Hey guys,I have been doing some digging around, and found out what type of system you will want to have to have FSX run about as perfectly as FS2004 is running on your machines now or better.First off lets better understnd the Operating Systems at play with Windows XP and Windows VistaWindows XP is a 32bit operating system. Most programs now adays are 32bit programs as well (Incl FS2004) This means that when you have FS2004 running, the program is able to process 32 bits of data at any given time to a maximum of your processors capabilities.Windows Vista is a 64bit operating system (Not sure if it will be 32/64bit)... FSX is a 32/64bit program. It is writtien that if you can install FSX to run in 64bit mode, it will precess 2 times that data any given time that it is currently doing on XP Systems, dramatically improving FPS....ok enough of the bit talk. lol... on with a "MEAN FSX HANDLING MACHINE"The following Text file has the best specs for a FSX capable machine that I can come up with....http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158200.jpg

That somehow just seems affordable now.I think a new AM2 mobo is still in order for the 4gb of ram though....ouch!!!!!Dipping in to pockets will most definately be required april next yr

Maybe you can tel us where you heard the fantastic news that FS-X has a 64 bit mode. The only official word is that a 64 bit mode was not economicly viable. You do realise that a 64bit program not only needs to be compiled right but also the data formats need to be rewriten to get the full benefit of the 64bit wide data transfer? The thing about FS-X is that it is (has to be) backward compatible so what we use are 32bit datastructures.

To correct your misunderstanding on the other side, Vista comes in a variety of `flavours` including both[ 32-bit and 64-bit variants. I think there's likely to be around 15 different Vista versions at release.So Vista isn't a 64-bit OS, any more than FSX is a 64-bit game.So really your post is complete piffle. But thanks for your input. We can add it to the ever-increasing pool of disinformation about FSX and Vista. Allcott

mr perry, nothing youve said is true, including vista being 64 bit, FSX supporting 64 bit, and FSX supporting the physics accelerator

and I would recommend to NOT get Vista 64, its requirement of "microsoft certified" drivers will make countless hardware and software incompatable. You are beter off staying with XP until all the kinks are worked out, at least until Vista SP1. Why do so many people try to pass off incorrect information as fact?

Um, dude, you're WAY WAY WAY off on pretty much everything you stated above...First off, Vista will come in 2 different flavors - you can get either the 32 bit version or the 64 bit version (which can also run 32 bit programs through the built in Windows on Windows emulation layer.)Second, running a 32 bit application on a 64 bit Vista (or XP) will NOT make it run 2x as fast. In some cases it will run SLOWER because the 64 bit OS requires 64 bit graphics drivers which typically are not as mature or speedy as the mainstream 32 bit versions. Also, those drivers have to push 64 bit data around instead of 32bit. You MIGHT seem some improvement however in that the 32 bit application has access to a full 4GB memory space when running on Vista64 or XP64 edition (where as in 32 bit XP/Vista, your applications can only make use of around 3 GB of the addressable 4GB as the OS reserves some space for it's use.) Unless you happen to have 4GB of physical RAM in your machine, it won't matter.Third, FSX is NOT compiled for 64 bit. It's a 32 bit application.Fourth, There is ZERO support for the PhysX card in FSX. It won't help one bit.Now, your CPU recommendation is fine, as are the video card. The Ram, I'd get something in the 800Mhz clock speed range personally. And why would you use the integrated sound which steals CPU cycles when you can get a X-Fi ExtremeMusic card that will run much better?Finally, why no pair of WD 150 GB Raptors in RAID to support faster texture loads???--2002cbr600f4i

2002cbr600f4i,What a name, you musta got teased a lot in school, maybe called you Data?I was just wondering, seeing as your computer knowledge is quite vast, would YOU please give some techs as to the components we should look for in a computer to properly run FSX? I find posts that condemn other's posts without giving some heads up as to what would be better rather confusing, if not useless. Having said that, I do appreciate your post to make sure those of us who are somewhat computer technically illiterate won't follow bad advice and purchase something that doesn't help. So I ask sincerely, could you, would you, take the time to post some specs like the original poster did that would help in purchasing a new system?I was going to wait till computers were coming out with Vista pre-installed on them so I could avoid an expensive Vista purchase later on, as well as wait for the new DX10 cards. But I've been reading that my wait using that course of action could be well into next year. I would like to fly FSX now so could you give some techs from the best of your knowledge as to what would be necessary, that I won't have to replace in 6 months?I also would like some ideas as to a good video card that is cheap at this point in time because when the dx10 cards come out I'll of course replace it, so I don't want to spend a lot of money on a card now that again will be replaced in a year or less.Please don't take this wrong. I am sincere in my request and in your knowledge of tech's in regards to FSx. I also realize others could disagree with you here and there, but I would just like a little direction. Thanks in advance.

