Hi All,

I did plan to post a similar thread a few weeks ago, but have since re-considered many of the components.

I am wondering if, being fellow simmers!, anyone could give any advice as to, with various .cfg tweaks of course, this setup would be able to run FSX smoothly?

I am planning on using addons such as the PMDG 737NGX, various add-on scenery airports (such as UK2000 EGCC and FSDT LSGG etc.), REX Essentials + , and possibly UTX and GEX.

 

Here are the core components I'm considering:

 

MOBO: ASUS P8Z77-V LX

CPU: Intel Ivy Bridge Core i5-3570

8GB 1600MHz RAM

GPU: nVidia GTX 660 Ti

 

I have noticed that some people have had to make alot of changes to various config files, to get FSX to make full use of resources. As this will be a fresh PC setup, I am prepared to have to make changes, although I'll need someone to talk me through them!

 

I'm hoping to achieve something like this (although I'm not planning on overclocking!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTrk3tdT8s

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Alex.

There are three main publicized approaches to tweaking FSX: Bojote's automated tweaking tool, Word Not Allowed's guide, and NickN's guide. Due to the great differences between computer systems, it is recommended that you experiment personally. Not one of these tweaking approaches is indisputably better than the other two, and different people have experienced different results with each.

 

Word Not Allowed's guide seems to be highly regarded and up-to-date. NickN seems to be more conservative regarding tweaks, but has many general optimizations for Windows in his scattered and somewhat-difficult-to-read guides.

 

FSDT LSGG gives me excellent frame rates, although UK2000 EGKK and EGLL are more mediocre in this aspect.

I currently use a Dell XPS 8300, and average around 15-20 FPS with EGCC and the NGX, but it is quite unstable, crashes often, and the computer is actually my dad's, which he uses for editing photographs. Traffic, i have noticed, also seems to effect frames big time. I use just flight's Traffic X, and have around a 10 FPS drop in some situations with the traffic enabled. I'm happy at the moment with the performance, although an increase would be welcomed, and I need a more stable system.

I have had two Dell systems in the past which I have used FSX on, both of which crashed regularly. I suspect it has something to do with the way Dell pre-loads their computers with hundreds of background programs etc.

 

I shall have a look at those guides and test them on the current system to see if there are any improvements thanks for the links!

 

Regarding hardware, do you think those main components will run FSX smoothly with Medium-High settings?

Actually there are 4 approaches. There is the DX10 way as outlined in the document posted in the DX10 forum.

 

Only thing you might want to consider is faster ram. I am not sure if 1600 is optimum these days, perhaps someone else on these forums can advise. Also, if you plan to overclock significantly you might want to take a look at the delidding info on these forums as well as a suitable cooler. Good luck.

I currently use a Dell XPS 8300, and average around 15-20 FPS with EGCC and the NGX, but it is quite unstable, crashes often, and the computer is actually my dad's, which he uses for editing photographs. Traffic, i have noticed, also seems to effect frames big time. I use just flight's Traffic X, and have around a 10 FPS drop in some situations with the traffic enabled.

I currently use a Dell XPS 8500, and average around 20–25 frames/s with FlyTampa and FSDT airports, and 15–20 frames/s with UK2000 airports. I mainly fly the PMDG B747. Ultimate Traffic seems to have only a slight impact on performance, but this impact is exaggerated at payware airports. Nevertheless, I still use 80% commercial traffic and 0% general aviation traffic. I do not run anything else on this computer besides Tribes: Ascend.

 

There is the DX10 way as outlined in the document posted in the DX10 forum.

I actually use DirectX 10, and I find that it gives me better performance.

 

Regarding hardware, do you think those main components will run FSX smoothly with Medium-High settings?

It's difficult to tell, because you will have a different graphics card. Without overclocking and at medium-high settings, I barely get 25 frames/s in the virtual cockpit. With DirectX 10, I get 45+ frames/s in exterior views, though.

Only thing you might want to consider is faster ram

 

1600MHz is the fastest that the i5-3570 supports, unfortunately. Although, many people think RAM speed doesn't have much of an effect

My budget is limited, hence why I can't push the boat out too far! The i5 is pretty much my limit, cost wise.

The XPS 8300 has 16GB of ram but I'm not sure if FSX makes use of all of it.

Is it worth getting 16GB?

If cost is a concern, get 8gb ram. With the money saved, get a decent aftermarket cooler like the hyper evo 212 that doesn t cost too much, a good thermal paste, and some extra fans. Then OC as much as you can. That MB is great for OCing and the whole setup is kind of a waste if you dont. The k at the end if the chip name means it s meant to be OCed.

When people quote performance and FPS, they are quite misleading. Everyone saying 20-25 fps, please also specify:

 

1) Resolution (There is a big difference between 1680 x 1050 vs 2560 vs 1600. Latter will require over 2 GB of video RAM whereas the other will require less than half).

2) AA/AF/NVidia Settings (Using a 32x AA vs 1xAA is a big difference).

3) Overall FSX Settings (Just moving the road traffic slider from 10% to 50% makes a massive difference (14fps vs 20fps) flying over Manhattan.

4) Weather/day or night configuration (Flying at night time nearly cuts FPS in half)

 

I have a pretty good PC, I can configure things so that I get maxed out 60 fps flying over Manhattan, or I can configure them and get 10 fps.

