Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest Water Mango

need help with fsx RETAIL and dell 8300 2.8 ghz

Recommended Posts

Guest charlesk

I have a 2.8 ghz machine with a 512k ati x1300 card and my frame rates are horrible. Any suggestions? I'm getting around 3fps when taking off, etc. Disabled everything on the computer and still slow. AND I'M STILL GETTING BLEEDTHROUGH WITH FSX AND SPOT VIEW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bottle

It would help if you stated what FSX settings you're using (or post your .cfg file). What graphics drivers? etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but no way that rig is going to run fsx. That processor is going on 4 years old now and forget about that low end video card. You could consider yourself lucky to run the game at all with marginally smooth frame rates with everything turned as low as it goes. I have a backup system that runs with a P4 3.6 and a 7600gt with 2gb ram and the game runs sluggish on that on a single monitor at 1280x1024 and this machine is 2x as fast as yours. Time to upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously,512mb RAM is nowhere near enough. ####, FS9 struggles with less than 1GB and Win XP installed.X1300 - budget GPU and not at all suitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the performance game begin... ;-) I knew FSX was going to be horrible on all but the most top of the line machines. Either you upgrade or stick with FS9...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure you have bloom off and water settings at the lower end, autogen at sparse, car traffic and leisure boats set them to off, they are FPS killers. Now you should be able to get some okay FPS otherwise you have some driver probs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest archtx

...or tweak FSX.I have a pretty old machine, a 2.0GHz, 1 MB ram, 6800GT...and Demo2 is still looking better than FS9 with smooth flyable frame rates.And I'll be able to fly the missions which I can't do in FS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bother tweaking it. Just wait until the Vista/DX10 version comes out and do your serious flying with FS9. Wait til the reviews on the DX10 version THEN get a new system (if it turns out to be what Microsoft are promising us). Maybe just stick the FSX DX9 version on for fun every now and then (just try your best to enjoy it at 3FPS lol). In general, the DX9 version of FSX simply just doesn't cut it performance-wise. Do you expect it to after reading all of the posts on here about low FPS? And especially with the fact that your graphics card is poor for FS? With the FSX DX9 version, all the eye candy in the sim is just going to slaughter people's FPS. Which it is doing. No expensive Dual Core system is going to get rid of the performance issues on this FSX version with DX9. A high end system didn't get rid of the performance issues for FS9 so why should it for FSX? And FSX is IMO a bigger step up from FS9 than what FS9 was to FS2002. Which isn't a good thing, judging by how FS9 performed. Something far more radical needs to be done, which, hopefully is where Vista/DX10 will come to the rescue.So just wait patiently until then and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest archtx

Charles:I've got some bad news for you. It sounds like you got a defective version of FSX. Mail it to me, and I think I can fix it for you! (Hope it's the Deluxe Edition!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest charlesk

I have 512k memory on the video card. It's a visiontek xt1300I'm getting around 15fps average. Sometimes higher but usually less. with all traffic off. I think fsx really looks good when it is working but it's way too slow for the average system. In fact, when i was flying last night at night, the mesh looked so real i thought i was looking outside in real life.Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have 512k memory on the video card. It's a visiontek>xt1300>>I'm getting around 15fps average. Sometimes higher but>usually less. >with all traffic off. >>I think fsx really looks good when it is working but it's way>too slow for the average system. In fact, when i was flying>last night at night, the mesh looked so real i thought i was>looking outside in real life.>>CharlesYup..FSX is real good. Its a leap beyond FS9. No complaints on that front. I love flying at night..over water and moon light. Hee hee.. Its just fantastic.The avilability of hardware (and the CPU architecture trend) to run this thing is another matter.I am sure, by Christmas and soon after you would start seeing $900 or $1299 machines, many standard PCs like Compaq, Gateway, IBM, IVAO, HP etc in stores with Core 2 Duo E6400 etc... that would run FSX pretty smooth at 20FPS with the sliders to the 80%. But, I have to be real stingy when it comes to what Addon I am going pile on henceforth. Addon vendors have to be really careful here. Even 1 FPS hit on their front is going be an issue. There is no room to play around here.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davewins

