I have the basic requirements(I do mean basic,512ram,1.8ghz,Nvidea geo 3, on an older Dell Dimension 8200). I start up with FSAUTO start, takes forever to load,but when it does, 2d panel is great but the aircraft outside graphics are note crisp at all and the virtual cockpit is a blur. I have done all kind of tweaking with my graphics card, and other adjustments inside FSX, but still all a blur. Last night when I exited the game, I got a crash to screen of jagged, very colorful,horizontal lines that I have never seen before. All was well upon a reboot. Again, do I give my machine to my wife for Emeril recipes or still give my machine a chance? Thank you for your kind attention and any help. Bob K.

Your machine cant run fs2004 so it probably had a heart attack when you installed fsx.Just put your order in for a new machine (one thats built in 2008 should be ok)

Hi,FSX needs a machine which does not exist yet on the market. That is why most of us need a new machine.Just jump to the FS2004 forum, and you will see that more and more simmers choose to stay with FS2004. :-)http://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifFSX..:-hmmm...nah.. Still happy without it!! :-hahMy specs are:Dell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HDMy work:http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

Yes my friend you will need a new machine, and not just any machine you must go highend, and you must wait until next year for that, you can go out and get a machine now but you will soon see you will need to upgrade.my opinion............................Robert

Certainly sounds like you need a newer set of components in the old box, however, on the plus side, you might find that building one yourself with a decent set of bits will be cheaper than seeking one out ready-built for you, which since you have a Dell, I assume you did originally.If this seems an alarming prospect, I'd recommend you buy something like one of the 'Complete Dummy' or 'Complete Idiot' books on building stuff like that. Despite the fact that the titles do nothing for your ego, you'll find that these books go a long way toward demistifying the workings of a PC, and from that you'll realise that with a bit of research into what component matches what (the net is good for that kind of thing), building your own PC is really not that difficult and is usually a way to get more bang for your bucks.I would be aware however, that since some of the more recent innovations in hardware are very new, they may not have found their way into books of that nature, and certainly, there will be nothing, or at least very little on Direct X 10 and Vista in them, since neither is actually out yet. That said, there will be information of bridging 2 graphics cards together, PCI-X, dual core processors and the like.As long as you understand the basics of putting together a motherboard, processor, RAM, peripherals and a suitable PSU, you'll get a capable machine for a lot less, which will offset the 20 quid/dollar cost of a decent book on the subject.I suspect that we are all going to be doing this shortly...

As everyone says, a new machine is definitely in order!! In fact, a new machine was probably in order about two years ago :-)On the off-chance that you decide to spring for a new machine, I was fortunate enough to go through a major upgrade about 3 weeks ago and FS X runs very well for me. My res is 1680 x 1050x32bpp and I run all the options at medium high or custom (which means I have cranked them up beyond medium high but not as far as ultra-high). I average mid-20s to mid-30s in the virtual cockpit (depending on grounded vs. flying) and 30s upwards outside and my framerate stays relatively static during a flight no matter what. I don't tweak and I don't overclock because this is my work machine, too.Upgrade included: Intel Core2 Duo 6600, MSI 975X Platinum MB, MSI ATI 1950X vid card w/512MB RAM, 2GB Corsair RAM, 2 x 320GB SATA drives. This system delivers every game and simulator I try in 1680 x 1050 with no problems. The CPU, video card and RAM are a powerful combination and if you are prepared to overclock then the CPU has enormous potential.T :-)

Agreed with camtech. You are not alone, we ALL need to upgrade!Allcott

>Just jump to the FS2004 forum, and you will see that more and>more simmers choose to stay with FS2004. :-)>But...........FSX just has a better sense of being airborne, that even the best of addons for FS2004 couldn't mimic. And that ranges from turbulence to thermals. I suppose that if manuipulating airliner systems is your thing, then FS2004 might be a better choice at the moment.In the meantime, I'm getting some very fluid frame rates out of FSX with auto-gen and water effects off. These photo-tile cities actually look better with auto-gen off, and I always kept water off in FS9 also, to compensate with higher frame rates. I prefer upper 20's to at least 30 fps as a minimum for anything but high altitude flight, where slower moving scenery isn't as noticeable.L.Adamson -- Athlon 64 3800/ 2GIG/ Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32

>But...........>>FSX just has a better sense of being airborne, that even the>best of addons for FS2004 couldn't mimic. And that ranges>from turbulence to thermals. I suppose that if manuipulating>airliner systems is your thing, then FS2004 might be a better>choice at the moment.I keep hearing that but during my relativly short trail with FS-X I never got that feeling it still felt like the standard FS flying on rails. Might it be the head latency thing or is it a placebo effect.Don't know if its possible to make a test run in the Beta 3 (FS-X retail has returned to the shop, they wheren't supprised I was not the only one). If you have a suggestion of an ideal starting situation to test this new airborne feeling. I'd like to try it. Does it come near the feeling you get with X-Plane?