Don't waste your money with the PhysX card.....

>Don't waste your money with the PhysX card.....^^^^

>Windows Vista is a 64bit operating system (Not sure if it will>be 32/64bit)... FSX is a 32/64bit program. It is writtien that>if you can install FSX to run in 64bit mode, it will precess 2>times that data any given time that it is currently doing on>XP Systems, dramatically improving FPS.Sorry, but this is so completely and utterly wrong. Although it's a quite common misconception.64 bit DOES NOT mean that automagically computations can handle twice the amount of data in the same amount of CPU cycles than they did before. What it DOES mean is that you can process larger integer values with a 64 bit architecture than you can with 32 bit registers (about twice as much - no, not exactly twice as much). Which is all fine and dandy if you're actually working with large data sets, like in digital video editing, database management or encryption. Games on the other hand don't need to handle that much data and do not work with integers which couldn't just as well fit into 32 bit registers. If there's any benefit for games in switching to a 64 bit architecture it will be in the GPU, not the CPU.So where exactly "is it written" that FSX can run in 64 bit mode, or, at least theoretically possible, that there would be a 64 bit version of it? I really would love to see that.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

>2002cbr600f4i,>>What a name, you musta got teased a lot in school, maybe>called you Data?hahah.. no, it's the model motorcycle I ride. Honda 2002 CBR600f4i.>So I ask sincerely, could you, would you, take>the time to post some specs like the original poster did that>would help in purchasing a new system?Ok, well, it really all depends on what you are willing to spend, and if you are looking for long term upgradability or "buy it and never open the machine until you replace the whole thing." I also can only give so much info because I don't have my hands on the retail version yet, so I can only go based on what others have said here for performance, and what I've experienced while running the Beta on my machine.>I was going to wait till computers were coming out with Vista>pre-installed on them so I could avoid an expensive Vista>purchase later on, as well as wait for the new DX10 cards. But>I've been reading that my wait using that course of action>could be well into next year. I would like to fly FSX now so>could you give some techs from the best of your knowledge as>to what would be necessary, that I won't have to replace in 6>months?Well, the unfortunate truth of PC gaming is no matter how much you spend to get the top of the line today, 6 months from now it won't be top of the line. It's even worse when you're on the cusp of new generation tech (like we are with DX9-->DX10). As I said, you usually have 2 paths you can take with PC gaming:1) Buy mid-range/upper mid-range, but build smart where you have long term upgradability with a minimum of fuss. Usually this means getting a really good motherboard, but not maxing out the CPU or #/speed video cards and not filling all the RAM slots. Then over time when you need a boost in one of those areas, you just replace or augment that 1 component. And if you can wait to do your upgrade until the part that you're upgrading it's the top of the line anymore, you can usually extend the life of the machine without costing an arm and a leg.2) Just plan every 2-2.5 years to have to buy a whole new top end machine and never open it, don't worry about upgradeability, etc. Just max it. This is VERY VERY expensive in 1 shot, but gives you a machine able to run pretty much anything for those 3 years (although by the end of the 3rd year you're going to be running at lowest settings.)I usually go the 1st route so the initial costs aren't as high and I can space out the long term costs. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to help most FS people here looking to run FSX nuts-to-the-wall.>I also would like some ideas as to a good video card that is>cheap at this point in time because when the dx10 cards come>out I'll of course replace it, so I don't want to spend a lot>of money on a card now that again will be replaced in a year>or less.Ok, in general, right now, I'd say get:- One of the Core 2 Duo processors. The faster the better (or be prepared to overclock it like crazy.)- 2 GB (2 1GB sticks) of the fastest supported memory by the processor (DDR2 667 or if it'll take 800, get that!). Also be sure to get it as low latency as possible (certainly nothing higher than CAS4!)- A pair of FAST hard drives and put them in RAID 0 so they can load the scenery fast. IF you can swing it, get a pair of 150GB WD Raptors. If not, any pair of 7200RPM SATA2 HD's will do.- a GOOD MB that supports RAID and SLI- Soundblaster X-Fi XtremeMusic sound card (optional)- Seasonic power supply. These things are WHISPER quiet, put out great power.... Get yourself at LEAST the 600W model (because those first gen DX10 video cards are going to suck down 250W EACH!)The problem here is that even if you max the CPU (by dropping $1K on their Exteme Edition chip) 5 months from now it'll be at best a mid-range CPU because they'll be releasing faster models. Also, I believe (could be wrong as I don't follow intel as closely as I do AMD) that there's another socket change coming so you might not be able to just drop in a faster CPU 6 months from now. So, either get a low-mid CPU now and replace it later, or max it now and just live with it.Video cards... Well, I won't recommend a specific model. It all depends on how much you want to spend and whether you're an ATI or NVidia fan. Personally, if you're planning to replace it with a DX10 card within a year, I'd go with something like a 7600. It's a good mid-range card with decent performance to tide you over until the DX-10 cards come out. (Sorry, I don't know of the top of my head the ATI equivalent.)Building custom machines really requires a lot of research and reading and checking of benchmark sites like Anandtech.com , Tomshardware, etc. Don't ever go off the recommendations of any one site or any single sites' benchmarks because how they set up the tests can seriously skew the numbers. Now, just for comparison purposes, this is the machine that I put together at the end of April. I built it this way for 2 reasons:1) the company I work for had a benefit that was going away at the end of June where by they would reimburse me 50% for any computer equipment I bought for home.2) I had to buy before that date, so I went for the max system I could at the time, but even then I have some upgrade path available...My system specs:AMD Athlon 64X2 4800+ (socket AM2) - This will get replaced next year with the upcoming K8L core chips which should be comparable to the Core2 stuff from Intel. Even then, this CPU is about 2x the speed of my last one.4GB of DDR2-800 CAS 4 memory - maxed this out so I never have to worry about it again.4 300GB Seagate 7200RPM SATA2 drives, running in RAID 5(I'll be installing a pair of older spare 36GB WD Raptors in RAID 0 just for Flight Sim soon...)Asus M2N32SLI-Deluxe MB with NForce 590 SLI chipset.Seasonic 600W PSU2 XFX GForce 7900GTOC video cards in SLI mode (I play a lot of FPS games too.)I also picked up a Dell 2405 24" lcd monitor. The 2407 is the new model and if you can swing it, get one. It's GORGEOUS!!!I usually do my machine upgrades/replacements when the new stuff will be 2x the speed of my current machine/parts. Some history here... My CPU history has been:386-40486DX2-805x86-120P2-333Ath 1.33GhzAthXP 2100+Athlon 64 FX-51and now the 4800+X2Don't expect to ever get more than about 2 years out of a high end video card before you have to seriously start turning down resolution and/or features to run the latest and greatest games.In the end, I wouldn't buy anything until FSX is more widely released and we can see what combinations of CPU/GPU/RAM gets the best performance. Right now the reports are all over the place and confused by people reporting demo/beta performance mixed in with retail performance.. Some people are saying it's running great, others horrible and it all depends upon the settings and such, of which no 2 people are posting the same specs. We're just going to have to wait. Either way, I'd be confident that the specs I listed above would be fine for FSX...Oh, and as far as SLI - I'd recommend either dropping the $$ and doing it all at once, or not bother and just get a fast single card. Usually if you start out getting only 1 card with the expectation that you'll buy the 2nd later on, by the time you get around to buying that 2nd card, new faster cards come out and you end up wanting one of those instead and then your current card is useless to you.Hope this all helps... PC gaming is a slippery slope. Just try to hold onto the rope and don't fall!--2002cbr600f4i (Mike BTW)

