need help with fsx RETAIL and dell 8300 2.8 ghz

[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.

[Guest Bottle]

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

[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.

[GHarrall 494]

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.

[Dillon 2,197]

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...

[OHN 1]

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.

[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.

[FlyingsCool 3]

I read it to mean that his graphics card had 512 MB???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

[Nick75 0]

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.

[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!)

[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

[Manny 1,293]

>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

[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."> >> >>

[rservice 4]

Nice try!!! LOLRon

[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)???