Why Does FSX Run Slow In My Comp??!?!

Well your computer isn't very good.

Could you run FS9 with everything on at 100%?

Solotwo wrote:

Well your computer isn't very good.

Could you run FS9 with everything on at 100%?

Yea I could. FS9 runs real smooth in my system.

You're using an integrated Graphics card. That's no good at all. Get a good, external one and you'll be fine. Those type of video memory is just for your OS, not for games.

FSfan wrote:

You're using an integrated Graphics card. That's no good at all. Get a good, external one and you'll be fine. Those type of video memory is just for your OS, not for games.

Ok...what's a good external graphics card that I could get? And an estimated price for it?

You haven't mentioned it but your specs look very much like those of a DELL computer. If I'm right, forget about upgrading, you're wasting your money.

You're better off saving that money toward a new rig, even if you have to wait a few more months.

Tailhook wrote:

You haven't mentioned it but your specs look very much like those of a DELL computer. If I'm right, forget about upgrading, you're wasting your money.

You're better off saving that money toward a new rig, even if you have to wait a few more months.

I don't have a Dell, I have an HP. But FS9 ran very very smooth in my comp. Now FSX runs like garbage!

Guys and Girls,

I am running the following system and can only get 16-18 FPS:

3.2 GHZ Inter Processor
1.0 GB RAM
256 MB Nvidia GTO

If MS thinks they are going to be able to post those rediculous requirements for this game and keep people happy they are nuts. Not only are people with significantly better machines than minimums are getting those fps people will be pis_ed. Thanks once again for destroying the next generation of FS Microsoft.

unclerez wrote:

Guys and Girls,

I am running the following system and can only get 16-18 FPS:

3.2 GHZ Inter Processor
1.0 GB RAM
256 MB Nvidia GTO

If MS thinks they are going to be able to post those rediculous requirements for this game and keep people happy they are nuts. Not only are people with significantly better machines than minimums are getting those fps people will be pis_ed. Thanks once again for destroying the next generation of FS Microsoft.

2gb's of ram will help greatly. I don't know what you people expect, do you expect FSX to look 1000 times better and require the same specs of FS9? Its called evolution. Start using your heads.

hey i'm running

3.2 P4
2Gb Ram
256 DDR Geforce 6600 Graphic card
80gb hard drive,
and the thing is jumping like crazy can sum 1 help

Lower your settings/sliders.

Lower autogen/traffic/special effects/weather etc
Lower scenery sliders and water. Save the config as '1'

If frames improve then increase scenery by a small amount. Save config as '2'.

Keep going until your frames become jumpy.

Has any1 found the best SPEC for a CPU so FSX runs prefect on high resolution??What system are you running??
i'l try that now until i have the prefect balance!

I have

AthlonXP64 X2 4400
2gb RAM
160gb SATA2 HD
2 x 7300GT 256mb DDR3

My graphics started off looking like a very poor FS9. I was expecting more from my machine and FSX.

So, I started form the beginning.

Defragmenting
I used o&o defrag software that beats the standard XP defrag utility hands down. I used this to defrag my machine in a COMPLETE/NAME method. This placed files in order of folder/filename. Seeing as most applications run like this it was an immediate improvement.

Last file access stamping
I then disabled disabled last file access stamping. If you don't need to know when your files were last accessed then you should disable this feature in XP.
I did this by launching the command prompt, typing
fsutil behavior set disablelastaccess 1
and pressing enter.

Windows file indexing
This speeds up XP file searches but I rarely do this. It really can slow down disck access for FS9, FSX.
Open Control Panel
Select Add/Remove Programs
Press “Add/Remove Windows Components” button.
Make sure “Indexing Service” box is unchecked.

Increase CPU Priority To The Foreground Process
Because this next suggestion requires a registry edit, you should back up your registry first. To increase the CPU priority to the foreground process, start Regedit and navigate to the following key:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\PriorityControl]
Change the dword value of Win32PrioritySeparation to 26. Make sure the hexadecimal button is clicked for the base. You should then see the following value attached to the Win32PrioritySeparation keyword.
"Win32PrioritySeparation"=dword:00000026
Save your changes and reboot the system to run with the new setting. By default, the factory setting is usually 2.

