it's almost 10 year's old and its sooo demanding like 10 years ago how could you run if if my modern laptop thats only 1 years old can't run it at minimal?????

 

 

 

 

if you want my specs

 

1.8 ghz i3 dual core two hyperthreated cores 3mb of Cache

8 gb of ram

2176mb integrated graphics card

windows 8.1 current

Unfortunately your 'modern' laptop is way below specs to run FSX properly, you would probably be better off with FS 2004, and even that is iffy with those specs. Sorry for the bad news.

Unfortunately your 'modern' laptop is way below specs to run FSX properly, you would probably be better off with FS 2004, and even that is iffy with those specs. 

How did people run it 10 years ago? computer's were like 10x worst then and fs9 its only 450 mhz Cpu and fsx is 1.0 so why can't I run fsx?

How did people run it 10 years ago?

 

LOL, they didn't. Not really. It was incredibly demanding back then as well. If you're intent on actually using it, I'd suggest a system that's not designed to be a portable workstation.

 

Then you'll be able to achieve results like this.

Back then I had better cpu specs on my desktop than you have on your current laptop, and that was not close to being considered "high-end". It worked okay for me if I was realistic in my expectations and config settings.

It's a good and valid question.

 

I bought FSX when it was first released (I had been running FS9).  I ran FSX on a 486 computer.  Back then I was only flying default, general aviation aircraft in MSFS, and had the sliders turned almost all the way down.

 

Today I run a 4770k (in Turbo, but no overclocking) on an NVIDIA 760 and for the first time in my flight sim hisory I have a computer that will handle FSX wonderfully.  Before this rig I ran an i7-930 and then an i7-960 and while FSX ran very well it's a night and day difference with the i7-4770k - Total FSX Nirvana - No exaggeration!.

 

 

Best of luck to you!

 

 

Back then I had better cpu specs on my desktop than you have on your current laptop, and that was not close to being considered "high-end". It worked okay for me if I was realistic in my expectations and config settings.

 

I was thinking the same thing!  I am sure my PC 10 years ago had better specs then his laptop!

 

Turn down settings.. no need to have everything at 100 percent.

Turn off or down AI settings

Turn off water.

Do the tweaks.  Spend more time tweaking then flying.

 

Do a 10 hour 777 flight, then OOM 5 minutes before landing.

 

I think I am going off topic now!

When I ran FSX on 2007 with my quad core Intel Q6600, overclocked to 3GHz, still much faster than your 'modern' 1.8GHz dual core laptop cpu.

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/microsoft-flight-simulator-x-review/1900-6159886/

 

This 2006 review puts things into perspective. The main complaint was performance and the reviewer struggles with a default installation. Fast forward 8 years and now everyone talks about how smooth default is, with crazy high fps even higher than their monitor refresh rate.

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/microsoft-flight-simulator-x-review/1900-6159886/

 

This 2006 review puts things into perspective. The main complaint was performance and the reviewer struggles with a default installation. Fast forward 8 years and now everyone talks about how smooth default is, with crazy high fps even higher than their monitor refresh rate.

 

And yet we still spend $3000 to make this thing run !!

You need a computer that can be overclocked to 4ghz and a newish graphics card from Nvidia to properly run fsx. When it first came out, you needed the best video card and overclocked cpu around just to get smooth but low frame rates. You can build a budget pc at 600-1000usd

Computers haven't really evolved that much in the last ten years (in regards to specs that would make FSX "fly"). The need for CPU speed isn't as big an issue for modern 64 bit multi-threaded software as it is for older less efficient software like FSX. Also, FSX doesn't reap the benefits of the more modern DX11 graphics standard. That is why I switched to P3D as soon as it was available. Tessellation really makes a difference, and you'll get maximum rewards from an up to date GPU.

 

 

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/116561-the-death-of-cpu-scaling-from-one-core-to-many-and-why-were-still-stuck

Your CPU with integrated graphics is going to chug regardless, but what drive have you got in your laptop?

 

If it has the usual 5400rpm SATA drive, replace it with an SSD.

 

 

1.8 ghz i3 dual core two hyperthreated cores 3mb of Cache

8 gb of ram

2176mb integrated graphics card

windows 8.1 current

 

That machine is always going to struggle, FS9 would be a better choice and if that was my machine that is what I would be running.

 

 

Computers haven't really evolved that much in the last ten years (in regards to specs that would make FSX "fly")

 

My experience tells a different story, when first moved to FSX I was running an OC E6600 and it struggled.

I moved to an E8600 @ 4Ghz and it was better, Today I am running an i52500K @ 4.6 and FSX flys.

1.8 ghz i3 dual core two hyperthreated cores 3mb of Cache

8 gb of ram

2176mb integrated graphics card

windows 8.1 current

 

Sorry, but that's not a modern laptop at all. My 2008 laptop has better specs than this.

 

If you want FSX/P3D to run smoothly with add-ons, you have to invest in a high-end desktop.