| Author |
Message |
flowdrip
Trainee
Joined: Jun 02, 2005
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:40 pm |
|
|
If the final version of FSX is anything like the demo, I predict it will be a flop. It's doubtful all flight simmers are going to want to spend BIG bucks on a new computer just to make FSX run at decent framerates. My system: FX55, 2GB Geil PC3200 DDR400, (2) 7900 GT's in SLI, (2) WD Raptors in RAID 0, (1) Raptor game drive, the CPU, mobo chipset, both videocards, and HD's are all watercooled. Not exactly a low end computer. The FSX demo ran like S*#t on this rig. Stuttering along like an old Pentium 2 machine. I was seriously unimpressed with this demo. M$ has a lot of work to do yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 16894
Location: U.S.A |
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:05 pm |
|
|
You have 4 times the computer that I do and I ran it without a problem.
I found it easier on my machine than FS9.
Saying that I know the when FSX comes out it'll take a machine similar to yours to run it.
More ram (4 gigs) will be needed if you want to run Vista (and FSX) to get the full value of DirectX 10.
I think you better do some serious looking into getting your machine in shape if it can't run that simple beta demo.
Buy the way, nice card(s) but they won't be able to use DX 10 but will use DX 9 like always.
Good luck to you, I hope you whip that machine into shape before October 17 so you can enjoy the new experience.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:42 pm |
|
|
Its all in the CPU.
Get a dual core Pentium and youre off with great frames. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 16894
Location: U.S.A |
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:19 pm |
|
|
Anonymous wrote:Its all in the CPU.
Get a dual core Pentium and youre off with great frames.
One of the most important parts of today's computers has to be a powerful brand-name power supply.
The p/s that the computer makers (Dell) are small and not ready for additional USB and new more power demanding video cards.
A thermaltake or Antec are the best for the $.
http://www.thermaltake.com/
http://www.antec.com/InternationalWelcome.php
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrashGordon
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 4668
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:20 am |
|
|
Why do people keep bragging about their lack of computer skills. I can get the demo to run reasonably well on a 2.8 P4 with 512 MB RAM of which 128 is used by the on board GFX chip.
It isn't rocket science to get reasonable performance out of the demo on even a mediocre machine. CrashGordon
CEO, Omega-Air Virtual airlines
Last edited by CrashGordon on Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:13 pm |
|
|
flowdrip wrote:If the final version of FSX is anything like the demo, I predict it will be a flop. It's doubtful all flight simmers are going to want to spend BIG bucks on a new computer just to make FSX run at decent framerates. My system: FX55, 2GB Geil PC3200 DDR400, (2) 7900 GT's in SLI, (2) WD Raptors in RAID 0, (1) Raptor game drive, the CPU, mobo chipset, both videocards, and HD's are all watercooled. Not exactly a low end computer. The FSX demo ran like S*#t on this rig. Stuttering along like an old Pentium 2 machine. I was seriously unimpressed with this demo. M$ has a lot of work to do yet.
I think the final version of FSX will be much faster. One reason is because of DX10. Another, because Windows Vista. Vista is 64 bit, which helps alot for speed. And FSX will be optimized for it. 
Do you know why the demo is kinda slow? Because Microsoft just slapped it together quickly so the public could try it. So don't worry, the final version of FSX will be Tons Better . And guess what? Probably the people who are making FSX are reading some posts here are FAS. So maybe you can help by reporting bug!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrashGordon
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 4668
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:35 pm |
|
|
encarta2006 wrote:
I think the final version of FSX will be much faster. One reason is because of DX10. Another, because Windows Vista. Vista is 64 bit, which helps alot for speed. And FSX will be optimized for it.
Do you know why the demo is kinda slow? Because Microsoft just slapped it together quickly so the public could try it. So don't worry, the final version of FSX will be Tons Better . And guess what? Probably the people who are making FSX are reading some posts here are FAS. So maybe you can help by reporting bug!
Since you haven't tested DX10, how do you know? The only advantage to a 64 bit OS is that it can address more memory. It does squat for speed. When someone says, "don't worry", it is time to worry. Programmers almost never listen to the outside world. They live in their own universe and decide what is good and bad. So I wouldn't count on their reading anything here. CrashGordon
CEO, Omega-Air Virtual airlines |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:49 pm |
|
|
CrashGordon wrote:encarta2006 wrote:
I think the final version of FSX will be much faster. One reason is because of DX10. Another, because Windows Vista. Vista is 64 bit, which helps alot for speed. And FSX will be optimized for it.
Do you know why the demo is kinda slow? Because Microsoft just slapped it together quickly so the public could try it. So don't worry, the final version of FSX will be Tons Better . And guess what? Probably the people who are making FSX are reading some posts here are FAS. So maybe you can help by reporting bug!
Since you haven't tested DX10, how do you know? The only advantage to a 64 bit OS is that it can address more memory. It does squat for speed. When someone says, "don't worry", it is time to worry. Programmers almost never listen to the outside world. They live in their own universe and decide what is good and bad. So I wouldn't count on their reading anything here.
Hey you know I agree.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:24 pm |
|
|
I think I will ad that I know how much better DX10 will be because I have read several different articles..... 
