My PC has an Intel Core 2 Duo 3Ghz CPU, 4 Gb RAM, an HP w1907v monitor running at1440 x 900, and a GeForce GT 520 with 1Gb memory. And yes, I know it's inadequate!

 

I've just installed P3D and has re-install FSX from scratch for I thought I'd also re-install FS9 as well to get an out-of-the-box comparison with default settings and no add-ons. For  comparison I chose the common default Beechcraft Kingair and Heathrow airport.

 

I got the following frame rates with them limited to 60 fps:

 

FS9         60 fps

 

FSX  30 - 35 fps

 

P3D      4 - 6 fps 

lol is this a joke thread? 

Those results would be right in line with your hardware.

Those results would be right in line with your hardware.

 

 

Agree with that. It's no secret that FS9, nor is it any surprise that FS9 is always going to have a lot higher FPS than any of the other sim since it had a lot less going on under the hood than either FSX or P3D does. 

lol is this a joke thread? 

 

No - it's factual.

Doesn't surpise me at all, but what is the relevence?

 

A complex sim will need configuring and tuning.  

 

I bet you'd have even 'better' performance and frame rates from Elite on the Sinclair Spectrum huh?  

No - it's factual.

Have to admit it does seem like a strange post Gerry Your specs are incredibly low (especially your GPU) what did you expect?

 

I still have FS9 installed on my system, every major scenery addon and complex aircraft, I wouldn't run it with your specs.

Dang! I just finished a flight up and down the Thames and landed at Heathrow. We could have had a cup of tea and chatted! B)

 

 

But I do believe the thread has it's merits. I have seen comments where people who have been using FS9 for the duration of FSX's release now thinking that if they buy a DX11 video card will have some success running P3Dv2. This thread should serve as a warning to those people that older, less powerful systems will more than likely encounter performance issues.

 

Better to burst the bubble early on, then see someone spend $300 or more, only to end up disappointed.

As I  wrote earlier,. It simply sets out the facts -  whether other's like them or not.

As I  wrote earlier,. It simply sets out the facts -  whether other's like them or not.

 

 

Ok, so P3D doesn't run well on a 7 year old dual core and $45 budget video card.

 

Good to know.

Ok, so P3D doesn't run well on a 7 year old dual core and $45 budget video card.

 

 

in your enthusiasm for P3D you failed to understand my original post.

in your enthusiasm for P3D you failed to understand my original post.

 

If there's some deeper meaning besides the comparison then feel free to elaborate since no one else seems to get it either. 

If there's some deeper meaning besides the comparison then feel free to elaborate since no one else seems to get it either. 

 

 

I understand his post completely.

 

I think some are being a bit too sensitive. Nowhere in his post is a complaint or criticism.

I understand his post completely.

 

I think some are being a bit too sensitive. Nowhere in his post is a complaint or criticism.

 

 

And nowhere in my post was there any of that either. P3D obviously doesn't run well on a 7 year old dual core and a $45 video card compared with FSX or FS9. For those that wanted to try, now they know not to.

 

If there's some deeper meaning behind his comparison then trying to establish a crude linear relationship on his hardware, then I'm always down for a good discussion. 

 

 

Is there a reason for your hostile tone ?

 

If you find no worth in this thread, move on to another one. 

 

Probably best at this stage to alert a mod to this thread and let them decide, so that's what I'll do.