Experience with FSX and brand new computer

[Guest lflinares]

Fellow simmers,I just bought a brand new notebook from Dell, and used it for the first time yesterday. I also ordered a copy of FSX Deluxe with my system.Here are my specs:- XPS M1710, Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T7400 (2.16GHz/667MHz/4MB)- 2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM 677MHZ,2 DIMM, for XPS M1710- 512MB NVIDIA GeForce Go 7950 GTX, for XPS M1710- Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition, EnglishThe installation defaulted most of my display settings to medium on the slider, but autogen and AI traffic were automatically set very low. My FPS was right at 15, but with blurry textures and little detail. I then slid everything to the right, just to see what happens, and FPS went down to 5 or lower. Based on what I've read in the forum, I was not surprised.I did not activate my FSX and uninstalled it. My ultimate goal is to use it in a brand new high-end desktop in the near future, but it looks like it has a long way to go, and the technology to be able to fly with decent FPS with sliders on the right seems not be available yet.I'll go back to my FS9 on my current XPS desktop, which works like a charm with plenty of add-ons.Cheers!LuisKMIA

[Toys_R_Us 0]

I priced out a nice machine yesterday to run FSX on. It was middle of the road good, with Vista, Core 2 (2.4), 2 gig's, and DX10. It came in at $2000 from lowly Cyberpower (the kings of cheap).I decided it was too much money for too much uncertainty. The dust on my FSX box just blew throught 1/64 th. of an inch.I wonder how many more other dusty unopened boxes that are out there.FS9 with add on's runs pretty good with what I've got, and FS navigator (my favorite program) to boot.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

[LAdamson 240]

> My FPS was right at 15, but with>blurry textures and little detail. >>>> and the>technology to be able to fly with decent FPS with sliders on>the right seems not be available yet.>I'd agree, the technology for all sliders to the right, does not yet exist. I do compromise & usually run with auto-gen & water off, but textures are very clear & full of detail. Terrain textures are near or full right, and I run FS Genesis.My CPU was new last Nov. and is only a high middle of the road unit. At this point, it's just mostly dedicated to FS9, FSX, and X-Plane 8.50.The following pics were with FSX Hawaii MegaScenery, and the RealAir SF260 for FSX. Both are good on keeping frame rates up. Two are from my default flying area, KSLC. FPS remain close to 25, which is my target rate. Point is, they are far from blurry at 25 fps.Athlon 3800+/2GIG/Geforce 7600 256MB/ 1600*1200*32 res.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166610.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166611.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166612.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166613.jpg

[aerdt 0]

Great screenshots, bud! I am flip-flopping between FSX, FS9 and X-Plane 8.50 as well.FSX gives me by a wide range the best 'immersion factor', even with the default airplanes. The thermals, turbulence, aircraft animations, environmental effects and 'crispness' of the textures are unmatched. Perfect for VFR flying. The framerates are still an issue, even on Medium-Low. But it's flyable (10-20fps) with smaller GA planes and 10-20% traffic (MyTrafficX) and dense autogen.FS9 is my good old buddy with all my payware add-ons that I still tremendously enjoy. Excellent framerates and great for complex airliners like the PMDG 737 NG and LD 767.X-Plane is just on my HDD for the fun of it. I enjoy it, but I rarely use it for serious simming. I am too much hooked on TrackIR, traffic, seasons and VCs, but I am following the development and will be first in line for v9.Pat

[Guest PPSFA]

That system should run FSX fine, sounds like it needs a few tweaks to smooth things out. I posted a video I made today using a similiar system and FSX, you might want to take a look before writing off FSX. Even with its current 'bugs', its still an awesome program.