To tell you the truth, Microsoft really needed to make a better demo. Probably the final realease of FSX will be much better BECAUSE microsoft won't just slap everything together so that the public can try it. I am totaly conviced that Windows Vista will be 2x times faster (or more) with a dual core 64 bit procceser than on Windows (x86).
If DX10 is not very much faster than DX9 i'm gonna really be mad at.....(who made DX?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 16894
Location: U.S.A |
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:05 pm |
|
|
I have been reading that it (Vista) is faster than as XP was faster than 9X.
A friend also just told me that the specs on the new DX 10 cards that aren't out yet require 250w power for each to run at max.
I was going to settle for a 750w p/s but now the 1000w doesn't seem that unreasonable for the long run, especially if you are going to run 4 gigs of ram and many many fans and other peripherals.
Don't forget today's printers, scanners, etc and our ubiquitous joysticks are all USB, sucking the power from the computer.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:26 pm |
|
|
RadarMan wrote:I have been reading that it (Vista) is faster than as XP was faster than 9X.
A friend also just told me that the specs on the new DX 10 cards that aren't out yet require 250w power for each to run at max.
I was going to settle for a 750w p/s but now the 1000w doesn't seem that unreasonable for the long run, especially if you are going to run 4 gigs of ram and many many fans and other peripherals.
Don't forget today's printers, scanners, etc and our ubiquitous joysticks are all USB, sucking the power from the computer.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 16894
Location: U.S.A |
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:33 pm |
|
|
encarta2006 wrote:RadarMan wrote:I have been reading that it (Vista) is faster than as XP was faster than 9X.
A friend also just told me that the specs on the new DX 10 cards that aren't out yet require 250w power for each to run at max.
I was going to settle for a 750w p/s but now the 1000w doesn't seem that unreasonable for the long run, especially if you are going to run 4 gigs of ram and many many fans and other peripherals.
Don't forget today's printers, scanners, etc and our ubiquitous joysticks are all USB, sucking the power from the computer.
My present machine is much too old to salvage anything so I'll just use my new monitor (24" LCD) and everything else will be brand new, home built I hope.
I want it to be first class hardware and you can't buy that only come close even for much more $.
Check out http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/ for some fairly good prices and I do believe that they have local not outsourced tech support.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:38 pm |
|
|
RadarMan wrote:encarta2006 wrote:RadarMan wrote:I have been reading that it (Vista) is faster than as XP was faster than 9X.
A friend also just told me that the specs on the new DX 10 cards that aren't out yet require 250w power for each to run at max.
I was going to settle for a 750w p/s but now the 1000w doesn't seem that unreasonable for the long run, especially if you are going to run 4 gigs of ram and many many fans and other peripherals.
Don't forget today's printers, scanners, etc and our ubiquitous joysticks are all USB, sucking the power from the computer.
My present machine is much too old to salvage anything so I'll just use my new monitor (24" LCD) and everything else will be brand new, home built I hope.
I want it to be first class hardware and you can't buy that only come close even for much more $.
Check out http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/ for some fairly good prices and I do believe that they have local not outsourced tech support.
Oh wow!!! I should think of getting one of those!!!!! So which one do you want to get? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 16894
Location: U.S.A |
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:08 pm |
|
|
The core 2 customized without a monitor (and cheap card for now) comes to almost $3000 without shipping or tax.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:49 pm |
|
|
Cool! I can hardly WAIT for FSX!!!!
I think I will get a better grahpics card.........hmm... 
I think (since I have a 6100) I wil get a 7300, since it is all I can afford..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 16894
Location: U.S.A |
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:11 pm |
|
|
encarta2006 wrote:Cool! I can hardly WAIT for FSX!!!!
I think I will get a better grahpics card.........hmm...
I think (since I have a 6100) I wil get a 7300, since it is all I can afford.....
Wait for the DX 10 cards. Big $$  $$
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:42 pm |
|
|
RadarMan wrote:encarta2006 wrote:Cool! I can hardly WAIT for FSX!!!!
I think I will get a better grahpics card.........hmm...
I think (since I have a 6100) I wil get a 7300, since it is all I can afford.....
Wait for the DX 10 cards. Big $$ $$
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RadarMan
Chief Captain
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
Posts: 16894
Location: U.S.A |
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:43 pm |
|
|
encarta2006 wrote:RadarMan wrote:encarta2006 wrote:Cool! I can hardly WAIT for FSX!!!!
I think I will get a better grahpics card.........hmm...
I think (since I have a 6100) I wil get a 7300, since it is all I can afford.....
Wait for the DX 10 cards. Big $$ $$
Nice! You have a good uncle.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
encarta2006
Trainee
Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:59 pm |
|
|
Hey everybody I started a new topic called Submit ideas, wishes, pics, etc.
There you can post pics of FSX...all pics OF FSX are welcome! Oh, I think videos too, if you want.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annoyed FSX User
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:19 pm |
|
|
Everyone,
I just upgraded for FSX to a AMD 4400 X2 CPU (Dual Core), 2GB DDR400 RAM, 2 x 512MB 7900GT (SLI) Gfx cards, top of the range board and decent hard disks. I have a 700W PSU too powering it all. I run with the case side off and a desk fan keeping it all cool and quiet.
