First, not all fly in big airports in big cities like New York or London with billions of buildings. Second, not all flyers care for airliners to fly and some prefer simple cessna 182 or p-51 ww2 bird using rudder and stick. Third, overclocking is not risk free even if intel warrenties and read forms here at other sites of people destroying 2k computers overclocking wrong or too much. Some here will make compromises to run fsx within its limits.

 

Ran fs2002, fs2004, fsx with add-ons majority of them do not require overclocks to run. Outside this form vast majority do not overclock fsx or even use intel ivy or haswell cpu to run it. All know fsx is single threaded and likes overclocks, but some of us know overclock are not risk free.

 

Overclocking for more frames is stupid reason as 3.4 speed to 4.8 about 30% more speed does not matter if you are at 7fps at 3.4 and 10 fps 4.8 neither is flyable the setting would need to be reduced to bring fps to 20fps or at least 15 fps.

 

Yet, think overclocking to reduce stuttering and reduce fps spikes is useful. Not bashing overclocking just not risk free need techincal knowledge to do it right, and benefit from overclocking is oversold not needed to run fsx with decent settings.

 

I agree, we all fly different and being content is truly something to be appreciated.

 

Ok, since you don't want to talk extremes, and while you talk about being "being required to run" "stuck at 10FPS" or "15 and 20s"...etc no need to be stuck there!

 

Surely you do know that we can now easily fly rock solid locked 30's with max sliders full right, superb graphic settings and filtering in nicely filled out terrain, big cities flying Cessna etc, don't you? And that's with things like FSGlobal Mesh, UTX, FTXG and a nice Carenado model.

 

You do know that to Overclock now most Bios's come with pre-settings >one click and you are there, and that putting on a decent CPU cooler including Thermal Paste is as easy as changing your car's air-cleaner with hundreds if not thousands of Utube videos to help you.

And No, I believe you are wrong, I'll bet a majority overclock their systems where ever and what ever FSX forum you go to.

 

And I certainly can go along with no need to overclock, if you have a decent proc like a Haswell I-5 4670 stcock 3.8 turbo still eats any 5GHZ AMD for breakfast in FSX.

Its really not that poor, it is made to last and not dry out like what is being suggested to use when delided (Liquid Pro), it is just that it does not compare to the solder method as previously used.

 

I think sometimes it is more of a problem with the gap between the chip and the HIS, but yeah I wished they used solder. 

 

Liquid Pro does harden, but it's part of the bonding process that happens with the surface you apply it to. In the manual it states that this will happen after 48 hours, further improving thermal conductivity. Normal thermal compounds like MX-4 will dry out after while and is not recommended between the die and IHS, but absolutely should be used between the CPU and cooler where this is not a problem.

 

The stock TIM application is disgustingly bad. When I delidded my 4770K, while lifting the IHS, all the TIM stuck to the inside of the IHS while the CPU die itself almost looked clean. It had barely made contact with the thick gob of thermal paste hanging from the IHS. I think that during manufacturing, they just put some TIM on the inside of the IHS before plonking it down. They never apply it properly. As for why?

 

1. It reduces manufacturing costs. Even if just by a tiny bit, it adds up when selling millions of these CPUs.

2. It works fine at the stock 3.5 GHz that the CPU ships at and is designed for

3. With AMD no longer competitive in the high end, Intel can get away with this. People have no choice but to buy them anyway.

First of all fsx just has a bad engine, remember we are dealing with a 2006 product, and putting new technology in it every day.  Plain and simple fsx was coded badly.

 

The key to running fsx, is to get it running, "Smoothly", you need the right processor, motherboard, memory video card etc, etc, and a bit of tweaking, to have fsx run properly.

 

We can overclock and overclock, but having a smooth sim to me is the key, and not a bunch of microstutters

 

I have come to the realization  over the years with FSX, because we are dealing with a bad engine, that has been coded badily from 2006, yes with fsx will still have many great addons, but eventually like everything else, will reach its ultimate limitations.

It's my understanding that it wasn't actually badly coded at all. It was simply coded with single core CPUs in mind, and the belief that clock speeds would continue to rise steadily.

What objective basis is there for the observation that FSX is a bad engine, and is badly coded? It seems to me, as was discussed earlier, that FSX's engine was, and is still, revolutionary, based upon what I have read. FSX is an incredibly complex simulation that is hampered primarily by the limitations of the technology in existence at the time of its creation, not some inherent flaw in its coding. In fact, it seems that even newer competitors have not been able to replicate all of the elements that FSX simulates, despite the advantages of time and technology. It may be limited compared to the potential of newer competitors, but that limitation seems to be more related to the advantage of more modern architecture than deficient coding.

Forgive the repeat of part of an old post, but - I'll bet $100 that that FSX would be absolutely rock stable, if it were not for folks adding more and more products that are very 'slightly' incompatible and untested with each other. In the real world of IT – every system is spawned from a development system before it gets to the production box. It’s tested and tested and tested again, before sign-off. The software is certified by the manufacturer, to run in this environment without fail, and at a specific performance level. Likewise the hardware. There is nothing in the real IT world that is anything like a home computer.