FSX
Started with low sliders on all, then increased scenery and aircraft quality. Saved config after every change. Set FPS target to 20. I don't notice any difference with higher FPS.

Graphics
I have nVidia cards so I used the nVidia control panel. Once my frames were decent (to the naked eye) I increased my card settings to obtain better quality.

Hope this helps 😉

Hey
Try loading FSX in a different drive from all your other progs,
In other words not your C: drive.
Unless of course you have turned off every other prog that runs in the background such has virus scanning and firewall and gods knows how many other things!
Defragment your C: drive (if that's where your prog files are).

Ok I'm dumb, I tried to change my registry without saving the old one. Seemed simple to change the value '2' to '26' and reboot. to fix i should change it back right? Well now i get a fatal error at the end of instalation that halts the install and kicks me out.

any ideas?

Looking for the best setup for:

AMD 64 3500+
2.2 GHZ
1 GB Ram
nVidia GeForce 7300 GS

Thanks for an help.

pilotpat

k_camacho11 wrote:

Tailhook wrote:

You haven't mentioned it but your specs look very much like those of a DELL computer. If I'm right, forget about upgrading, you're wasting your money.

You're better off saving that money toward a new rig, even if you have to wait a few more months.

I don't have a Dell, I have an HP. But FS9 ran very very smooth in my comp. Now FSX runs like garbage!

In regards to performance and quality (or lack thereof) and all the other nasty side effects you pay for when you buy a brand computer, HP is not that different from DELL.

Just because fs9 ran very smooth on your system doesn't mean fsx will.
You've probably missed it because it's been mentioned many times -- for fsx to run according to its potential it requires DX10 which will only be available with Windows Vista. Then there will be DX10 compatible graphics cards and you'll be very disappointed for having upgraded an HP running Windows XP.

🙂)

TH is correct. Upgrading before Vista, DX10 and DX10 graphics cards. is probably not a good choice. Barring any further delays in vsita, you will only have a few months to wait.

Just got FSX today, installed it... played like it was running on an old 486,
12 fps - sometimes 3 fps, I was drooling at this amazing jerk across the effect - Nope I'm taking it back to the shop I bought it from, £50 is a lot dosh for something that does nothing, even with it all switched off.

It was running(err..sorry not!) on
3.4 GHZ duel core extreme,
4.G ram
750 gigs of HD
ATi 500mb X1900

I thought more than enough spec to run it...

Anonymous wrote:

Just got FSX today, installed it... played like it was running on an old 486,
12 fps - sometimes 3 fps, I was drooling at this amazing jerk across the effect - Nope I'm taking it back to the shop I bought it from, £50 is a lot dosh for something that does nothing, even with it all switched off.

It was running(err..sorry not!) on
3.4 GHZ duel core extreme,
4.G ram
750 gigs of HD
ATi 500mb X1900

I thought more than enough spec to run it...

You do.
Try a little more tweaking, no computer built today can run it full out.

Try this and let us know if it helps.
https://forum.flyawaysimulation.com/forum/topic/21628/dual-core-processors/

Thanks RadarMan, it seems to have worked!

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks RadarMan, it seems to have worked!

Great news, just what I was hoping for!

k_camacho11 wrote:

My system: 2.80 GhZ, 1.9 GB of RAM, Pentium D, Intel(R) i945G Graphics Card, over 262.98GB of free space.

I don't know if my system is perfect to use FSX, but I get an average frame rate of 3.1 frames a sec!!! Should it be that bad? I have all my settings in FSX set to HIGH. I try to put them lower, and still get low frames a second. Someone help me please!

