FSX-MS Nick Needham's PC tweaks

[Tomaz Drnovsek 440]

How do you know? How do you know such an approach has been successful?

I can't speak for others but in my case.. before I discovered NickN's guide my FSX ran like (insert random dirty word). After setting up my computer and FSX as per the guide it runs smooth. So, it works! OK that was years ago and since than I learned a lot but if I'd have to reinstall FSX I'd peek in the NickN's guide for sure.

 

Those guides are great tool for new people in our hobby (NickN, AVSIM, the one we can't mention here . For somebody who's not working with computers every day setting up FSX can be something nearly impossible to achieve if they don't have a shiny new computer that can be OCd to 4.5+ GHz.

[martin-w 3,234]

I can't speak for others but in my case.. before I discovered NickN's guide my FSX ran like (insert random dirty word). After setting up my computer and FSX as per the guide it runs smooth. So, it works!

Yes, there is benefit to some of his methods, and indeed the methods of others, but the question we seem to be asking in this thread, is whether the extremely intricate, highly complex methods suggested in the so called "bible" are necessary. Or whether a simpler approach is also effective. Is some or even much of the advice given superfluous. Given that advice given by others, for example Word Not Allowed's guides, and indeed the Avsim guide, are far simpler, but with just as many advocates, perhaps so.

 

My own experience certainly supports that notion.

[PaulDPearl 2]

I'm very well qualified too... but that doesn't mean that every facet of my advice is 100% valid, and should be followed in intricate detail.

 

 

 

 

How do you know? How do you know such an approach has been successful? Did you set up Windows, set up FSX using common sense, and paying attention to the well known tips for FSX installation, without following a particular gurus advice, and then test the installation in such a way that you could generate a meaningful measure of performance?

 

Did you then reinstall Windows, reinstall FSX following the advice of the guru to the letter. Did you then compare the two approaches so that you could definitively prove one approach was better than the other? Did you do that for all of your installations since 2007?

 

Bet you didn't, in which case you are simply having faith, faith that the approach is valid, without any real objective evidence. You just "feel" it's better, and feelings tell us nothing about the nature of reality. You have no idea if not following the advice would have been just as successful.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but gratitude for the so called FSX gurus out there, some of them have made a great contribution to our hobby. However, following someone's advice because they "have very good qualifications" or "seem to know what they are talking about", isn't a 100% fool proof approach.

 

My approach, after many years of messing about with this stuff, is to keep it simple. And that approach provides me with high frame rate, no stutters, acceptable eye candy and not a single OOM ever.

Wow.. butthurt techs over here.. 

 

 

I found this post searching for Nick's bible post (which is right here). 

 

I'm quite the tech myself and would probably get by just fine without, however, in helping my pilot father setup his system, this bible will be quite useful. I don't see a need to get into a pecker-measuring contest over it.. what's the big deal? So a guy has a long, very specific, somewhat overdone guide that just about anyone can pickup and use... how did that hurt you? 

 

NEWSFLASH _ ALL PC Tweak guides contain something that probably isn't perfect for EVERYONE. I never defrag but if I were having an issue that could be related to defragging, I would certainly do so. I like using Windows Aero features, but if I were running into a problem, all those bells and whistles are the first things that I shutdown.. 

 

Here's the deal... If you want a guide, there it is - it's gonna work and the best part is that it isn't 10 years old. If you know what you're doing, the guide will still help, if you DON'T know what you're doing, the guide is invaluable. 

 

I find it refreshing that a person with knowledge is willing to share - "use common sense" isn't going to help people who have little tech knowledge. 

[martin-w 3,234]

So a guy has a long, very specific, somewhat overdone guide that just about anyone can pickup and use... how did that hurt you?

It didn't, and your question is irrelevant.

 

The OP asked a question, our opinions, so we stated them. That's what happens on forums.

 

in helping my pilot father setup his system, this bible will be quite useful.

 

 

Irrelevant, nobody said it wasn't useful. as stated previously, "aspects" of it are very useful. I've referred to it myself.

