Well, if a 3770 oc'd to 4.6 can't run fsx close to maxed out or even maxed out, what CAN?

Well, if a 3770 oc'd to 4.6 can't run fsx close to maxed out or even maxed out, what CAN?

 

For an answer, read Simmo's post just above..

No offense but it's 2012 with 2013 arriving soon and it's pretty sad that fsx is not able to run at max on 2012 tech. FS9, P3D and Xplane10 are better optimized

Well, if a 3770 oc'd to 4.6 can't run fsx close to maxed out or even maxed out, what CAN?

 

You can ask Fbass if he sell you he's system..

No offense but it's 2012 with 2013 arriving soon and it's pretty sad that fsx is not able to run at max on 2012 tech. FS9, P3D and Xplane10 are better optimized

 

Then why don't you get X-plane,P3D or even FS9. I have P3D and can't get it to run better than FSX.

It's just the way it is but, you can get FSX to run pretty descent and personally I don't need everything to the max to get a good expirience and it looks way better than FS9. I would not go backwards just to run FS9 at max when FSX looks better even not all sliders are at max.

 

No offence

For an answer, read Simmo's post just above..

 

Yeah, Bert. I was talking about a CPU, though. Videocards are about 1/4 of the FSX equation. It seems that anything (descrete, obviously) above about 1 GB will run fsx great.

I have been looking at the 580, 670 , & the 680 cards but can't make a clear decision.

 

660Ti is the best bang for buck. I'd highly recommend it.

Then why don't you get X-plane,P3D or even FS9. I have P3D and can't get it to run better than FSX.

It's just the way it is but, you can get FSX to run pretty descent and personally I don't need everything to the max to get a good expirience and it looks way better than FS9. I would not go backwards just to run FS9 at max when FSX looks better even not all sliders are at max.

 

No offence

 

i do own all of them plus a few more like DCS A10, BS2, World,, etc....... :lol:

i do own all of them plus a few more like DCS A10, BS2, World,, etc....... :lol:

 

Then you can not complain. It's what we have, and FSX Is just the way it is since microsoft stopped fixing it some years ago there isn't anything we can do about it.

Maybe P3D v2 can give us all the new revolution in flight simming and support the new hardware better with DX11 support, It remains too be seen. Until then I personally stick with FSX as my main Sim.

I tried X-plane 10 too but can't say that i could put any sliders to the max in that sim either..

It seems that anything (descrete, obviously) above about 1 GB will run fsx great.

Not exactly, lot's of manufacturers often put a gb or more ram on board a entry-lower middle level chip knowing there are suckers who'll go buy it thinking it's good.. Don't kid yourself, you still need a decent videocard to help FSX look good.

Not exactly, lot's of manufacturers often put a gb or more ram on board a entry-lower middle level chip knowing there are suckers who'll go buy it thinking it's good.. Don't kid yourself, you still need a decent videocard to help FSX look good.

 

Amen! :lol:

Well, yes, you need a decent core/memory/shader clock. But, the main focus should be on CPU, IMHO.

I can not run it maxed out

And My system ar pretty fast

 

Hasse

I can not run it maxed out

And My system ar pretty fast

 

Hasse

 

Don't worry about that, don't think even goverment supercomputers can max FSX It's just not optimized for modern hardware.

Out of all the current simulators, which has the best performance? I will move to P3D I think, as soon as it gets a few more addons available.