>Don't bother tweaking it. Just wait until the Vista/DX10>version comes out and do your serious flying with FS9. Wait>til the reviews on the DX10 version THEN get a new system (if>it turns out to be what Microsoft are promising us). Maybe>just stick the FSX DX9 version on for fun every now and then>(just try your best to enjoy it at 3FPS lol). In general, the>DX9 version of FSX simply just doesn't cut it>performance-wise. Do you expect it to after reading all of the>posts on here about low FPS? And especially with the fact that>your graphics card is poor for FS? >>With the FSX DX9 version, all the eye candy in the sim is just>going to slaughter people's FPS. Which it is doing. No>expensive Dual Core system is going to get rid of the>performance issues on this FSX version with DX9. A high end>system didn't get rid of the performance issues for FS9 so why>should it for FSX? And FSX is IMO a bigger step up from FS9>than what FS9 was to FS2002. Which isn't a good thing, judging>by how FS9 performed. >>Something far more radical needs to be done, which, hopefully>is where Vista/DX10 will come to the rescue.>>So just wait patiently until then and see. >Nick is on the right track. In the readme file it clearly says the following "Microsoft Flight Simulator X and Microsoft Windows VistaFlight Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to the completion of Windows Vista."> >> >>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Water Mango

"Nick is on the right track. In the readme file it clearly says the following" "Microsoft Flight Simulator X and Microsoft Windows VistaFlight Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to the completion of Windows Vista.":-eek I brought up this fact awhile back along with many other simmers. People here including 'Tdragger' flat out lied and said FSX was designed for FS9. Now we have official proof it wasn't...'Davewins' where's this readme file located so nothing is disputed (I sure hope your not pulling our leg because this is big news)???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

** Interesting ** Be careful before you jump on this one. Dave needs to confirm where to find this info... If it's true I don't know what the implications could be trying to capitalize on the market and sell FSX on WindowsXP versus waiting for the OS it was designed for (especially the alleged mis-information Aces has been spreading concerning FSX and WindowsXP). If there is a readme stating the above someone has some explaining to do. Either way people have the sim up and running and are more than happy with the performance or lack their of. It always made more since to me to wait for obvious reasons but having others dive in is more than a benefit to those of us holding off...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With identical setups, FSX runs slower on vista than on Win xp. Unless there is some magic in the retail versions of both, I can't see FSX performing better on vista, until DX10 hardware is out and the DX10-compliant version of FSX is released. Now it could be that if one ups RAM to 2 gig, that will make a difference, but I haven't seen any site testing vista which show better game play.scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2002cbr600f4i

