, with much more realistic and intelligent ATC, planes with FMCs etc... the program would cost more, but maybe we would not need to buy so many add-ons which cause these very OOM errors in the first place. FSX functions fine with all the default airports and planes, but because it is so "toy-like" to people like us who want to learn and experience SO much more than what "default" toys offer us, we get sophisticated "add-on toys"! Oh well... That's life I guess. One takes the plunge and takes calculated risks and see how it goes.Enjoy your flying!

Hi,I'am thinking about buying a new computer:I7 860 oveclocked at 4.2asus P6X58D-E corsair dominator 6 Go DDR3 1600Mhz C8Nvidia GTX 480 1.5 GoWestern digital 1To 64 Mo 7200tr/mn Caviar blackCoolmaster Haf Xcooler Master GX power 750 wSeven pro1 year warrantyWill it be enough for FSX or should wait another couple of decades? :( Will I need to tweak the the FSX cfg file ? :( Will it stop blurries, stutters? :( Will it still struggle to give more than 20 fps? B) Thanks

Forget about these FSX naysayers. With those specs, you shouldn't have much of a problem running FSX well. As for your other questionsWill I need to tweak the the FSX cfg file - Probably not, but the tweaks may give you more performance padding, which may help if you fly in real heavy areas like New York.Will it stop blurries, stutters? I get much fewer blurry problems in FSX then FS9.Will it still struggle to give more than 20 fps? - Most areas you should have no problems, the only area I drop down lower is areas like New York, with 100% AI traffic (WOAI or UT2) and then I get about 10-15FPS (Depending on what aircraft I'm flying), bit my specs are only a E6850 @ 3.0Ghz 4GB mem with a 9800GTX card. My settings are 2Xlow water, Extremely Dense Scenery, Dense AutoGen and 100% traffic. With your system, you should get close even with a PMDG 744X.Take a look at my videos to get an idea of the performance you should see. I use GameCam in my videos so the performance hit is not as great as FRAPS is, still it costs a couple of frames, so keep that in mind. As you can see, I get pretty good performance as is, and your system should blow mine away!!

Forget about these FSX naysayers. With those specs, you shouldn't have much of a problem running FSX well. As for your other questionsWill I need to tweak the the FSX cfg file - Probably not, but the tweaks may give you more performance padding, which may help if you fly in real heavy areas like New York.Will it stop blurries, stutters? I get much fewer blurry problems in FSX then FS9.Will it still struggle to give more than 20 fps? - Most areas you should have no problems, the only area I drop down lower is areas like New York, with 100% AI traffic (WOAI or UT2) and then I get about 10-15FPS (Depending on what aircraft I'm flying), bit my specs are only a E6850 @ 3.0Ghz 4GB mem with a 9800GTX card. My settings are 2Xlow water, Extremely Dense Scenery, Dense AutoGen and 100% traffic. With your system, you should get close even with a PMDG 744X.Take a look at my videos to get an idea of the performance you should see. I use GameCam in my videos so the performance hit is not as great as FRAPS is, still it costs a couple of frames, so keep that in mind. As you can see, I get pretty good performance as is, and your system should blow mine away!!

Hi Tom,Well, I wouldn't call myself and FSX naysayer, just sometimes, I get frustrated.But I am itching to ask you the obvious question: How do you get such good frame-rates without almost no tweaking? Do you also get high teens or low 20's with PMDG 744X too in Megascenery airports like Amsterdam (Aerosoft)? Just wondering...EDIT: Actually I also get in the low teens in mega-airports with PMDG 744X but my traffic, as an example is set to 10% GA and 25% commercial aviation.John

I tried to OC my 3ghz i7 but it never worked well. I also see teen FPS in bad weather in the virtual cockpit of a heavy addon. I have just accepted that is how it is, until a year from now when I can hopefully afford the latest greatest video card and cpu.

Sorry Bert, I was a bit too upset and exaggerated as we all tend to do after a frustrating experience. FSX is pretty good and I love the experience and amazing feeling it can give me. I have in fact done 3 full world trips with FS2004 but no world trips yet with FSX-waiting for some of the medium range payware planes to come out like the PMDG 737NGX and an Airbus A320 series with equal complexity.Flight Simulation started for me in September of 2003 but I did not start flying intensively until the end of January of 2004, with my first "world trip" beginning with a flight from Katmandu, flying straight over Mount Everest and landing in Bagdogra, India, using the default King Air 350. I then decided to continue my route from city to city ... and I haved amazing memories from then on, though also some amazing frustrations because of the bugs in FS2004, though OVERALL, FS2004 was pretty stable for me. The biggest issue I face now is actually FSX with its out of memory errors in WinXP 32-bit. I will see if I can fix these or will have to give up and go (back) to my Windows 7 64-bit. An out of memory error really ruined my flight today and ruined the entire experience too. It was my first flight with Radar Contact and I could not find a way to resume Radar Contact from the last saved position so I had to basically land without any ATC. It really ruined the whole beautiful feeling of going all the way with some pretty good ATC support. That interaction with ATC and following directions gives me a feeling of a certain "competence" or "accomplishment. A feeling I also get when I fly online with VATSIM (which I still have yet to do in FSX, and which I have not done since 2007 mind you!)The irony is this: If Microsoft has made add-ons themselves for FSX or at least made a better simulation, with much more realistic and intelligent ATC, planes with FMCs etc... the program would cost more, but maybe we would not need to buy so many add-ons which cause these very OOM errors in the first place. FSX functions fine with all the default airports and planes, but because it is so "toy-like" to people like us who want to learn and experience SO much more than what "default" toys offer us, we get sophisticated "add-on toys"! Oh well... That's life I guess. One takes the plunge and takes calculated risks and see how it goes.Enjoy your flying!

Are you using the 3GB switch in your Boot.ini file with the USERVA=2560 switch? (Note value may need adjusting, depending on size of your video memory)

Are you using the 3GB switch in your Boot.ini file with the USERVA=2560 switch? (Note value may need adjusting, depending on size of your video memory)

Yes, I am. Here is the exact line from my boot.ini. Tell if there is something wrong:multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows XP PRO 3GB switch" /FASTDETECT /3GB /userva=2560

Haven't you read that INITIAL tweaking is part of FSX? Fail to plan, plan to fail.Not only do you have to have the right set-up in terms of hardware and overclocking, but the cfg has to be tweaked depending on the OS and hardware that you are using.Thankfully, I don't have to tweak anymore. I'm happy with my current set-up. It took me years to get to this point. But, it has been a great journey.

I really like John's recommendations, and find them very thoughtful and reasonable, easy to implement, in particular in conjunction with powerful computers. Just one thing concerning vehicle traffic speeds - the FS car traffic is already set to a default speed of 60 mph (100 km/hr) which may seem fast to some. It is possible to change this speed in the appropriate parameter file (which uses metric values). Changing that value from 100 (km/hr) to 60 (km/hr) would equal a speed in mph of a little less than 40 mph. Which is probably a pretty realistic average speed on most highways.Best regards.Luis