 

Hi All,

I did plan to post a similar thread a few weeks ago, but have since re-considered many of the components.

I am wondering if, being fellow simmers!, anyone could give any advice as to, with various .cfg tweaks of course, this setup would be able to run FSX smoothly?

I am planning on using addons such as the PMDG 737NGX, various add-on scenery airports (such as UK2000 EGCC and FSDT LSGG etc.), REX Essentials + , and possibly UTX and GEX.

 

Here are the core components I'm considering:

 

MOBO: ASUS P8Z77-V LX

CPU: Intel Ivy Bridge Core i5-3570

8GB 1600MHz RAM

GPU: nVidia GTX 660 Ti

 

I have noticed that some people have had to make alot of changes to various config files, to get FSX to make full use of resources. As this will be a fresh PC setup, I am prepared to have to make changes, although I'll need someone to talk me through them!

 

I'm hoping to achieve something like this (although I'm not planning on overclocking!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTrk3tdT8s

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Alex.

 

That video proves nothing really, flying at 20,000 ft a 3 year old machine will also have a smooth VC. Try 1000 ft at climb from La Guardia with full scenery and watch FPS dip to 10:)

 

I can tell you though faster RAM does make a difference. I can see 1-2 fps difference between 1600 Mhz and 2333 Mhz with tighter timings. Overclocking the CPU also makes a huge difference (4-5 fps) from 3.2 Ghz to all the way to 4.75 Ghz. Have a look at my build and let me know if you have any questions.

1600MHz is the fastest that the i5-3570 supports, unfortunately. Although, many people think RAM speed doesn't have much of an effect

My budget is limited, hence why I can't push the boat out too far! The i5 is pretty much my limit, cost wise.

The XPS 8300 has 16GB of ram but I'm not sure if FSX makes use of all of it.

Is it worth getting 16GB?

 

If the 3570k/3770k only supports 1600Mhz ram, why do so many people choose faster? ie 2133/2400+

 

Thanks

If the 3570k/3770k only supports 1600Mhz ram, why do so many people choose faster? ie 2133/2400+

 

Thanks

 

Supports is not same as works with. The faster RAM is overclocked RAM that requires more voltage than intel certifies the CPUs with, so you have to run the CPU outside of the spec. Everyone does it, and its been that way since overclocked RAMs hit the market years ago.

When people quote performance and FPS, they are quite misleading. Everyone saying 20-25 fps, please also specify:

That is because it is assumed that much of the details can be learned from reading the My PC box in the column to the left of each post as well as other posts, but for the sake of specificity:

 

1) Resolution

27": 1920 by 1080

 

2) AA/AF/NVidia Settings

AA and AF both checked in FSX

AA: 4X; AF: 16X

 

3) Overall FSX Settings

medium-high settings

I still use 80% commercial traffic and 0% general aviation traffic.

 

4) Weather/day or night configuration

Always day; default real-world weather with updates, no turbulence effects

Is over clocking the best solution?

Is over clocking the best solution?

 

If you buy any intel processor that is on the market and not overclock it, imagine taking 20s out of your wallet and throwing them on the street. The CPUs today have thermal throttling, they will come nowhere near to danger zone. There are several levels of overclocking. There is entry level overclocking that involves minor voltage adjustments (within intel specs), then there is moderate voltage adjustments (somewhat over intel specs and can still run 24/7), and then there is high voltage adjustments (over intel specs and you can still run 24/7 overclock if you dont mind CPU degradation after 3 years). Overclocking now and overclocking 10 years ago are very different things. It takes literally 2 minutes to get a basic overclock now, anyone not doing it is wasting their money.

 

A CPU is made out of silicon and the final product is called a waffle. Waffle will have somewhat medium conductivity and over time that conductivity will degrade slowly. All CPUs in the world will have this, its just that if you dont overclock them, it will take 20 years (not making these numbers up) and if you do overclock them, depending on how much you overclock, it may take 10 or even 5 years. What degrading means is not CPU to die, it means for CPU to require more voltage to operate on a given clock frequency. So in layman's terms, it means even if you really overclock your CPU all the way, to say 5.0 Ghz. Worst will happen is, in 3 or 5 years, it won't run at 5.0 Ghz for the same voltages. You will have to downclock it to 4.5. But the reality is, will you be using the same CPU in 5 years? Its value to you will be nothing with inflation and new chips on the market. I hope this clears things up a bit.

Is over clocking the best solution?

If you feel comfortable doing so, I believe it is the action that will most definitely result in a performance increase (if done properly and sufficiently).

If you buy any intel processor that is on the market and not overclock it, imagine taking 20s out of your wallet and throwing them on the street. The CPUs today have thermal throttling, they will come nowhere near to danger zone. There are several levels of overclocking. There is entry level overclocking that involves minor voltage adjustments (within intel specs), then there is moderate voltage adjustments (somewhat over intel specs and can still run 24/7), and then there is high voltage adjustments (over intel specs and you can still run 24/7 overclock if you dont mind CPU degradation after 3 years). Overclocking now and overclocking 10 years ago are very different things. It takes literally 2 minutes to get a basic overclock now, anyone not doing it is wasting their money.

 

Building my own PC isn't something I want to attempt. I was looking at purchasing one through "PCSPECIALIST" mainly because they will sort everything out and provide a warranty.

They do customised overclocked bundles, but the cost skyrockets..