 

 

 

 

NEWSFLASH _ ALL PC Tweak guides contain something that probably isn't perfect for EVERYONE.

 

 

We know, that's already been implied.

 

 

 

I don't see a need to get into a pecker-measuring contest over it.

 

 

 

Nobody has.

 

[N1125Y 22]

..just implemented Nick Win7 tweak, went by the letter & for some reason didn't achieve what expected, one of the things I noticed is the high consumption of memory, almost 3.4GB before launching FSX at all, the other things is installations of my HW modules and devices doesn't go a smooth as it use to before using his guidelines ..(-: 

 

Bless

 

Yair      

[Jim Young 2,356]

..just implemented Nick Win7 tweak, went by the letter & for some reason didn't achieve what expected, one of the things I noticed is the high consumption of memory, almost 3.4GB before launching FSX at all, the other things is installations of my HW modules and devices doesn't go a smooth as it use to before using his guidelines ..(-: 

 

Bless

 

Yair      

You have to set the parameters for your tweak that fits your computer system, not what NickN indicated in one of his guides.  Tweaks are bad.  Computer systems are very powerful today and there is no tweak that will give you any added performance enhancement over a powerful computer system (except for maybe a good overclock).  Tweaks were good when FSX was first released and up until the Sandy Bridge (i7) chipset.  Sandy Bridge was the first Intel CPU that made computers very powerful.

[N1125Y 22]

..well, my Rig (5years old) is considered as an ancient one. I decided to try and run FSX ES re-formating and re-installing win7 64Bit, took Nick Bible and tried to follow by the letter ..... not happy with the end results, so I guess I'll have to re-do and this time just clean install no fancy tweaks ,following some common sense and hope for good  

 

Tnx Jim for your response

 

Yair  

[simmerhead 885]

Well, it worked great for me on my rig, although I didn't follow it to the letter. The guide is a great resource.

[cianpars 1,158]

yep. I set my PC up in line with this guide some years ago, but I remember some of the tweaks not working so I deleted them.  My system is still broadly set up in line with the guide though and I've been happy with it for a very long time now.

 

IAN

[N1125Y 22]

...huhuhuuu ... sliders to the left ... end of discussion

[scianoir 610]

The best advice I found, amongst a vast number of posts on various websites,was to keep tweaks to a minimum, with little more than the highmemfix if possible. In my FS9 days, I tweaked my first installation to death, but a fresh reinstall with almost no tweaks on the same rig ran far more reliably and smoothly.

 

Bill

[james_2k 36]

You have to set the parameters for your tweak that fits your computer system, not what NickN indicated in one of his guides.  Tweaks are bad.  Computer systems are very powerful today and there is no tweak that will give you any added performance enhancement over a powerful computer system (except for maybe a good overclock).  Tweaks were good when FSX was first released and up until the Sandy Bridge (i7) chipset.  Sandy Bridge was the first Intel CPU that made computers very powerful.

sandy bridge was only an incremental upgrade from nehalem, which was, imo, the big leap from the older chips. had an i7 920 at 4.4 ghz for years and it was a beast!

[Jim Young 2,356]

sandy bridge was only an incremental upgrade from nehalem, which was, imo, the big leap from the older chips. had an i7 920 at 4.4 ghz for years and it was a beast!

Agree!

[james_2k 36]

just thinking about how well that 920 overclocked, from 2.66 to 4.4 is crazy, and something the reviews at stock don't show. 166% original speed! my 4770 is only about 137% of stock speed. and right on the edge (for my chip) @ 4.8ghz. if it overclocked the same as my 920 did id be packing 5.8ghz! 

 

on topic though, i agree with Jim, with fsx:se and p3d, no tweaks i have used have done anything for my performance at all! except things like fiddling with various combinations of vsync, frame limiter etc

[martin-w 3,234]

My old i7 920 that I sold a while back was a super chip. Like alien tech from Area 51. Amazing thing. About the only CPU I have even had that I could overclock like crazy without it complaining. An absolute golden CPU.