[LAdamson 240]

>FS9 is my good old buddy with all my payware add-ons that I>still tremendously enjoy. Excellent framerates and great for>complex airliners like the PMDG 737 NG and LD 767.>Interestingly, thanks to that "crispness" of FSX, I've invested in additional addons for FS9 such as FlightScenery's Portland, which is just great IMO, and takes advantage of full auto-gen. As I get away from the airport, then I'd prefer the higher resolution default FSX textures; but we just can't have everything, yet!I don't see a lot of headroom in FSX for complex aircraft either, but the MegaSceneries sure look great in FSX, and the Hawaiian version doesn't even steal frame rates. I'm looking forward to the new FSX Phoenix photo-real.L.Adamson

[Guest sympilot]

I purchased an HP dv8408us which has a Centrino Duo T2250 @1.73 GHz, 1.25 Gigs of RAM, GeForce Go7600 256 and XP Media Edition SP2 last November to tide me over until I felt like building another desktop. The first and only thing I loaded on it was FSX and after a few tweaks it runs pretty well even in high density areas such as Seattle and Chicago. Now granted my FPS is not through the roof (10-13 while on the ground in dense areas and 15+ everywhere else with frames set to 20) but I am pretty much stutter free although I will get an additional stick of RAM to get me to 2 Gigs. Overall a pretty pleasant experience. Perhaps it might be worth a little more tweaking?Richard

[boshar 6]

10 to 15 fps and pretty much stutter free with top of the line hardware...I'm getting 30 - 40 FPS in a maxed out sliders right filled to the brim with add-ons FS9 (also pretty much stutter free). I could never go back to 15 FPS without autogen and little AI traffic. Its not worth the 'upgrade' for me.Now if a future quadcore gives me a 30 - 40 FPS in a maxed out sliders right experience in FS-X I'll be the first to upgrade but whats the chance that FS-X will actually support such future hardware. Roll on FS-XI.

[FlyingsCool 3]

What is it that you want from having sliders all the way to the right?With the automobile traffic slider at 40% and air traffic set at 100% or nearly 100%, the air and roads are FULL of traffic (you can probably do even better with 3rd party AI, I have never taken the time to learn this stuff). With autogen set at medium or dense, there is tons of autogen. You can even go to very dense. With scenery complexity set at very dense, there is tons of scenery.You should be able to get all that and 30 fps most places, 15 to 20 fps in NY with this laptop.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

[Guest Funky D]

Three year old system, just upgraded the RAM and video card, and I'm happy with 15-20 fps. Had to remove the default.xml file and disabled traffic, but the rest of the sliders are suprisingly high for my system (3.2GHz, 2GB RAM, X1950PRO).Given the benefits of FSX, I'm not even considering going back to FS9. FSX is the first version of FS that actually "feels" somewhat close to real flight. Ground handling is better as well. Give it a year and we'll start seeing machines that can run FSX with no tweeks and almost full sliders.While half of this forum complains about FSX performance, I'll be happily replaying a few of the missions. This is the best version of FS yet, and I've been simming since FS2 (on my fathers lap in front of the RGB monitor).This isn't directed at the original poster, but at the "community" as a whole: some people need to swallow their pride, accept their new computer still isn't fast enough for FSX, and make a few minor configuration sacrifices; instead of demanding a patch tomorrow, speculating on DX10 performance, etc etc.-Paul

[MD83 1]

>Three year old system, just upgraded the RAM and video card,>and I'm happy with 15-20 fps. Had to remove the default.xml>file and disabled traffic, but the rest of the sliders are>suprisingly high for my system (3.2GHz, 2GB RAM, X1950PRO).>>Given the benefits of FSX, I'm not even considering going back>to FS9. FSX is the first version of FS that actually "feels">somewhat close to real flight. Ground handling is better as>well. Give it a year and we'll start seeing machines that can>run FSX with no tweeks and almost full sliders.>>While half of this forum complains about FSX performance, I'll>be happily replaying a few of the missions. This is the best>version of FS yet, and I've been simming since FS2 (on my>fathers lap in front of the RGB monitor).>>This isn't directed at the original poster, but at the>"community" as a whole: some people need to swallow their>pride, accept their new computer still isn't fast enough for>FSX, and make a few minor configuration sacrifices; instead of>demanding a patch tomorrow, speculating on DX10 performance,>etc etc.If a simulator can't run satisfactorily on a mid-range PC then there is something awry.