FSX will not run on much above medium-low. The missions are incredibly slow in places especially those that involve weather. Since I have spent nearly 2,000 on this system and thought it would run FSX I am rather cheesed off. Since this performs so badly even with nvidia latest released and beta drivers I am assuming it is to do with the CPU. I wonder if MS have made it Intel biased as some uses claim to have it running really well on systems of the equivalent intel setup.
I still cant believe that with a gig of video memory, two gig normal system memory and combined 4.4ghz with 2mb cache onboard that this game is so slow 
If someone knows of a system that can run this game at decent quality let me know so that i can go buy it! At the moment i have to run it with such low graphics that its taking a step back from FS9 - airports are empty of buildings etc.
I was looking forward to this so much!!!
grrr!!
<end of rant> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrashGordon
Chief Captain
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 4668
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:48 pm |
|
|
I believe there have been some posts by AMD users that indicate they are doing okay.
Try a little test. Run FSX in a maximized window rather than full screen...preferably over a major city. Switching to a window will geive some immediate benefit, but the real reason is to launch your taskmanager and view just how many resources are being used. Viewing the resources as well as the processes running may shed some light on what is killing performance. CrashGordon
CEO, Omega-Air Virtual airlines |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BashDaBish
First Officer
Joined: Oct 05, 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Hull, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
time to upgrade...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:32 pm |
|
|
i am running fs x deluxe on my:
p4 3.4ghz (prescott 550... i know, it sucks)
1gb ddr2-533
geforce 6800gt
160gb 7200rpm sata 150 x 2
i can barely get 10 - 15 fps / second with everything set on high (not ultra high) @ 1024x768x32. Overall im pretty disappointed with the performance of fs x as if i turn down the graphics settings some more, i might as well play fs 2004 because it would look better and run smoother. id rather not speculate as to how much dx 10 and vista would improve the performance of fs x but im pretty sure that any improvement would be welcomed at this point. this game is not for mainstream users (like me) and id hate to think how the game runs on their system recommendations (1ghz, 32mb video card, 512mb ram, 14gb of free hdd space)
i was planning on shelling out 1000 to upgrade to:
core 2 e6400 2.13ghz (and then oc to 2. 
1gb ddr2-533
2x7900gto
asus 975 pn2sli
but i think forn now ill hold out till the new dx10 gpus hit the market and see what to do then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:10 am |
|
|
FSX Demo running at 1280 x 1024.
P4 Intel 630 Prescott 3.0Ghz (not dual core)
NVidia 6600GT 128Mb
1GB DDR Dual Channel Memory
Before I tweaked the FSX config file I averaged 20-25 FPS. I now average about 35-40 FPS after adding these tweaks to the fsx.cfg file
(Make sure you backup your fsx.cfg file first):
Code:
[Display]
BLOOM_EFFECTS=0
SKINNED_ANIMATIONS=1
TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=80
UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=0
[Main]
FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.1
[GRAPHICS]
SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=1
TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=512
NUM_LIGHTS=8
AIRCRAFT_SHADOWS=0
AIRCRAFT_REFLECTIONS=0
COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=1
AC_SELF_SHADOW=0
EFFECTS_QUALITY=2
GROUND_SHADOWS=0
TEXTURE_QUALITY=3
IMAGE_QUALITY=0
[TERRAIN]
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=400
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=3000
LOD_RADIUS=4.500000
MESH_COMPLEXITY=70
MESH_RESOLUTION=20
TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=24
AUTOGEN_DENSITY=3
DETAIL_TEXTURE=1
WATER_EFFECTS=2
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:35 am |
|
|
Some more performance tips here for NVidia users.
Download the latest driver from NVidias website and follow these instructions below.
Open up notepad and paste the following text below into a new text file and save it as coolbits.reg. Then double-click the file and click Yes to the diaglog that pops up.
Code:
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\NVTweak]
"CoolBits"=dword:00000003
Next open up the NVidia Control Panel and you will find an extra settings panel under Performance & Quality Settings. The new panel is called is called Additional Direct 3D settings and allows you to set the maximum allowed frames to render ahead of the current the frame.
The default is 3 but you can increase this to 4 may for improved frame smoothness. This may not work for everyone and slower cards may benefit by decreasing the setting to 2.
I also recommend the following NVidia Advanced Performance & Quality Settings:
Code:
Antialiasing settings = 2x (None for slow cards)
Anisotropic filtering = 4x (8x for 7600/7800/7900)
Image settings = Quality (Performance for slower cards)
Vertical sync = On
Force mipmaps = none
Conformant texture clamp = On
Extension limit = Off
Trilinear optimization = On (Not really effective anymore)
Anisotropic sample optimization = Off (On for slower cards)
Transparency antialising = Off (On for 7600/7800/7900)
Triple Buffering = Off
Negative LOD bias = Clamp
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:43 am |
|
|
Pssss...Forum Admin, if you are planning on making the above posts a sticky then I will just settle for a free account |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Register now! 
Search 
Login
