Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest

Which CPU is the real minimum requirement ?

Recommended Posts

This things puzzles me the most, how comes that after so many years no one in the world has ever tried to produce a flight simulation ?

There is the promising X-Plane and others such as AeroFly.

 

Especially considering current economic times, obtaining the data and dedicated developers for designing, marketing, and troubleshooting an entirely new flight simulation platform is too expensive, risky, and time-consuming. The platform would have to be significantly better than FSX and its add-ons to be convincing. Also, remember that there are considerably few extremely dedicated flight simulation enthusiasts (i.e., payware level). Most non-fanatics and pure-entertainment users are probably satisfied with Microsoft Flight or X-Plane graphics.

 

A combination of these factors most likely invalidates the development of a new platform.


Regards,
Owen
My YouTube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what PMDG or any other developer says the requirement is, it depends on what you have third party wise on your simulator.

 

If I'm not mistaken, if PMDG say you'll get better FPS using an i5/i7 Sandy Bridge+; then that's based on having no other third party add-on's?


Boeing777_Banner_Betateam.jpg
 

- Luke Pabari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There is the promising X-Plane and others such as AeroFly.

 

Especially considering current economic times, obtaining the data and dedicated developers for designing, marketing, and troubleshooting an entirely new flight simulation platform is too expensive, risky, and time-consuming. The platform would have to be significantly better than FSX and its add-ons to be convincing. Also, remember that there are considerably few extremely dedicated flight simulation enthusiasts (i.e., payware level). Most non-fanatics and pure-entertainment users are probably satisfied with Microsoft Flight or X-Plane graphics.

 

A combination of these factors most likely invalidates the development of a new platform.

 

Well, IMO X Plane 10 is based on an ancient technology too, AKA the one of X Plane 9. The graphic is somehow old and " made of plastic ", 3rd party planes are light years worst from PMDG quality and scenarios are quite " cheap " .

 

AeroFly I agree has some promising features, I would be curious to listen to Mr. Randazzo's opinion on it, IMO a flight simulation can't exist without a PMDG product on top of it. Aerofly seems anyway more RC models oriented and covering a big region + airports at the moment seems more a utopia than an expensive possibility.

 

Told that, your consideration about the market of flight simulations is logic and makes sense but I do not consider us a niche. We are thousands of thousands and the huge number of FSX third party products witnesses this fact since at least 10 years. Have you ever seen a single game-simulation in the PC era successfully lasting for so long ? MS FS series is still rocking after 25 years and there are more to come.

 

Nowdays many kids fiddle with arcade stuff only and this trend is not a good prospect for the future but we are thousands and thousands and before getting dead out like the Mammuth I believe a dozen of years is still necessary, i.e. there is a lot of money on the table for the upcoming 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Well, I know that's already a reality in some cases to allow users to use some sections of super computers, how cool would be renting via Cloud a portion of this super computer power to run FSX ? ^_^

 

To have good results we should rent at least 35% of its full power :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only remark is I think that, despite the affinity mask added later or not by the user, FSX uses IMO only the very first core only, in addition in an ancient way.

The affinity mask indicates which cores you would prefer FSX to use. FSX is not written to be multi-tasking, so it only uses additional cores for texture loading.

This things puzzles me the most, how comes that after so many years no one in the world has ever tried to produce a flight simulation ? Except the pathetic MS Flight of course....

 

The first software house able to do that will be so rich to compete with the ones that produce that arcade stuff like Battlefield 3 and so on.

 

Please do not tell me it is so difficult that the human mind can't cope with it or that FSX is still rocking because I disagree before you say that.

You mean apart from Flight? Well, there was Aerofly, two versions of X-Plane, Virtual Pilot 3d, Pro Flight Simulator, Lock-On (Modern Air Combat and Flamming Cliffs), and quite a few others that probabley aren't as well known. However, I don't think any of software houses involved became rich.

 

As for there being a customer base for a new flight sim of "thousands of thousands"... Lets be realistic and say 10,000, no, lets be generous and say 100,000. How much does each spend on Flight sims in a year? $100? Now lets say that every possible fan spends $100 on this wonderful new flight sim that you are hoping for, that is $10 million dollars which sounds like a lot.