[Guest X15]

FSX can run satisfactorily on a mid-range PC, you just can't have ALL the sliders to the right, yet.I've been fascinated by the FSX posts on these forums since I joined. Comparison between FS9 and FSX are very biased. It seems many people have FS9 that they enjoy and have spent a lot of money on add-ons to perfect their experience. This is great for sure, but FSX is so new, how can it be expected to deliver the same experience out of the box? Was FS9 not the same when it first came out, pushing the then 'bleeding edge' machines to the limits? (Take a look at some of the older posts on internet forums for the answers LOL)Unlike most people I'm new to both FSX and FS9. Looking at clean instals of both sims, there is no comparison. FSX is superior in every single way. Who needs full autogen and traffic, it really isn't needed but it is provided, maybe for future machines, but I have to say my flight experience with FSX is not spoilt because my mid range machine can not display all features such as full autogen or water effects. The pin sharp textures provided in FSX look fantastic, they do not look so good on my machine in FS9,though, they are blurry and slow to load, spoiling any illusion of flight.I'm not sure what people expect from FSX, for me I could have been put off, but I have found that it is FSX I choose every time, it is a fantastic sim to 'fly'. I'm quite happy spending money now to upgrade to a high end machine for a little better performance in FSX, but only because I enjoy it as it is on my machine and the upgrade can only make it even better.At the end of the day, I can't have 'everything' in FSX right now, but I can have a brilliant sim that I'll be happy to spend more of my cash on as the hardware becomes available, surely that was the same for all you guys with FS9 3 years ago?

[vgbaron 3,510]

>What is it that you want from having sliders all the way to>the right?>>With the automobile traffic slider at 40% and air traffic set>at 100% or nearly 100%, the air and roads are FULL of traffic>(you can probably do even better with 3rd party AI, I have>never taken the time to learn this stuff). With autogen set>at medium or dense, there is tons of autogen. You can even go>to very dense. With scenery complexity set at very dense,>there is tons of scenery.And lety's not forget that Aces has already pointed out that the slider reference is not the same as FS9. Sparse Autogen in FSX is equivalent to Dense in FS9. Also, as many have noted, including myself, 15-20FPS is FS9 and 15-20Visit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

[Guest iwantmydc3]

>Fellow simmers,>>I just bought a brand new notebook from Dell, and used it for>the first time yesterday. I also ordered a copy of FSX Deluxe>with my system.>>Here are my specs:>- XPS M1710, Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T7400>(2.16GHz/667MHz/4MB)>- 2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM 677MHZ,2 DIMM, for XPS>M1710>- 512MB NVIDIA GeForce Go 7950 GTX, for XPS M1710>- Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition, English>>The installation defaulted most of my display settings to>medium on the slider, but autogen and AI traffic were>automatically set very low. My FPS was right at 15, but with>blurry textures and little detail. I then slid everything to>the right, just to see what happens, and FPS went down to 5 or>lower. Based on what I've read in the forum, I was not>surprised>I'll go back to my FS9 on my current XPS desktop, which works>like a charm with plenty of add-ons.>>Cheers!Hi LuisThe only thing that gives me a bit of pause is you state your memory is "shared"? So there's no discrete graphics board? That makes a difference--if you have 2GB of system RAM and 512MB of seperate video RAM, and a Core Duo of 2+Ghaz, you should be able to run FSX fine in the medium to medium high settings (I have a desktop, XPS410 that does okay). But if you have 2GB of RAM and 512 of that is used for video, your performance will be different. Also I'd advise-so you can't have everything to the right all the way--put things in the middle and emjoy. I don't worry about that stuff anymore--why is it anyway that everyhing MUST be dialed up all the way. Do you need to always have your amp on "10" to play enjoyable music? It's supposed to be FUN don't spend all your time worrying and configuring, and well...working :)

[Guest lflinares]

Thanks for all the feedback.I decided to reinstall and register FSX and plan to use it on my notebook, especially when I'm traveling.FS9 on my desktop is still my favorite and very enjoyable with add-ons such as UT, Active Sky, PMDG, PSS, Level-D, and FS Genesis.On FSX I'm getting 15-20 FPS outside o the big cities and 6-10 FPS in the more dense areas. I have every setting maxed except that I completely turned off autogen, air traffic, road traffic, and airport vehicle traffic. I hope to see improvements with any future SPs, and I will eventually invest in a desktop capable of running FSX. Plus I also want to wait for add-ons to become available and/or compatible.Happy flying...Luis KMIA