>"Nick is on the right track. In the readme file it clearly>says the following" >>"Microsoft Flight Simulator X and Microsoft Windows Vista>Flight Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista>operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to the>completion of Windows Vista.">>:-eek >>I brought up this fact awhile back along with many other>simmers. People here including 'Tdragger' flat out lied and>said FSX was designed for FS9. Now we have official proof it>wasn't...>>'Davewins' where's this readme file located so nothing is>disputed (I sure hope your not pulling our leg because this is>big news)???Haven't you guys ever heard of Marketing Dept getting ahold of the truth and changing it to suit their needs? I have NO doubt that tdragger's statements were 100% true - from an engineering perspective... From a corporate "message"/marketing perspective, FSX is a flagship product that will be used to promote Vista and help push people to upgrade to Vista... Hence they put statements like that in there to make people believe they need Vista to run FSX properly...Marketing people = paid liars.... DEAL WITH IT!--2002cbr600f4i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well i shudder to think Microsoft would release an OS that runs games SLOWER than its predecessor. They did that with Windows 2000 Pro and it was quickly relegated to a 'work only' OS status and gamers everywhere shunned it. I'm fairly confident that Windows XP's release a year later was due to the fact that games and application compatibility were horrible in Windows 2000 whereas with Windows XP they ran better, as well or at worst case 'slightly' worse than in Windows 98.Vista is hyped as a gamer's OS and if games are going to run 10-20% slower in Vista than in XP, I can assure you that no gamer will install and use it, or at least not as a primary OS. I know I won't. I may dual boot it when DX10 games start to arrive so that I can run them, but no way I'm going to accept a 15% frame rate decrease with my existing DX9 games in Vista.I think the slowness we are seeing in benchmarks now is due to an incomplete OS running non-optimized beta video drivers which accounts for the drop in FPS, at least I hope that's what is causing it. Nvidia and ATI had better get their acts in gear and make sure their drivers are highly optimized for Vista on the day that it is released. Nvidia I'm confident can deliver...ATI on the other hand with their sub-par drivers is another story.As far as this whole FSX made for DX10 and Vista: true and false. I spoke with the developers at the AVSIM conference and they told me that the game was designed for DX9 with every intention of supporting Vista and DX10 with a patch to be released at some unspecified time in the future after Vista's consumer release. This means that the DX10 patch may not be available until next spring at the earliest and more like summer if I were a betting man. What you are seeing now in final FSX release is the game optimized to run on Windows XP and DX9. There will be no magic speed pill if you install it on Vista as some are saying, even after DX10 and the patch are released. Best case scenario, the game will run the same in DX10 mode on Vista as it does now in DX9 mode on XP, just with more eye candy and effects.Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been going the same thing and have almost the same setup. This is what helped me:1.) I had just installed the most recent edition of ATI Catalyst software and drivers, I went back to original drivers and that helped immensely believe it or not, ther are about 6 generations of drivers from 2004 till now, but originals work fine. Also I started tweaking the setups in display until it works best. I started with very low and went up, finally found on my machine it works best with all set to Med Low, when i went to med High it started jerking. When I turned off autogen it got better, still tweaking as we speak...Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I would bet not long after Vista is released that the patch is released as well. At the conference, they said they had just received their first DX10 hardware (but had not yet had a chance to put it through its paces). By Christmas, they will probably have more stable hardware and I imagine Vista will be very close to final beta, or whatever it is they call it. They should have the patch by spring as long as there are no major Vista or DX10 hardware hiccups.I can tell you they are working hard on improving FS now, based on comments by Adam and the work he is doing as we speak. Based on his comments as well, I think there is room for improvement that we will see in FS SP1 or whatever they will call it.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently running an AMD Xp2700 with 1gb of memory and a 9700 ATI video card along with a creative XFI sound card.My game runs very smoothly but I do not run ships, vehicles, bloom etc and the game looks wonderful without them: I don't even think about turning on autogen as it is kind of a joke except for photo purposes. With my system the game runs remarkably well and actually looks better than 2004.Re-think the following statements.."I hate to be the bearer of bad news but no way that rig is going to run fsx""You could consider yourself lucky to run the game at all with marginally smooth frame rates with everything turned as low as it goes""Time to upgrade."Cheers, Sawacs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davewins

>"Nick is on the right track. In the readme file it clearly>says the following" >>"Microsoft Flight Simulator X and Microsoft Windows Vista>Flight Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista>operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to the>completion of Windows Vista.">>:-eek >>I brought up this fact awhile back along with many other>simmers. People here including 'Tdragger' flat out lied and>said FSX was designed for FS9. Now we have official proof it>wasn't...>>'Davewins' where's this readme file located so nothing is>disputed (I sure hope your not pulling our leg because this is>big news)???I am not quite sure whether to take you sarcastically or serious but I guess I will take you serious. The readme file is located where all readme files are. Do you not have the retail version yet??I also do not understand what you mean by "...flat out lied and said FSX was designed for FS9." Did you mean it was designed for dx9??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SilverCircle

>'Davewins' where's this readme file located so nothing is>disputed (I sure hope your not pulling our leg because this is>big news)???Its marketing talk, nothing else.FSX cannot be "designed for vista and DX10", because then it wouldn't run on XP and DX9. Pretty simple, hm? Just another way to tell people how cool vista will be and that spending a few 100 $ will improve your "overall experience" - well, we'll see. From what *I* have seen about Vista (and that's a lot since I've been following its development for the last 2 years), that's not going to happen. That OS alone will eat up twice the resources compared to XP. It does have some nice things, no question, but you're gonna pay the price for it, and that price is called hardware.It *may* take advantage from a later DX10 upgrade when Vista is out and DX10 video cards (+ stable and optimized drivers) are available, but anyone who expects a "magical" improve in performance by more than a few fps will be disappointed, I promise. As we all know, FS is very much bound to the CPU power and neither DX10 nor Vista will be able to magically improve the speed of your CPU.At least, half a year from now. Possibly longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...