Just wanted to inject a little positivity into the discourse today. I have an ancient system that I used for FSX. Built it way back in 2004 or 2005, can't remember exactly when. Has one of the first i7 CPUs with four cores. A 950 running at 3.07 GHz with 24GB of DDR3 memory. My only upgrade to this thing in fifteen years was a SSD drive and a Nvidia 1660Ti a couple months ago.

I went to NWS and looked for the nastiest weather on the national radar map, thought I would fly it to see what I got just for fun.

Using the CJ4 with the new Working Title mods, I started at Nashville, TN, stopped in Tulsa, OK, then refiled to Wichita, KS while on the ground. I'm using Pilot2ATC.

Let me just say I am very happy with the performance of this old clunker, and the weather immersion and ATC were so great. Was it 100% buttery smooth? No, and I don't expect that with this old warhorse. But was it totally enjoyable from takeoff to hand flying the final few hundred feet after breaking out at about 500 feet in driving rain on the ILS in both destinations? Absolutely!

Bravo ASOBO. There are still rough edges, to be sure. But I am so optimistic for the future with this thing.

Bennett

I have also been really enjoying it for the past few weeks, the weather has certainly improved, and been pretty accurate wherever i have flown recently, from driving rain, dropping through the cloud base on final with a nasty cross wind, all adding to the experiance... this sim will be a  classic in time.

Edited January 30, 20215 yr by Car147

I think it sounds too good to be true:

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/37150/intel-core-i7-950-processor-8m-cache-3-06-ghz-4-80-gt-s-intel-qpi.html?wapkw=950

Release date of the CPU was Q2 2009. Still a great CPU.

I'm running a 11 year old  i5 3.2 mhz, Nvidia 1060 6GB and 16GB ram and again not smooth but you know its ok, its doing the job for now, all on medium settings and no ctd's. Thinking of putting another 16gb of ram in but im unsure if it wud make a difference??

Regards

Paul  EGCC

29 minutes ago, tull said:

I'm running a 11 year old  i5 3.2 mhz, Nvidia 1060 6GB and 16GB ram and again not smooth but you know its ok, its doing the job for now, all on medium settings and no ctd's. Thinking of putting another 16gb of ram in but im unsure if it wud make a difference??

Regards

Paul  EGCC

Paul,

I would like to mention a couple of things here. Firstly, I am not at all sure that and extra 16gb would make all that difference at the moment.

Secondly, because this system is reasonably ancient, I would assume that an upgrade, if not imminent, should be in the planning process. From that point of view buying that RAM (I assume either ddr2 or 3) is not going to be reusable in a new system and therefore is money wasted in the long term. I feel therefore that the money you would invest in RAM now would be better spent growing in the bank for the new system.

Good luck to you if you are happy with what you have, but an upgraded system would be far more beneficial to you, as MSFS with max settings is a VFR wonderland.  The unfortunate detail here is that an upgrade would most likely involve a New Motherboard, CPU, RAM and you will benefit from a new GPU and probably a PSU. All of which is a substantial investment. depending on your resources and where you live.

I believe that this is a decision which involves quite a bit more than casual reflection, but in the short and long term I believe additional ram could be construed as a poor investment.

All of this, of course, is totally irrelevant if you are very happy with your current system.

Regards

Tony

2 hours ago, tull said:

I'm running a 11 year old  i5 3.2 mhz, Nvidia 1060 6GB and 16GB ram and again not smooth but you know its ok, its doing the job for now, all on medium settings and no ctd's. Thinking of putting another 16gb of ram in but im unsure if it wud make a difference??

Regards

Paul  EGCC

Probably good money after bad at this stage.

If your going to upgrade anything go for the GPU as that can be swapped into a new system when you upgrade.  Something like the 3060 16GB non TI if and when they are actually available would give a substantial improvement.

Hey Tony

Thank you for your advice and good advice it is, much appreciated , I hear what your saying and I needed to here that, its like I knew it wud have been a waste of money, my mind is made up now, I will wait and at least get a new graphics card or all being well a new pc in time, cant do it yet unfortunately. 

Many thanks guys👍👍😁

2 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

All of this, of course, is totally irrelevant if you are very happy with your current system.

The latest GPUs / CPUs don't exist for builders these days.

Cheers

bs

 

3 hours ago, tull said:

I'm running a 11 year old  i5 3.2 mhz, Nvidia 1060 6GB and 16GB ram and again not smooth but you know its ok, its doing the job for now, all on medium settings and no ctd's. Thinking of putting another 16gb of ram in but im unsure if it wud make a difference??

Regards

Paul  EGCC

Depends on what you are doing with the sim. theoretically more than 16Gb won't make a ton of difference, however, if you are also running add-ons and other programs, then it probably would make a big difference, but it's only really worth doing on an older computer if you can get the RAM for not much money, however, if you can then it might be worth the effort.

