FSX 7 Years Old Now.

[jonss1948 20]

Hi!

 

When I first raised this topic, my thoughts were on things like sli and crossfire. I understand that this particular bound is useless in FSX. High-end card Yes but do I need sli?

 

On the subject of cpu's: It will be a 6 core (Intel). Replacing my current Q9650X. This is probably my last kick at the tin Computer-wise'. It's almost gotta outlast me.

 

Jon

 

...and thank you to all who have commented and advised.

[jonss1948 20]

Sorry for being pedantic, but FSX is actually 6.3 years old.

I stand corrected. How do I change the topic header? The shame.

 

Jon

 

To answer your direct question, buy the best system you can afford...period. But most importantly, ensure your MoBo will support an upgrade or two over time. Do not attempt to build a FSX specific computer. As others posters have stated above, there is no such thing. You are better off building a good computer that will serve you or many years in all the other things you might want to use your computer for. This will give you a computer you can also enjoy FSX on, but perhaps expand to another sim if one ever comes along worth getting into.

Good advice. I remember 30 or so (I'm sure someone will check the date) years ago, I had a Commodore 128. Actually fooled myself and my wife that we were going to use it for Household accounts. But 'Precious' had other plans.

 

Jon

[HiFlyer 9,358]

Almost 7! Seems like just yesterday it was only a little Piper Cub! Wheres the party? What are gonna get it!?

 

If we wanna go halfsies on a gift, I'm down..........

 

Uhmmmmmm......... Is it a boy, or a girl? :blush:

[jonss1948 20]

Just when I was thinking of moving from FS9 to FSX I see threads like this. FS9 runs flawless and fluid these days with nothing more to do than jump in and fly. Outside of a scenery upgrade (that would actually run slower than my current setup) there's really no incentive to switch. FSX has better water and clearer ground textures but that's about it over FS9.75. I love the new add-ons coming out for FSX but if the experience is not fluid or you can't finally today see FSX in it's maxed out glory what's the point? On top of that if I want to see what a great looking sim looks like, runs, and takes full advantage of today's hardware I load up 'Flight' (the gutted FS11). I hope Microsoft rethinks their development of Flight Simulator (which I actually think will happen at some point), we can then have a true 64bit version that moves us all forward once and for all. :unsure:

I run fs9, too. I'm loving it as I have many payware add-ons and the whole program is max'd. I read one of the justifications for not porting to 64 bit being: There are only 100,000 flight simmers. Which particular fundamental orifice did they pull that figure from?

 

Jon

 

Almost 7! Seems like just yesterday it was only a little Piper Cub! Wheres the party? What are gonna get it!?

 

If we wanna go halfsies on a gift, I'm down..........

 

Uhmmmmmm......... Is it a boy, or a girl? :blush:

I'm in if it we can get it a coat of 64 bits.

 

Give it another 5-7 years of hardware development and I think you should be able to max out everything with any add-on and retain 30 fps min (overclocked of course). However, the real limit is going to be FSX is a 32bit application ... what this limit effectively does is cap how many 3rd party add-ons you can have ... in fact, it's already like that now where one has to be VERY selective about what 3rd party products they use together to stay away from out-of-memory errors.

 

Although the P3D folks "might" be working on DX11 version -- everyone seems to think they ARE working on a DX11 version but everything I've read (if you read the words carefully) has not gone as far as saying "we're coding DX11 support in Version 2.0 of P3D" ... but a lot of people seem to think they are??

 

FSX still has many years left in it, but there is a real cap on how many 3rd party add-ons you can have installed at the same time ... and this is obviously not good for 3rd party content. However, as CPU/Motherboard/RAM/GPUs continue to improve this effectively moves up the LCD user (Lowest common denominator) ... ya know, the user that thinks everything should work maxed out on a 5 year old system. For example today's i7 3970X is around $1000 and can run FSX very well ... as new CPUs come out, the 3970X will drop in price so that it becomes affordable for those on a budget (LCD users) which will revive the LCD user and get them motivated to use FSX and buy 3rd party products.

 

It's a slow process of dragging along the LCD user, but once that user catches up, we will all be captive to the limits of a 32bit address space. And like I said, moving FSX to 64bit WILL break any and all 32bit DLL's unless some type of IPC is used to communicate with the 32bit DLL as a separate thread -- not great (read slow) but would give 3rd party devs time to update to native 64bit DLLs.

