New FSX computer

[Guest wims]

Anything higher than 25 FPS, the human eye is unable to discern anyway. So 23/24 FPS is perfect.

That is simply not true. The average amount of frames a human can see is around 60, but there are people who have much more sensitive eyes.

[Guest acezboy561]

If you want "top of the range" these days, many people you find are going for:1. i7s the -920/930/950 are pretty popular, cannot go past them.2. if you plan to overclock, get good cooling, a coolermaster hyper 212 plus or coolermaster v8 will get you between 3.2-4.2GHz, if you dont plan to overclock, just use the default cpu cooler.3. 750watt power supply, not some no name 400watt.4. a gtx 460 is my next graphics card, though you can try the new ATI 6xxx series or the Nvidida GTX 5xx series.5. an ssd is good to be dedicated for fsx, though a hdd is good aswell.6. a motherboard, for an i7, the x58 series are what is needed.you can expect fantastic frames with a system like that, if you need anymore help, just ask :)

[engwerda 0]

I am still with FS9 but would love to move to FSX. However every post I am reading here seems to suggest that I should buy a desktop PC running at max revs, pay heaps of money and then I should "overclock it" - doesn't sound easy to use, sensible or very stable to me. When it works out of the box I will switch. Sadly that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon. Everything here seems to indicate that another FS is sorely overdue. Clearly we need something better than FSX. An FS that assumes that you are going to fiddle with just about everything even to get anything half way decent in terms of frame rates just is not on!Which is why I will not be buying the NGX.Gerry

[Paul_Smith 92]

the i7 930, is the best money/power ratio out there, it is fantastic to overclock.the gtx 480 is the best card for fsx at this moment [new 580 on the way soon]

Sorry, but I don't think so. The i7 930 is so last year. A quick look at overclockers.co.uk (or any other decent site) shows that if you want 4GHz of multi core, the i3 540 is the cheapest way to get there with cpu, MB, ram and cooler for under £260. Want more cores? An 4GHz i5 760 bundle is under £400. If you really want an i7, then budget almost £600 for i7 950, though will get you a comfortable 4.2GHz.

I am still with FS9 but would love to move to FSX. However every post I am reading here seems to suggest that I should buy a desktop PC running at max revs, pay heaps of money and then I should "overclock it" - doesn't sound easy to use, sensible or very stable to me. When it works out of the box I will switch. Sadly that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon. Everything here seems to indicate that another FS is sorely overdue. Clearly we need something better than FSX. An FS that assumes that you are going to fiddle with just about everything even to get anything half way decent in terms of frame rates just is not on!Which is why I will not be buying the NGX.Gerry

Not getting into a FS9 vs FSX debate but have you said anything above that you didn't say about fs9 when you still ran fs2002?

[MorsAbAlto 19]

That is simply not true. The average amount of frames a human can see is around 60, but there are people who have much more sensitive eyes.

Going a bit off topic here but:That's not entirely true either. The eye is analogue. It doesn't work in frames per second. However, around 60Hz (actually a bit lower) is the average Flicker Fusion Threshold of the human eye, i.e. the rate where we can no longer discern seperate light impulses from each other and perceive a steady source of light. This frequency is not static however. It varies with light intensity, wavelength, fatigue, age, individual anatomy of the eye etc.. In the dark this frequency can be as low as 15-20Hz, in daylight as high as 80Hz. If your monitor runs below your personal Flicker Fusion Threshold, you will notice flickering. Frames per second are only partly related, as this value describes how many times a second the displayed image is updated, not the speed at which that image is displayed/projected. A 25 fps movie on a 100Hz monitor will be "time-stretched", i.e. each frame of the movie will be shown for 4 frames that the monitor displays. Of course, at 100Hz the monitor only really displays 50 fps, since 1 Hz is one On/Off cycle of the monitor.The perception of fluidity in the real world is fundamentally different from fluidity in computer games. Computer games lack visual phenomena like motion blur, thus we need a lot more frames per second to retain the illusion of a fluid motion. The 25 fps of a movie are not enough to make a game like FSX run absolutely fluid. Likewise a framerate above the refresh rate of the monitor is pretty useless.The limiting factor to how "fast" we see in the real world, is actually the brain. Our sensory organs send about 11 Million bit/s of information, while the brain can only compute 40 bit/s. There is a "filter" in place that seperates the important information from the rest, thus information that can not be processed gets either discarded or stored in our memory until the brain has enough free ressources to catch up (sleep). There is a so called "sensory memory", which lasts about 200-500 milliseconds. Most of what our eyes see, we simply forget.Now back to computers...

[stfitts 0]

First of all thanks for all the replies. Keep them coming. The issue I'm seeing (and I'm glad I'm not the only one) is that building a pretty solid machine will still net you ~25 fps with payware.....almost 5 years after this program was launched. What does that say about the new "Flight" release? Wow.