For example, I usually run Air Hauler with MSFS, then there's flight recorder software, speech and ATC software etc, and on long haul flights over the ocean in the sim, I stick the autopilot on and I listen to stuff on the internet as well or do other bits and pieces on with the same computer the sim is running on, which is why I have 44Gb of RAM in it so that it has plenty to spare for that stuff as well, because whilst MSFS might only need 16Gb of RAM, all that other stuff probably needs more than that to run well.

 

Just  for the record my system cost $1150 (new computer) and I run full ULTRA on every MSFS settting (except render which is set to match my resolution). I have no stutters at all even at JFK airport, etc.

The downside is that the monitor is only a 32 inch 1920 x 1080. I could not run ULTRA in all the settings with a 4K monitor, not even close.

Point is, performance (fps) is not expensive with MSFS, with careful shopping. Resolution is expensive. With a 4K monitor like that then your whole setup will be about 3 times as expensive for the whole thing: a way bigger power supply, a gpu that cost over $700 etc., the monitor will be probably two and half times the cost, (my 32" curved monitor cost  $180 at Walmart),  and a pricey cpu.

 

For me 32" is actually more a 1080p/1440p size though some people do go 4K at 32".   The 32" screens I have purchased for staff at my workplace have all been 1440p not 4K .

In terms of the original post, I am having a great time with this sim ...

 

My latest two videos from the just last few days flying, apologies to anyone that has already seen them in other threads:

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

There's plenty to criticise in MSFS but it's impossible to hate it for long if you're VFR/VMC low and slow. Yesterday I decided to fly through the Manchester Low Level GA corridor between EGCC and EGGP (Liverpool). Littlenavmap showed me the airspace boundaries (and, thanks to a CIX VFR club download, all the VRPs plotted on the chart), real-world websites showed me what those VRPs looked like and off I went.

It was uncanny. The microlight strip at the southern entrance to the corridor was exactly where the charts said it would be, and it blended into the scenery so well that I didn't recognise it until I was almost in the overhead. The motorway junction marking the halfway point was right there, interchange on/off ramps and all. The abandoned aerodrome marking my right turn towards Barton was exactly where the real-world guide said it would be and looked almost exactly like the actual aerial photos. The canal-side town marking the south-west edge of the Barton ATZ was precisely where I expected to see it.

All of this while on Vatsim too. So scenery plus real-world(ish) ATC.

Sure, the physics are still lousy, there's no inertia modelling, the autopilots are dubious at best and the avionics are a rough visual representation and little more, but MSFS really does the hand-flown VFR piece superbly.

14 hours ago, BigDee said:

I think it sounds too good to be true:

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/37150/intel-core-i7-950-processor-8m-cache-3-06-ghz-4-80-gt-s-intel-qpi.html?wapkw=950

Release date of the CPU was Q2 2009. Still a great CPU.

I guess I'm getting old, forgetting exact dates in the past. LOL. But the point is the same, this sim/game is light years ahead of what we have had in the past and is only going to get better. I have been looking around for the latest parts and pieces to build the next PC for the next ten years, but I think I am going to hold off until I see what is the result of all this memory and CPU/GPU optimization Asobo was talking about in their discussion. Plus, I think VR is the way to go from now on. Presently I am running the thing through a 75" 4K TV at 2K resolution (which looks great from about eight feet away) but I am excited to experience the VR revolution.

Somebody talked about this being a great sim for VFR and slow and it has a lousy autopilot. I have been flying the CJ4 with the WT mod at High settings in total IFR conditions and the autopilot works like a charm. Maybe I am just lucky.

Have I had a few CTD's? Yes. Almost always when the flight plan in the FMC is slightly different that the one in the sim. Needs to be some kind of error trapping there and resolution without having the whole thing crash.

Bennett

It's good to see other folk with old gear having a good time. As it Happens I'm getting on a bit also. My eyesight isn't what it was so I can have many of the graphic settings on low to medium and I really can't see any difference. Also being born in the 50's gives me what I would call more "realistic expectations" (I guess many would say that it's a matter of personal perspective though LoL).

Gear as in signature with an Asus z87-k mobo (8yrs old so not as old as the OP's, well done Bennet) and enjoying the views.

 

Edited January 31, 20215 yr by GaryK

14 hours ago, tull said:

I'm running a 11 year old  i5 3.2 mhz, Nvidia 1060 6GB and 16GB ram and again not smooth but you know its ok, its doing the job for now, all on medium settings and no ctd's. Thinking of putting another 16gb of ram in but im unsure if it wud make a difference??

Regards

Paul  EGCC

Nice!  You can see my system specs in my signature below.  I'm running the sim on High settings with 1080x1440 monitor.  I'm loving these bush trips.  It runs smooth for the most part - if it doesn't I do not notice it.  I installed 32GB of memory when I built this system several years ago, but MSFS only uses half from what I can tell and quite honestly I cannot say it's made any difference.  When I spec a pc, I will add xtra memory - just because, especially if I have the funds to do so, but like Tony mentioned above, I wouldn't make the investment on your current system, unless it is something you can move forward into a newer system.

Anyway, it's good to hear from others with dated hardware.  I plan to run mine until it gets so bad I cannot enjoy the sim, then I will make an investment.