 

In the retail world there are some products that are more than 'slightly' incompatible or unstable when used with each other. "Bad coding" - coming from an application user is the last thing that is at fault in 99% of FSX issues. Developers will tell you - they simply cannot test for all environments: there are a zillion combinations of hardware, firmware, addons, OS compatibility, configurations, drivers, interfaces, tolerances that change with age, programming languages - and written languages, too, and everyone expects their cheap as possible - built for the retail market pc is never going to suffer any issue for any of those reasons. All electronic devices will fail sooner or later. The electrical characteristics of all electronic devices changes over time. But don’t blame ‘bad coding’. If there’s any blame – blame it to circumstance. Accept that a combination of low 5 volt bus power, in combination with a little overheating, a slightly unstable overclock, a poor quality motherboard, and a non-ecc memory dimm that skips every now because it needs .02 of a volt more, and a operating system that the app was never certified to run on. Don’t just blame it on one simple tidy problem - a bunch of useless Microsoft programmers that didn't know their asses from a hole in the ground - right? I’ll also bet that every member of the ACES team would be mad as hell hearing anybody saying that about their hard work. The Microsoft standards for programmers are probably among the highest in the world, given the vast product lines which they produce.

 

 

 

It’s very easy to be an armchair expert in this hobby. The forums are full of "Most likely".. "You could try...", "maybe it's..", "Get rid of Bufferp...", "Delete your..."

This is why the devs steer clear of these forums. (Some don't, to their peril - and you know who they are - and it's always an unpleasant discussion that most often gets locked by the mods). 

 

And it's not "wrong" or "not necessary" or "a waste of time" or "dangerous" or "dumb" to overclock to a stable 5 gig. Do it right the first time by following the manufacturer's guides for manual overclocking, and keep it cool. FSX DOES respond very, very well - yes, with even that extra 200MHz - run smoother, and with higher detail, greater LOD, better water, and so on. And it does it using DX10, too. 

Hrrrmmmph.

 

OK rant over, back to normal.  :lol: 

Liquid Pro does harden, but it's part of the bonding process that happens with the surface you apply it to. In the manual it states that this will happen after 48 hours, further improving thermal conductivity. Normal thermal compounds like MX-4 will dry out after while and is not recommended between the die and IHS, but absolutely should be used between the CPU and cooler where this is not a problem.

 

The stock TIM application is disgustingly bad. When I delidded my 4770K, while lifting the IHS, all the TIM stuck to the inside of the IHS while the CPU die itself almost looked clean. It had barely made contact with the thick gob of thermal paste hanging from the IHS. I think that during manufacturing, they just put some TIM on the inside of the IHS before plonking it down. They never apply it properly. As for why?

 

1. It reduces manufacturing costs. Even if just by a tiny bit, it adds up when selling millions of these CPUs.

2. It works fine at the stock 3.5 GHz that the CPU ships at and is designed for

3. With AMD no longer competitive in the high end, Intel can get away with this. People have no choice but to buy them anyway.

 

Mostly agree with you, but as for CLLU/P, just google "pumping out" or drying out, Been there.

You ever tried to clean that stuff off? Not to fond of it just for that alone.

IMHO its great stuff for temporary benching and whatnot but I can't recommend it for the long hall.

 

Cheers!

Enjoy!

Forgive the repeat of part of an old post, but - I'll bet $100 that that FSX would be absolutely rock stable, if it were not for folks adding more and more products that are very 'slightly' incompatible and untested with each other. In the real world of IT – every system is spawned from a development system before it gets to the production box. It’s tested and tested and tested again, before sign-off. The software is certified by the manufacturer, to run in this environment without fail, and at a specific performance level. Likewise the hardware. There is nothing in the real IT world that is anything like a home computer.

 

In the retail world there are some products that are more than 'slightly' incompatible or unstable when used with each other. "Bad coding" - coming from an application user is the last thing that is at fault in 99% of FSX issues. Developers will tell you - they simply cannot test for all environments: there are a zillion combinations of hardware, firmware, addons, OS compatibility, configurations, drivers, interfaces, tolerances that change with age, programming languages - and written languages, too, and everyone expects their cheap as possible - built for the retail market pc is never going to suffer any issue for any of those reasons. All electronic devices will fail sooner or later. The electrical characteristics of all electronic devices changes over time. But don’t blame ‘bad coding’. If there’s any blame – blame it to circumstance. Accept that a combination of low 5 volt bus power, in combination with a little overheating, a slightly unstable overclock, a poor quality motherboard, and a non-ecc memory dimm that skips every now because it needs .02 of a volt more, and a operating system that the app was never certified to run on. Don’t just blame it on one simple tidy problem - a bunch of useless Microsoft programmers that didn't know their asses from a hole in the ground - right? I’ll also bet that every member of the ACES team would be mad as hell hearing anybody saying that about their hard work. The Microsoft standards for programmers are probably among the highest in the world, given the vast product lines which they produce.

 

 

 

It’s very easy to be an armchair expert in this hobby. The forums are full of "Most likely".. "You could try...", "maybe it's..", "Get rid of Bufferp...", "Delete your..."