>So where exactly "is it written" that FSX can run in 64 bit>mode, or, at least theoretically possible, that there would be>a 64 bit version of it? I really would love to see that.I don't think Perry will be coming back to Avsim with the dressing down he just recived...I don't blame him either :-roll Anyone else want to chime in and let Perry know how much of an idiot he is or how much of an expert they are on 64bit CPU's?

I took a hiatus from FS2004 when I realized I was spending more time "tweaking" FS2004 than I was enjoying it. I still visit the forum here to keep up on what's going on. I thought when FSX made its debut that I would give it another chance.From what I'm reading here so far, it sounds that FSX will be another "tweaking" exercise. I've never had to consider upgrading my PC to run one particular "game" and most games I've bought recently run like a champ on my PC. I just can't seriously consider doing a PC upgrade just to run FSX. I think I'll continue my hiatus.Regards,Hans Groenewold

Ewwww....sorry Nascar, but you are way off base on just about all points.Windows Vista is a 32 bit OS unless you get the 64 bit version and UNLESS you have a program SPECIFICALLY compiled for 64 bit operation, you can have a 1024-bit OS and it will mean absolutely nothing. Vista (XP-64 Bit) uses WOW64 to run 32 bit programs. In other words, you still get "almost" 32-bit performance in the 64-bit OS. Sorry. PhysX is useless in FSX and as well as 99% of other games for that matter because you can count the games that actually support PhysX on one hand. FSX is not one of them.4GB of memory is overkill in XP, maybe there will be some use for it in Vista, but the effect will be negligible.FSX has no 64-bit "mode" (LOL), wish there were such a thing. I'd actually like to run it in 128-bit "mode" (LOL).Not a good time to post incorrect suggestions when people are screaming bloody murder over FSX performance. You might as well have said that we can get 100 FPS by flapping our arms really fast to cool down the CPU! (the scarey thing is that IF you had said that, I would give you even odds that at least one person reading this thread would have tried it!) :-badteeth