[Guest Tamadeez]

PLEASE save your money people and get the i5-760 over any i7 if money is concern. Overclocks cooler and much less expensive when motherboard and RAM taken into account. With it @ 4ghz it's a beast. For me sits @ 35 idle and 61 using PRIME 95.

[Guest wims]

I totally agree about that, except I wouldnt have used the bold font lol :(

[brian747 5]

I totally agree about that, except I wouldnt have used the bold font lol :(

I agree (with both comments) :( What's more, with an i5-760 you're still getting a quad that's overclockable to 4 GHz, but you don't have to faff about in the BIOS turning off the hyperthreading that fsx can't use but you've just paid for with your i7. :( Cheers,Brian

[kamaz74 81]

All I can say is good luck... I spent a year and half trying to convince myself I was getting something more out of FSX, but I just ended up moving back to FS9 after spending almost a thousand dollars upgrading everything in my system (i7-930, 1600mhz CAS 4 RAM etc...). I have just run out of patience with FS9. I know many folks have successfully configured FSX and it works well for them, and I hope they enjoy it. But I simply couldn't live with FSX any longer. :(

If you want "top of the range" these days, many people you find are going for:1. i7s the -920/930/950 are pretty popular, cannot go past them.2. if you plan to overclock, get good cooling, a coolermaster hyper 212 plus or coolermaster v8 will get you between 3.2-4.2GHz, if you dont plan to overclock, just use the default cpu cooler.3. 750watt power supply, not some no name 400watt.4. a gtx 460 is my next graphics card, though you can try the new ATI 6xxx series or the Nvidida GTX 5xx series.5. an ssd is good to be dedicated for fsx, though a hdd is good aswell.6. a motherboard, for an i7, the x58 series are what is needed.you can expect fantastic frames with a system like that, if you need anymore help, just ask :)

I can tell you from experience, that the only thing you can expect out of FSX are problems.

Anything higher than 25 FPS, the human eye is unable to discern anyway. So 23/24 FPS is perfect.

Untrue, I for one can tell a MAJOR difference between 25 and 50 FPS.

[Guest Tamadeez]

All I can say is good luck... I spent a year and half trying to convince myself I was getting something more out of FSX, but I just ended up moving back to FS9 after spending almost a thousand dollars upgrading everything in my system (i7-930, 1600mhz CAS 4 RAM etc...). I have just run out of patience with FS9. I know many folks have successfully configured FSX and it works well for them, and I hope they enjoy it. But I simply couldn't live with FSX any longer. :Worried:I can tell you from experience, that the only thing you can expect out of FSX are problems.Untrue, I for one can tell a MAJOR difference between 25 and 50 FPS.

YES for me in FSX I find 50FPS ALOT smoother than 25fps. Like in FS9 25FPS would be super smooth. But for some unknown reason fsx for me requires much higher FPS to get same smoothness. Wonder why?? Although Luckily I can achieve those high frames. Mostly due to 4ghz O/C

[tnorton776 0]

WWW.NEWEGG.COM ------------- MY PERSONAL FSX DREAM MACHINE (AND COULD BE YOURS TOO)

• Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80601 $579^.99
• ASUS Rampage III Formula LGA 1366 Intel X58 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard $299^.99
• G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL7D-4GBRM (quantity 2 @ $84^{.99 each})
• Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH120G2K5 2.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) (quanitity 2 @ $199^{.99 each} for raid 0 extreme speed and reliability)
• MSI N580GTX-M2D15D5 GeForce GTX 580 (Fermi) 1536MB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card (quantity 2 @ $524^{.99 each})
• Antec Twelve Hundred Black Steel ATX Full Tower Computer Case $149^.99
• ASUS Black 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 12X DVD+R DL 24X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 12X DVD-RAM 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM 2MB Cache SATA 24X DVD Burner - Bulk - OEM $17^.99
• SAMSUNG P2450H Rose Black 24" 2ms(GTG) HDMI Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 DC 70000:1(1000:1) $229^.99
• SPEND 3G'S AND WEEP NO MORE (OR SOME LESSER VERSION OF THIS MONSTER AND WEEP LESS)
• /KUNGFU BOW

[michal 44]

much higher FPS to get same smoothness. Wonder why??

This was once explained - FSX delivers frames in asynchronous manner (rather than synchronous) hence need for higher FPS to get smoothness. If FSX delivered reliable 25 fps in synchronous manner most would find it more than sufficient.

[albix 1]

Maybe this could be helpfulhttp://www.jetlinesystems.com/performance.htmlAlberto

[Paul_Smith 92]

I can tell you from experience, that the only thing you can expect out of FSX are problems.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Just how many people do you know over the last four years that have switched back from FSX to FS9? Two? Maybe three? And the hundreds of thousands of us that have switched from FS9 to FSX, do you think we are all idiots? Do you really think there is anything you can say that will convince us that FS9 is not dead? Remember - we all used it once and most of us no longer even have it installed!