This is why the devs steer clear of these forums. (Some don't, to their peril - and you know who they are - and it's always an unpleasant discussion that most often gets locked by the mods). 

 

And it's not "wrong" or "not necessary" or "a waste of time" or "dangerous" or "dumb" to overclock to a stable 5 gig. Do it right the first time by following the manufacturer's guides for manual overclocking, and keep it cool. FSX DOES respond very, very well - yes, with even that extra 200MHz - run smoother, and with higher detail, greater LOD, better water, and so on. And it does it using DX10, too. 

Hrrrmmmph.

 

OK rant over, back to normal.  :lol: 

 

+1 Exactly 

Paul J, on 21 Aug 2013 - 1:51 PM, said:

And it's not "wrong" or "not necessary" or "a waste of time" or "dangerous" or "dumb" to overclock to a stable 5 gig. Do it right the first time by following the manufacturer's guides for manual overclocking, and keep it cool. FSX DOES respond very, very well - yes, with even that extra 200MHz - run smoother, and with higher detail, greater LOD, better water, and so on. And it does it using DX10, too.

 

Hrrrmmmph.

Another +1 vote

 

I purchased a i7 4770k and a $90 air "super cooler" so I can hit a great OC (ended up with 4.5Ghz); all of this solely in the name of FSX. And boy, am I happy with the results in FSX! Even if that OC happens to shave 3 years from a potential 10 years of CPU life (which I doubt), I will still be 100% satisfied since I got at least 7 years of stellar performance that I otherwise would not have had. BTW, when my computer is not running FSX, it's booted back into stock bios settings.

I agree it wasn't badly coded, but perhaps FSX wasn't designed to handle all this fancy stuff we've been throwing at it. Such as 4096 textures, highly detailed aircraft (737 NGX), etc at super fluid settings (60 FPS) with all the sliders maxed. I'm sure you might be able to do that with the default aircraft (or default config, no add-ons), but not the stuff that has come out since 2006.

Then I would already move on to do something else!  7GHz is not going to happen, massive more cores yes.  The kind of advance FSX can't take advantage of.  What Intel gives, the add-ons take it away LOL.

My performance with an I7 3930k overclocked to 4.6 was very disappointing after upgrading from an older pc running FS9, I was shocked to struggle to stay above 20 fps in the ngx at a detailed airport like fsdt JFK or LAX.

I've kinda come to terms with it now....

 

 

I have been overclocking since 386/486 days and have NEVER ruined a CPU

 

Me too, but my first and last X processor, QX9650, by running it at the absolute maximum Vcore for fairly short periods w/ excellent cooling.   If I recall I had the thing for about 14 months or so, overclocking to 4.2Ghz for maybe 10% of it's lifespan, and around 3.8 for the rest of it.  It died suddenly and I don't think there was an overclocking protection plan around at that time.  I replaced it w/ a Q9650 and kept that at 3.72Ghz just because I didn't want to risk killing another chip.

The engineer in me prescribes the multi-pronged approach to problem solving... Throwing more clock cycles at the problem is certain a proven approach to performance, but it frustrates me that 1) DX10 (off-loading to tthe GPU) and 2) Windows 8 (better memory management and smaller OS memory footprint) get so little attention or respect. On Windows 8 I have NEVER experienced an OOM. Just sayin' ....

Mostly agree with you, but as for CLLU/P, just google "pumping out" or drying out, Been there.

You ever tried to clean that stuff off? Not to fond of it just for that alone.

IMHO its great stuff for temporary benching and whatnot but I can't recommend it for the long hall.

 

Cheers!

Enjoy!

 

I found results saying it doesn't dry out like other thermal compounds, and I got results saying it does dry out. Gotta love the Internet...

 

Personally I think CLP is better than CLU in this regard. CLU seems to become white and powdery when drying out, and it takes longer for it to dry, where as CLP hardens in a few days and forms more of a metal-like a bond. CLP also has higher scores in user reviews.

 

I would never use CLP/CLU between the heatsink and CPU however. The gains over MX-4 and similar are small, it literally eats aluminium, and like you say, it's very hard to remove.

 

 

The engineer in me prescribes the multi-pronged approach to problem solving... Throwing more clock cycles at the problem is certain a proven approach to performance, but it frustrates me that 1) DX10 (off-loading to tthe GPU) and 2) Windows 8 (better memory management and smaller OS memory footprint) get so little attention or respect. On Windows 8 I have NEVER experienced an OOM. Just sayin' ....

 

I don't doubt what you're saying, but it can't be because of Windows 8. The problem is not memory, it's "Virtual Address Space" or VAS for short. With a 32-bit application, VAS is limited to 4GB regardless of whether you use Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8. Closing down background applications or using a "leaner" operating system will not free up VAS within the FSX.exe process. You don't even need to have 4GB of actual RAM - as long as your have a paging file set up, you can still use up to 4GB of VAS within FSX without errors (though the constant paging to disk would cause massive stutters).

 

 

On Windows 8 I have NEVER experienced an OOM. Just sayin' ....

 

Hehe, no OOM here either, but that was w/ Vista 64...