 

But as I understand it for FSX, there is some direct assembler code that is 32bit (this is usually done for speed) ... not many really good Assembler programmers left in the world so figuring out that code and moving it to C++ or to 64bit Assembler could be the big hold up as to why FSX wasn't moved to 64bit a long time ago. My hunch is that FSX Assembler code has been around for a long time probably going back to 2000 and is a key code chunk -- so much for OOP -- do what I say not what I do .

 

Cheers, Rob.

Wouldn't it be absolutely thoopa if M$ made all the code open source...out of the goodness of their hearts...as a gesture of goodwill...to the FS Community. Loooooong silence.

 

Jon

[jonss1948 20]

If ACES Studios would have been able to push a software update (a hypotherical Service Pack 3) to make it truly 64-bit and DX10 compatible, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I really enjoy FSX and run it with DX10 preview since it runs smoother, despite some add-ons not being compatible. In theory, my system should max FSX out, but with the older code, it's very difficult. P3D does not seem to have our community in mind with its development plans, and I don't know if Lockheed would want to separate P3D into separate training and gaming versions. The current Lockheed policy makes it impossible for great developers like PMDG to get involved. Just my humble opinion...

Hands-up everyone here who thinks Lockheed Martin are Elitist lapdogs of the Proletariat?

 

Jon

[pegger74 18]

Hands up everyone who had to google the meanin of "Proletariat"....{raises hand}

 

Nice one!

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Just when I was thinking of moving from FS9 to FSX I see threads like this. FS9 runs flawless and fluid these days with nothing more to do than jump in and fly. Outside of a scenery upgrade (that would actually run slower than my current setup) there's really no incentive to switch. FSX has better water and clearer ground textures but that's about it over FS9.75. I love the new add-ons coming out for FSX but if the experience is not fluid or you can't finally today see FSX in it's maxed out glory what's the point? On top of that if I want to see what a great looking sim looks like, runs, and takes full advantage of today's hardware I load up 'Flight' (the gutted FS11). I hope Microsoft rethinks their development of Flight Simulator (which I actually think will happen at some point), we can then have a true 64bit version that moves us all forward once and for all. :unsure:

 

It's hard to base what might be or might not be the experience you'll get off of what is posted here about FSX. Since the FSX forum is used mainly as a support forum amoung other things, its expected or normal to see numerous post about CTD's, blurry this or that, why are my FPS low etc. More people use this type of forum talking about how to make it run better than comming here talking about how great it is or how great it runs.

 

Take me as an example, i've been here since 2003, was a prior FS9 user and have had nothing but positive experience with FSX. Granted I have bought a few addon airports thru the years that were not so good and caused some FPS problems that might not have been as apparent in the FS9 version, and I had an issue with a new video card driver a few months ago that caused CTD's but was fixed after a day by using a different driver suite. Aside from that, my install of FSX runs as smooth as silk using the latest payware addons if I set the sliders reasonably for the type of flying I am doing. Does that mean when flying the NGX I have every slider pegged to the right? No, of couse not, but even with the autogen turned down a few notches or scenery complexity at Dense from Extremely Dense, it is still a lot better looking than FS9 and performs great. Now if I want to fly a nice g/a aircraft that is less of an FPS/RAM hog then I can raise the autogen and some other stuff to match the performance needed and still get more than ample FPS and performance.

 

The thing that you see a lot of times here regarding FSX is that a lot of new comers get FSX, load it up on a new state of the art system or older sytem, peg the sliders right and check every box and then complain about FPS or OOM's. A lot of times they don't know how to manager their problem sceneries by mipping them or removing problem files that cause low FPS, their computers or OS may have underlying issues than manifest themselfs in FSX, they try to run numerous other programs in the back ground like internet browers, watch movies, chat, etc at the same time, or any other numerous problems.

 

Think about it this way,if FSX was really that bad and most people hated it or had problems with it, most would have already ditched it and returned to FS9. But they haven't and that's why some developer have already stopped developing for it and others will most likely in the future. If it was as bad as you think the devs would have stopped FSX developement and returned only to FS9.

