fsx is slow

[Guest fs95man]

My copy of FSX is slow, even with a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 HT and 512 MB of RAM. The outsides of the aircraft are all blurry, I can't read Boeing on the corporate livery. It takes a panful 5 minutes to load. Can you help?

[slashed2 53]

Your memory is too low. Minimum needs would be 1 gb, optimal 2-4. Ian.

[Virtualwombat 4]

Yep, My system struggles in some circumstances too (clouds, cities, detailed aircraft). FSX needs a fast processor (core 2 duo E6600 or better, even overclocked), lots of RAM and a 512 or better graphics card. I am able to run Horizon Simulations photo realistic scenery (without autogen of course) at 42 fps locked. That's with careful selection of visibility and keeping airspeed below 200kts. Under those conditions FSX is almost perfect. Pity about the ATC though. Still sends me zig-zagging across the countryside, just like FS9.Cheers,Noel.

[AWACS 12]

That's what I said when I bought FS9. I had a brand new P4 2.8 with 512 MB RAM. Anyway, I never did have a good experience with my P4 and FS. I upped my ram to a gig which helped a little and went through several video cards, both by ATI 9600 and my X800 produced pretty much the same results. Unfortunately, I never ran FS9 smoothly until I got my current system, which is a Core 2 Duo, I'll be honest, I don't think the P4 processor was any good, at least the 2.8 wasn't. With FSX, see if the patch helps you out at all, should be out last half of April.Jeff

[ryanbatc 12,812]

See the tips and tricks forum,http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=177Unfortunately your hardware is pretty old...you did not even mention your video card...Like others said if you plan on upgrading, I'd suggest an entire rebuild, with the Core 2 Duo, E6600 or E6700, and at least 2GB of RAM. Something like a 7950GT or 8800 GTS/GTX video card would be nice as well...here's a nice place to start browsing (or oogling hehe)http://www.newegg.com/Good luck!

[Guest MauiHawk]

>Unfortunately, I never ran FS9 smoothly until I got my current>system, which is a Core 2 Duo, I'll be honest, I don't think>the P4 processor was any good, at least the 2.8 wasn't. Bingo. Generally the slowest Core 2 Duo is as good if not better as the fastest P4 in CPU bound gaming... even though the P4's frequency is twice that of the C2D. For example:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...spx?i=2795&p=16

[DadJokeCinema 145]

While there is truth in the replies about upgrading, I'm also curious as to what settings you are running at. I've run FSX on an older machine and it is possible to squeeze some performance out of it at the cost of some visual perks.

[Guest]

>My copy of FSX is slow, even with a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 HT and>512 MB of RAM. The outsides of the aircraft are all blurry, I>can't read Boeing on the corporate livery. It takes a panful 5>minutes to load. Can you help?Even with?? Without sounding too brash here, those specs you listed were on machines that were built almost 5 years ago. Time to upgrade mate. If you can't upgrade then fsx is not your bag I am afraid. FS2004 would be a stretch with that spec imo, yet alone fsx.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

[ryanbatc 12,812]

One other thing I've thought of is to defrag by /NameCheck out O&O defrag, and download the free 30-day trial version...http://www.oo-software.com/home/en/products/oodefrag/There's an option in that software to defrag by name, so everything on the hard drive can be accessed faster....look for the /Name defrag in there.That should help a little with loadings times.

[MarkRey 16]

could be in my head but i hear the sound of chains a'yanked :-jumpyregards,Markhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/a320/custbanner2.jpgPC Power Silencer 470/3.2HT/2048mb/ATI X1950pro/SB Audigy

[Guest Phantoms]

Not so sure, I can get 15-30fps in FSX with my P4 3.4EE and Radeon 9800pro. I have a lot of the candy turned down, but full AI aircraft traffic (both commercial and GA). I also installed a X1950XT AGP card last week that let me run with a good bit of the Candy turned up, but had to RMA the card for overheating problems. Now I'm back to the 9800pro and can't wait on the replacement card.

[Guest]

Well my former box was a dell xps 3.6 with a 7900gt and 2gb of ram and i averaged 12-25 as well. Believe me when i say that that box was much faster than a 2.8 with 512mb and 12-25fps to me is not what i would call smooth. I wouldnt expect to get more than 10fps with sliders all turned down with his box. The box i use now averages 25-30 in major cities now and 50+ in the burbs with most sliders 3/4 to high and still i could go for 10fps more before i would call it 'smooth'. I'm hoping sp1 will give me that last 10fps that i need :)________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

[Guest wyoming]

of performance you would get with the minimum requirements written on FSX box: 1 GHz, 256 MB, 15 GB of HD space!

[Guest MauiHawk]

Here's some FSX specific benchmarks: http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/642/Compare the X6800 vs the P4 955:Core 2 X6800 (2.93GHz): 22.9 fpsPentium EE 955 (3.46GHz): 11.3 fpsC2D is more than twice as fast despite a 16% slower clock rate.Intel's NetBurst line of chips just weren't that good. They couldn't keep pace with AMD except in certain specialized benchmarks and they were hot and power hungry. Intel has completely turned the tables with C2D. They're great chips. Wish I had one.