Frame rates

Ive lifted this from an official MS site

An Important Note About CPU Speeds

When FSX evaluates your PC to determine the default graphics settings, it looks at the measurable "clock speed" in GHz. Some extremely fast and powerful processors run at clock speeds that are actually lower than those of less powerful processors. As a result, the default FSX graphics settings on some high-end machines (with lower clock speeds) may be set to a lower visual quality than is necessary. For example, both an AMD Athlon 64 4000 (with a clock speed of about 2.4 GHz) and an Intel Core 2 Duo (with a clock speed of 2.66 GHz) are high end processors with low clock speeds that FSX may underrate.

If you have a high-end machine but find the default graphics settings are lower than you'd expect, this may be why. While future versions of Flight Simulator will possibly use other methods to evaluate your PC, this issue regarding FSX reinforces the most important message when it comes to tuning your display settings: Don't be afraid to experiment.

More here

http://www.fsinsider.com/Community/News-Articles/Featured-Article/

Great information, thank you!

But I've tried everything that you guys have mentioned but it still isn't working. The detail is bad even though I've set things to high and ultra high and saved them, I even tried restarting it like mentioned in the first post of this thread and the frame rate is bad and it takes more than 15 minutes to load a flight.

El_Al 935ST wrote:

But I've tried everything that you guys have mentioned but it still isn't working. The detail is bad even though I've set things to high and ultra high and saved them, I even tried restarting it like mentioned in the first post of this thread and the frame rate is bad and it takes more than 15 minutes to load a flight.

How bad is your computer?

2.8 Ghz CPU

14 GB Free disk space (after installing FSX)

512 MB Radeon 9200 graphics card

DirectX 9.0c (Installed and working)

OS: Windows XP SP2

Still it's not good at all. I am now trying to defragment the disk so it may load quicker than how it loads now. What else do you want to know?

Cheers

How much RAM?

I have a P4 2.8 with only 512 MB of which 128 is shared with an onboard Intel GFX chip. I am also running FSX from a Maxtor One Touch external hard drive on a USB 2.0 connection, and while I am not able to get the best graphics, it runs smoothly and actually takes less time to load than my fully loaded FS9 on an internal drive.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your card is a 128mb and quite old.
If so the graphics problem can be traced to that.

ye ur right so what graphics card do you reccomend to get a lot out of FSX. I need it to be either 256MB or 512MB with a clock speed of about 3.0 Ghz, and I don't want to spend more than £50.00.

cheers

That's not very much money.
The best I could suggest here (I can't search the UK with success).
GF 6600
X1300

http://www.bizrate.com/graphicscards/products__keyword--agp%20cards__sort--5__start--180.html

Ive got a GF 6600GT And it still Runs horribly.
This SW needs to be patched before everybody can run it at any sensible FPS.
I get between 5 and 12 FPS. Which as far as I am concerned is not acceptable.
Also after switching all settings to low the FPS remains unchanged.
Its just bad SW.

No, it is inadequate hardware.

Just because you computer can't handle it, does not mean the software is bad. It just requires better hardware than you have.

Well i've got a Core 2 duo, 2.4ghz, 2GB of 667mhz ram, a GF7600GT PCIE and the game still struggles. I can run other games like BF2 or Fear on max detail with 2x Anti Aliasing on 1280X1024 with no problems. So its definately code issues. Frustrating......

CptSAA wrote:

Well i've got a Core 2 duo, 2.4ghz, 2GB of 667mhz ram, a GF7600GT PCIE and the game still struggles. I can run other games like BF2 or Fear on max detail with 2x Anti Aliasing on 1280X1024 with no problems. So its definately code issues. Frustrating......

I didn't get my 2.7 Duel Core yet, try this out and see if it really works.

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com/forum/topic/21628/dual-core-processors/

Lat me know please.

CptSAA wrote:

Well i've got a Core 2 duo, 2.4ghz, 2GB of 667mhz ram, a GF7600GT PCIE and the game still struggles. I can run other games like BF2 or Fear on max detail with 2x Anti Aliasing on 1280X1024 with no problems. So its definately code issues. Frustrating......

Really?

Do BF2 and FEAR have to load the enitire world?

I have a Core2 Duo E6400, 2 GB DDR2-800 ram, and an X1900XTX and the game runs fine at almost max graphics.

RadarMan wrote:

I didn't get my 2.7 Duel Core yet, try this out and see if it really works.

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com/forum/topic/21628/dual-core-processors/

Lat me know please.

No, the affinity hack won't work for FSX and won't improve FS9 either. There is NO support for Dual-Core in either sims unless you are running them in Vista....so waddaya know

Anonymous wrote:

RadarMan wrote:

I didn't get my 2.7 Duel Core yet, try this out and see if it really works.

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com/forum/topic/21628/dual-core-processors/

Lat me know please.

No, the affinity hack won't work for FSX and won't improve FS9 either. There is NO support for Dual-Core in either sims unless you are running them in Vista....so waddaya know

Interesting , thanks for the feedback.

RadarMan wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RadarMan wrote:

I didn't get my 2.7 Duel Core yet, try this out and see if it really works.

https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com/forum/topic/21628/dual-core-processors/

Lat me know please.

No, the affinity hack won't work for FSX and won't improve FS9 either. There is NO support for Dual-Core in either sims unless you are running them in Vista....so waddaya know

Interesting , thanks for the feedback.

Whilst I agree that FS9 is not optomized for dual core it does run better and smoother when I use the 'affinity' trick.

CrashGordon wrote:

No, it is inadequate hardware.

Just because you computer can't handle it, does not mean the software is bad. It just requires better hardware than you have.

While that's correct to a degree, software can be written in a overly hardware dependant manner. There are many racing sims (*i didn't use the G word) that are written more efficiently that others. Some very accurately physiced and highly detailed programs like Racedriver 3 attain great realism with out needing to spend $2500 on hardware. Others produce similar results while requiring the processing power of a supercomputer.
Battlesims (again no "g" word) such as Call of Duty have great gameplay and visuals, attainable on very modest machines. Call of Duty 2 used a different engine and reqiured much higher specs (switch it to DX9 and a $2000 rig runs like a Commodre 64). BF2 with all candy on sucks you dry of a fortune to keep it up to good detail and FR.
So while it's accurate to say that you need better hardware to run FSX, it's also abit to do with the marketplaces way of pushing the upgrade dollar along nicely.

None of them 'sims' have to render the world.

FSX doesn't render the whole world either, only the bits you can see at any one given moment.
Yes, the graphics are more detailed than the default fs9 scenery, but who runs the default fs9 scenery?
My point is not to argue if the merits of one game over another, only that fsx seems to run poorly for people with (what I would consider) high end machines.
There's not much point in writing a magnificent novel if almost no one can read it without having to skip over all the good bits.

ongttfs......well said. Is there a peter principle for software?

2 things, it's omgttfs, lol (oh my God, that's the funky sh1t, I'm a Beastie Boy's fan!).

....and who's Peter, what school is he at?