new pc ordered and going to try out FSX

[Guest YukonPete]

Well I finally decided to upgrade my PC. I normally build my own PC but since I moved from Australia to the remote Yukon its a little hard to just run down to the local PC store and buy components so I decided to order a Dell system. So how well do you think it will run FSX. The detail as followsDell XPS710Intel

[Guest firehawk44]

I have a similar system (710H2C) and it runs FSX well but not with sliders maxed out. Keep your sliders medium to high and you will truly enjoy the sim. Anything higher may cause Out of Memory errors (at least with the NVIDIA Vista drivers). I also have the Dell 3007WFP and the graphics are simply awesome! Enjoy!Best regards,Jim

[Guest]

I bet with that system and SP1 you can easily run everything maxed in the 20-35 fps range as long as you turn off light bloom, ground scenery shadows, and set water to low 2.x.

[Mace 1,902]

Maxxed? I bet not everywhere...even post-SP1RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[rservice 4]

I would imagine the SP1 will improve things somewhat even those of us with older rigs.Mine is almost 4 years old now but I won't be upgrading till next year.Wow!!, you moved from Australia to the remote Yukon,that must be a real shocker in climate change.I live in Toronto, and still don't like the winters here.Good luck with the new rigRon

[Guest]

>Maxxed? I bet not everywhere...even post-SP1Well I know on my single core Athlon 2.8GHz I run everything maxed on my pc, with the exception of autgen at dense, light bloom/ground shadows off, and water at low 2.x, and I get 18-27fps most of the time. So a C2D and SP1 can only improve on this, and I would guess at a 40% gain.

[Guest Traffic]

I've almost given up on the thought of running Flightsim any where near maxed and keeping it smooth.It's so disheartening to buy new hardware just for Flightsim and be utterly disappointed.I was looking recently at a VoodooPC Omen review (not that I can currently afford a Voodoo) on extremetech and my heart just sank seeing the benchmarks of modern games with FSX thrown in the mix. Take a look: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2059877,00.aspSad isn't it? :-violin

[Guest]

>I was looking recently at a VoodooPC Omen review (not that I>can currently afford a Voodoo) on extremetech and my heart>just sank seeing the benchmarks of modern games with FSX>thrown in the mix. Take a look:>http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2059877,00.asp>>Sad isn't it? :-violin Keep in mind FSX and flight simulators in general are not optimized to run at high frame rates like a first person shooter, so a comparison between it and the other games there is apples to oranges. I beleive ACES stated FSX was optimized to run in the 20-30fps range. 20+ fps is plenty smooth for a flight sim, but not too good for a fast paced shooter, hence the different targets in performance.

[Guest YukonPete]

Thanks for the insight to my new rig! My current system I built in 2003. And I get 15-20 FPS in FSX. I also remember reading a few years ago that loading FS with more then 25 FPS is a waste of PC resources and actually slows the sim down. So Ive always locked mine at 25 FPS. And I was always getting a constant 25 FPS in FS9.My old RigP4 HT @ 3.02Ghz1GB Ram256mb ATI 9800XT

[W2DR 1,859]

I agree. Not a chance. - doug

[Guest Traffic]

My post was meant to relate more to the original question here about hardware requirements; it doesn

[Guest]

Yeah I don't know about 12-18, as I'm used to getting 18-27 with most everything maxed, the exceptions being whats noted above. I've seen it go as low as 14 though if I'm spinning around in circles over a big city, then again I don't have a very fast CPU.

[Guest weeniemcween]

In response to Traffic. First of all - and I know this was not your point - those companies - Voodoo, Alienware, FalconNW - all sell very nice but very overpriced computers. Apart from self-building, anyone can buy a cutting edge graphics card and a barebones computer with a hefty power supply, cpu, and low latency ram for far less dough. The performance advantage is marginal, usually coming down to the latest pre-public parts which will not be latest in a month's time. So using those companies as the highest standard is misleading. Whoever spends over a thousand dollars for custom flames on a computer is a huge dork. This is cool: www.seriouswheels.com/1960-1969/1962-Plymouth-Valiant-Red-With-Flames.htmComputers are not (macs too)and they never will be.With that said, I agree that 12-18 fps is by no means fluid, but with a little tweaking and certainly after sp1, a high end computer can definitely keep settings above medium and consistently get mid 20s fps. For someone who likes PMDG and Level D, you know that eye candy is secondary to simulation quality, although they overlap. Something which I don't understand at all is people concerned that fsx will not be able to accommodate complex systems add ons. When you're flying at 30,000 feet, what do objects on the ground matter? And if you want that approach to be smoother and you actually give cockpit and control simulation preeminence, then turn off the darn autogen. With sp1 and the new less overhead simconnect we'll be fine.

[Lange_666 167]

>I've almost given up on the thought of running Flightsim any>where near maxed and keeping it smooth.>>It's so disheartening to buy new hardware just for Flightsim>and be utterly disappointed.>>I was looking recently at a VoodooPC Omen review (not that I>can currently afford a Voodoo) on extremetech and my heart>just sank seeing the benchmarks of modern games with FSX>thrown in the mix. Take a look:>http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2059877,00.asp>>Sad isn't it? :-violin Sad but i wonder how many people run FSX at the tested resolutions?1920x1200 and 2560x1600 ? I certainly don't and i most in here don't either.Then another strange thing: Look at the FPS rates, there is as good as no difference between both resolutions and there is as good as no difference in both AA and AF settings either. Somethings's not correct.If i set both AA and AF enabled i definatly see a hugh drop in FSP compared to disabled settings.Also, what is fluid? I know someone who is happy with flying sims with an FPS rate of around 10-12 as long as he can have his detail setting maxed out. He finds his sim then supersmooth! I on the contrairy, get a headache from framerates like that and tend to move my sliders down to keep framerate up. We surely both have a different view on smoothness.My current system:Intel E6600 dual core, 4GB of 800Mhz dual Channel RAM and a EN8800GTS with 640 MB DDR3 RAM. System is tweaked for high framerates but not overcloked (yet). I can't set all my sliders at max. Overall, everything is +/- set to medium and i then get a average framerate of around 24 with drops to +/- 10 around high detailed area's (1152x864x32).I really really would like to take a peek into and compare a system like mine but which runs at full max with FPS around 40 with the same resolutions settings as i do, just to find out where i go wrong.

[Guest Len]

>I've almost given up on the thought of running Flightsim any>where near maxed and keeping it smooth.>>It's so disheartening to buy new hardware just for Flightsim>and be utterly disappointed.>>I was looking recently at a VoodooPC Omen review (not that I>can currently afford a Voodoo) on extremetech and my heart>just sank seeing the benchmarks of modern games with FSX>thrown in the mix. Take a look:>http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2059877,00.asp>>Sad isn't it? :-violin Ouch!