 

Bottom line is until you either upgrade your rig (dont know what you have since its not listed in your profile) and get FSX unless you already have a new copy of it since you beta'd it, then you'll never know how how it is if you keep basing your opinion off of what you read in the forums. Yes, you can't set every slider right like you might in FS9 for all aircraft and forget about it and its no secret that it works better on new equipment, but until you try and stop reading about the problems some people have you'll never get to see for yourself. I've posted many pics thru the years with the FPS counter showing at places like JFK and lot of AI showing 25+ on my old C2D rig, smooth as silk 99% of the time. Yes, screen shots can't display the fluidity so it's up to you whether to believe me or not and it might take you a little while to tweak the .cfg and mip/fix some rogue sceneries that cause issues and get it working to your satisfaction. In FSX you need to manage your expectations and set sliders reasonably for the type of flying you do. Remember that FSX even at normal autogen and normal other settings still draws more objects than FS9 does in most places at max settings and gives the same FPS. It not until you max those things and run extreme resolution clouds and other 4096/2048 texture sets that you might start running into problems. Keep everything at 1024 with reasonable settings and you'll get great FPS, no OOM's and it will still look better than FS9's ground and water textures. 25 to 30 FPS in FSX feels about the same as 50 to 60 FPS in FS9 from my experience.

 

Personally, I don't care if you get or use FSX at all, but I hate to see you waste time and not try just because you read what are often support topics here. You might get it setup and think, damn I should have done this years ago I wish I hadn't waited. Or maybe not, maybe you will get it peg everything right and say darn the FPS suck I will just go back to FS9. Either way, dont base what other peoples problems are off of what may or may not happen in your case or keep it from doing what you want to do. If you want to get FSX then do it and see how it goes, maybe you'll love it. If not, return to FS9 and then you wont have to spend anymore time considering it like you have been for the last few years everytime you post about it.

[Dillon 2,197]

I hate to see you waste time and not try just because you read what are often support topics here. You might get it setup and think, damn I should have done this years ago I wish I hadn't waited. Or maybe not, maybe you will get it peg everything right and say darn the FPS suck I will just go back to FS9. Either way, dont base what other peoples problems are off of what may or may not happen in your case or keep it from doing what you want to do. If you want to get FSX then do it and see how it goes, maybe you'll love it. If not, return to FS9 and then you wont have to spend anymore time considering it like you have been for the last few years everytime you post about it.

 

Great post and thanks. I'll make the change and try FSX once I have the money for an i7 or better machine. I want a high end video card with as much memory I can get on it and no less than 16gigs of Ram in the machine. From there I know I'll be able to run FSX with decent settings. The biggest installs for me will be Global Scenery (hopefully Orbix), Orbix scenery in general (Alaska), only the best add-on aircraft (I don't need every add-on out there only the proven ones), Rex, and Activesky. It will be a process in getting all my major airports purchased for locations around the world but that will be an ongoing process. Outside of Auckland I have every major airport in the world covered in FS9. For the more detailed environment I want to do things right and have a good running experience that's why I've waited so long.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

I want a high end video card with as much memory I can get on it and no less than 16gigs of Ram in the machine. From there I know I'll be able to run FSX with decent settings.

 

Be careful with getting a video card with more than 2GB's of memory. I've heard two different things regarding that. Umberto at FSDT says that a GPU with more than 2GB of RAM will work ok if you fly in DX10 preview mode as it will not consume as much VAS, but its (DX10) not compatible with some addon a/c and sceneries, but that running a GPU with more than 2GB of RAM in DX9 mode consumes to much VAS and can cause OOM's. Personally I don't think you would notice any difference in performance running a GPU with more the 2GB of RAM in FSX since its 32bit and you dont want to the GPU to 1/2 your available memory. I'm running an older GTX250 which is old by todays standards and compared to a 560ti (another older one), I didn't notice any difference in performance. Having said that, if you play other "games" on the PC then the bigger better video card will probably suite them better. FSX being only 32bit, you will probably be fine with 8GB RAM and something like a 2GB GTX680, unless of course you do video/photo editing or play other game which will benefit from 16GB of RAM.

[Dillon 2,197]

 

 

Be careful with getting a video card with more than 2GB's of memory. I've heard two different things regarding that. Umberto at FSDT says that a GPU with more than 2GB of RAM will work ok if you fly in DX10 preview mode as it will not consume as much VAS, but its (DX10) not compatible with some addon a/c and sceneries, but that running a GPU with more than 2GB of RAM in DX9 mode consumes to much VAS and can cause OOM's. Personally I don't think you would notice any difference in performance running a GPU with more the 2GB of RAM in FSX since its 32bit and you dont want to the GPU to 1/2 your available memory. I'm running an older GTX250 which is old by todays standards and compared to a 560ti (another older one), I didn't notice any difference in performance. Having said that, if you play other "games" on the PC then the bigger better video card will probably suite them better. FSX being only 32bit, you will probably be fine with 8GB RAM and something like a 2GB GTX680, unless of course you do video/photo editing or play other game which will benefit from 16GB of RAM.