 

But it has to have 20,000 airports. If it takes 1 hour to do an airport, (buildings, taxiways, runways, radios etc.) then at 1500 man hours a year, that takes 13 man-years. At a not very well paid $50,000 a year, it costs over $600,000 to do the airports. If your average goes up to 2 hours, you have spent over a million dollars and you haven't started on the scenery yet. (Now you know why X_plane doesn't have airports yet). This is why I think there will never be a new 'full' flight simulator on the market,it is just too expensive to do all the details from scratch. About the best we can hope for is that Microsoft/Lockheed Martin release FSX as open source and a team of volunteers convert it to 1) 64bit, and/or 2) multiprocessing, but use the existing database of details.


Paul Smith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use an i5 750 @ 4.1 GHz with a nVidia GTX 460 and get acceptable performance with the 737 in bad weather at UK2000s' Gatwick plus all the usual add-ons. In clearer areas I get 30fps solid thanks to Word Not Allowed's guide.

 

I was going to upgrade when Ivy Bridge came out but was put off by the benchmarks as it wouldn't provide much performance difference for the dosh.

 

I'll upgrade when Haswell comes out in a few months and see whether the extra cache gives FSX a boost. I'm planning on a GTX 670 to partner the Haswell.

 

I've just come back to FSX after being totally absorbed with ArmA2 for the past year :)


CRAIG MACPHEE • Core i5 4690K • GTX 460 1GB

pmdgswitch.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume nothing below 5 Ghz would render around 25-30 fps.

 

Not true as long as you are wise with your settings.


Scarlett Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sort a similar question. I noticed my 125 Gb SSD has only 11 GB free. I wonder what size the 777 file would be. But can I install an addon to the 1 TB HD even though FSX is on the SSD?


Paul Gugliotta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sort a similar question. I noticed my 125 Gb SSD has only 11 GB free. I wonder what size the 777 file would be. But can I install an addon to the 1 TB HD even though FSX is on the SSD?

 

Yes you can. Just copy fsx.exe to the other drive where you want it to be installed and you will be fine.


Büke Yolaçan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accept your computer limitations. FSX came in 2006 most of us got 4 fps at med settings and went back to fs2004 till 2010 and later when CPU became quads and hit 3.0 speeds which is acceptable with default settings without payware. In 2013, pedelum swing further more needing more overclocking and tweaking for certian outcomes. There is diminshing return effect in place here, and if you are in high tax bracket can buy top of the line computer hardware. When people say you need I7 oc at 4.8 to run FSX that is false its making compromises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get this. I run FSX on a dual core 2.66Ghz laptop with an NVIDIA 230M card, 4Gb RAM and a slow hard drive. It runs the PMDG 737NGX, REX, FTX SP4 and traffic at 15% just fine , It never falls below 20fps irrespective of weather, never has any CTDs but does not have any payware airports. It is as smooth as you like and the Orbx scenery detail is more than good enough for me with most sliders out to the right

 

How come a 3 year old machine seemingly runs it all better than the latest i5/i7 machines?

 

Gerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run FSX on a dual core 2.66Ghz laptop with an NVIDIA 230M card, 4Gb RAM and a slow hard drive. It runs the PMDG 737NGX, REX, FTX SP4 and traffic at 15% just fine , It never falls below 20fps irrespective of weather, never has any CTDs but does not have any payware airports. It is as smooth as you like and the Orbx scenery detail is more than good enough for me with most sliders out to the right

 

How come a 3 year old machine seemingly runs it all better than the latest i5/i7 machines?

Add-on airports decrease performance considerably. For most, cruise frame rates are acceptable, and dissatisfaction instead concerns performance at low altitudes and on the ground.

 

In general, perhaps people with weaker computers have lower expectations and are more modest with settings, thus allowing better performance?


Regards,
Owen
My YouTube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When people say you need I7 oc at 4.8 to run FSX that is false its making compromises.

 

Exactly - people that complain don't want to compromise one bit!


Boeing777_Banner_Betateam.jpg
 

- Luke Pabari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...