BobYou would definitely need an upgrade. But most anything out there right now would not be satisfactory. I would wait when/if FSX is patched/fixed for DX10 and hopefully duo-core systems. Otherwise it will be an exercise in frustration.And FS9 is not flat. Boned up, particularly with Ultimate Terrain and those great 3D lights gives the kind of depth which FSX couldn't give you with your system particularly.P4 3.6 GHz HT 1 gig ddr ram, ATI X800XT PCIe 256 mb

I admit that don't know the "feeling you get with X-Plane", I've only tried the demo but... http://perso.orange.fr/xp-flyingjaydee/scr...hots/TOPH19.jpgX-Plane may give you 1000fps, but with graphics and panels like that I get the feeling of FS5!As that picture shows...there's ALWAYS a tradeoff and there is no perfect sim.

>I keep hearing that but during my relativly short trail with>FS-X I never got that feeling it still felt like the standard>FS flying on rails. Might it be the head latency thing or is>it a placebo effect.>>Don't know if its possible to make a test run in the Beta 3>(FS-X retail has returned to the shop, they wheren't supprised>I was not the only one). If you have a suggestion of an ideal>starting situation to test this new airborne feeling. I'd like>to try it. Does it come near the feeling you get with>X-Plane?First off, flying on rails can mean a few different things. IMO, FS98 was flying on rails because it was too stable. You could leave the computer while making a 12 cup pot of coffee, drink two cups, go to the can, then come back & find the aircraft on course and probably altitude. FS2000,2002, and 2004 improved on this. In fact, trimming for a half way stable altitude has always been touchier than a real airplane in all versions since FS98.What's more noticeable in FSX, is the waves of air current that simulate moving the airplane in it's different axis's. Anything from thermals to turbulence, to a sudden wing dip is possible. This makes landings more interesting, and removes the "flying on rails" portion of the landing, simply because landings may not be as smooth and stable when using FSX.X-Plane -- has more of the "waves of air current" that I've described, but usually worse than MS products in simulating dampening, inertia, and general feel of a heavier aircraft. I have X-Plane too, and really like it. But as with MSFS, it's still hit's and misses.L.Adamson

>Bob>>You would definitely need an upgrade. But most anything out>there right now would not be satisfactory. I would wait>when/if FSX is patched/fixed for DX10 and hopefully duo-core>systems. Otherwise it will be an exercise in frustration.>>And FS9 is not flat. Boned up, particularly with Ultimate>Terrain and those great 3D lights gives the kind of depth>which FSX couldn't give you with your system particularly.>>P4 3.6 GHz HT 1 gig ddr ram, ATI X800XT PCIe 256 mbLen My specs are very similar to yours (see below). I have, but don't anymore, clock it up to 3.6GHz. I used to think pre FSX that it was formidable as I can get 25fps in FS9 execept at major airports such as LAX or KORD where I dropped to 20ish. Do you have similar results? I have no addons to speak of short of modified cockpits and some freeware scenery around KABQ.dolph

I used to think pre FSX that it was formidable as I can get 25fps in FS9 execept at major airports such as LAX or KORD where I dropped to 20ish. Do you have similar results? I have no addons to speak of short of modified cockpits and some freeware scenery around KABQ.I don't run autogen at all. It's off and will stay off except for bush flying. Other settings are basically default (ex. 15% ai traffic!). I changed the clouds (as I did in FS9) to the lighter bit ones as well since if they were a "problem" in FS9 they would remain one in FSX. Sitting at KSEA runway in default plane (such as the Airbus) I get roughly 11-15fps (1280x1024 32 bit).As an aside I ported over Ultimate Terrain and deactivated everything except those beautiful UT lights (I love their night lighting). It just crushed my frames and I had to remove it.In FS9 with everything full-tilt (except cloud draw distance) and 1600x1200 32 bit with a PMDG plane (with UT, FSG mesh, FSScene textures) same location roughly 25 fps.

>I admit that don't know the "feeling you get with X-Plane",>X-Plane may give you 1000fps, but with graphics and panels>like that I get the feeling of FS5!X-Plane is capable of better than that:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=set...topic_id=245310http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&mesg_id=244563http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&mesg_id=244642Yes, X-Plane has many scenery deficiencies. Its strong point is mountain/country flying, while he's much weaker on urban areas.The greatest scenery deficiency is the lacking of detailed airports scenery. I hope they'll fix it soon. :)Also, do not assume that all X-Plane panels are like default ones:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=242944&page=It is potentially capable of panels at the level of FS9, at least. But X-Plane developers are 1% of total flight sim developers.>As that picture shows...there's ALWAYS a tradeoff and there is>no perfect sim.Completely agree. :)Marco