 

Thanks for the tip. By the time I'm ready to dive in in another year I might not have a choice but to use a video card with more ram and upwards of 16gigs for on board PC memory.

[jonss1948 20]

 

It's hard to base what might be or might not be the experience you'll get off of what is posted here about FSX. Since the FSX forum is used mainly as a support forum amoung other things, its expected or normal to see numerous post about CTD's, blurry this or that, why are my FPS low etc. More people use this type of forum talking about how to make it run better than comming here talking about how great it is or how great it runs.

 

Take me as an example, i've been here since 2003, was a prior FS9 user and have had nothing but positive experience with FSX. Granted I have bought a few addon airports thru the years that were not so good and caused some FPS problems that might not have been as apparent in the FS9 version, and I had an issue with a new video card driver a few months ago that caused CTD's but was fixed after a day by using a different driver suite. Aside from that, my install of FSX runs as smooth as silk using the latest payware addons if I set the sliders reasonably for the type of flying I am doing. Does that mean when flying the NGX I have every slider pegged to the right? No, of couse not, but even with the autogen turned down a few notches or scenery complexity at Dense from Extremely Dense, it is still a lot better looking than FS9 and performs great. Now if I want to fly a nice g/a aircraft that is less of an FPS/RAM hog then I can raise the autogen and some other stuff to match the performance needed and still get more than ample FPS and performance.

 

The thing that you see a lot of times here regarding FSX is that a lot of new comers get FSX, load it up on a new state of the art system or older sytem, peg the sliders right and check every box and then complain about FPS or OOM's. A lot of times they don't know how to manager their problem sceneries by mipping them or removing problem files that cause low FPS, their computers or OS may have underlying issues than manifest themselfs in FSX, they try to run numerous other programs in the back ground like internet browers, watch movies, chat, etc at the same time, or any other numerous problems.

 

Think about it this way,if FSX was really that bad and most people hated it or had problems with it, most would have already ditched it and returned to FS9. But they haven't and that's why some developer have already stopped developing for it and others will most likely in the future. If it was as bad as you think the devs would have stopped FSX developement and returned only to FS9.

 

Bottom line is until you either upgrade your rig (dont know what you have since its not listed in your profile) and get FSX unless you already have a new copy of it since you beta'd it, then you'll never know how how it is if you keep basing your opinion off of what you read in the forums. Yes, you can't set every slider right like you might in FS9 for all aircraft and forget about it and its no secret that it works better on new equipment, but until you try and stop reading about the problems some people have you'll never get to see for yourself. I've posted many pics thru the years with the FPS counter showing at places like JFK and lot of AI showing 25+ on my old C2D rig, smooth as silk 99% of the time. Yes, screen shots can't display the fluidity so it's up to you whether to believe me or not and it might take you a little while to tweak the .cfg and mip/fix some rogue sceneries that cause issues and get it working to your satisfaction. In FSX you need to manage your expectations and set sliders reasonably for the type of flying you do. Remember that FSX even at normal autogen and normal other settings still draws more objects than FS9 does in most places at max settings and gives the same FPS. It not until you max those things and run extreme resolution clouds and other 4096/2048 texture sets that you might start running into problems. Keep everything at 1024 with reasonable settings and you'll get great FPS, no OOM's and it will still look better than FS9's ground and water textures. 25 to 30 FPS in FSX feels about the same as 50 to 60 FPS in FS9 from my experience.

 

Personally, I don't care if you get or use FSX at all, but I hate to see you waste time and not try just because you read what are often support topics here. You might get it setup and think, damn I should have done this years ago I wish I hadn't waited. Or maybe not, maybe you will get it peg everything right and say darn the FPS suck I will just go back to FS9. Either way, dont base what other peoples problems are off of what may or may not happen in your case or keep it from doing what you want to do. If you want to get FSX then do it and see how it goes, maybe you'll love it. If not, return to FS9 and then you wont have to spend anymore time considering it like you have been for the last few years everytime you post about it.

This is very good advice and I heed it. I think I have mentioned before that this new computer will almost need to outlast me, so I'm sorta going the Sandybridge X series 6 core. Expensive, I know but this is about the only thing I spend my entertainment budget on. Carroll Shelby, creator of the AC Cobra and Ford GT40 had a motto : :There is no substitute for, litres". That's why the 6 core. I can't afford to drink, smoke or live. So I may as well have something that will make my pastime more pleasurable. I do agree that in many things we must be cautious and judicious but this time I'm just going to wing it.

 

Jon