Your system is actually fine - EXCEPT - your video card. I have a DELL with almost the same specifications but I am using an ATI Radeon X300 which is far from perfect for todays standards but it runs FSX fine. I get around 20-30 fps. I noticed that if I lower autogen density all the way then I can crank up texture quality and most other options all the way up and the game runs smooth even at 1280x1024 (my monitos standard resolution). Crazy thing - if I run at 1024x768 or 800x600 on a trinitron CRT the game looks pretty good but my framerate skyrockets to over 50+ the second I hook up my LCD and put it to it's native resolution it plumits. I'd say tweek with some settings. ALSO - check to see that your BIOS is set to give your built-in video card all available memory. On-board or built-in video cards share system ram a lot of the time and they are factory set to 32MB (bad!) and usually can be cranked up to 128 or 256! You can access your BIOS when your PC starts, when you see the "system settings" or "setup" option press "F2" or "F3" your PC should show you very quickly which key takes you into the settings. Then just look for video and then memory. Don't mess with any other options though, and see if you have any options. Otherwise just get a new card. Shoot, mine you can pick up for $70 now.

im having slow performance on my fsx graphics. my system is intel p4 2.4 ghz 1512 gb of ram geforce 6620 256 mb. i could run fs9 at full graphics for good no problem at all.,

Solotwo wrote:

unclerez wrote:

Guys and Girls,

I am running the following system and can only get 16-18 FPS:

3.2 GHZ Inter Processor
1.0 GB RAM
256 MB Nvidia GTO

If MS thinks they are going to be able to post those rediculous requirements for this game and keep people happy they are nuts. Not only are people with significantly better machines than minimums are getting those fps people will be pis_ed. Thanks once again for destroying the next generation of FS Microsoft.

2gb's of ram will help greatly. I don't know what you people expect, do you expect FSX to look 1000 times better and require the same specs of FS9? Its called evolution. Start using your heads.

This pretty much sums it up.

Thinking about buying FSX but not very computer savy, could someone please look at my specs and tell me if I wasting my money? If it runs okay will be able to run every thing on high.

XPSS 410 Intel Core 2 Duo Proccessor E400
1.8 GHz, 800FS with 2MB cache
250 GB - 7200RPM
ATI Radeon X 1300 Pro 256MB DVIVGA

😂

Sorry my ram specs below. Wil this run smooth? Or at least FS9?

XPS 410 Intel Core 2 Duo Proccessor E400
1.8 GHz, 800FS with 2MB cache
250 GB - 7200RPM
ATI Radeon X 1300 Pro 256MB DVIVGA
2GB DDR2 SDRAM ar 667MHz

speedbird 2018 wrote:

Sorry my ram specs below. Wil this run smooth? Or at least FS9?

XPS 410 Intel Core 2 Duo Proccessor E400
1.8 GHz, 800FS with 2MB cache
250 GB - 7200RPM
ATI Radeon X 1300 Pro 256MB DVIVGA
2GB DDR2 SDRAM ar 667MHz

FS9 will be very nice. FSX will be good if you use the right combination of settings, but you won't be able to run it full out.

I was pretty pleased that even with EVERYTHING maxed out, including traffic, I was able to get 13fps... I mean, it isnt lightning fast, but soon enough things will get better...

RadarMan, have you tried the processor setting that was mentioned where you force it to set priority to the foreground? Ive never heard that before.

JLangevin wrote:

I was pretty pleased that even with EVERYTHING maxed out, including traffic, I was able to get 13fps... I mean, it isnt lightning fast, but soon enough things will get better...

RadarMan, have you tried the processor setting that was mentioned where you force it to set priority to the foreground? Ive never heard that before.

This, yes.
I can see that it does spread it over the two but I don't see the increase that it supposedly brings.
Lets hope that SP1 will help us there.

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

RM, that post is regarding FS9, and if you look at the affinity for FSX, its already set to both processors.... Im not sure how that relates to this topic...

JLangevin wrote:

RM, that post is regarding FS9, and if you look at the affinity for FSX, its already set to both processors.... Im not sure how that relates to this topic...

Yes it is but check it and you'll see very little usage of core 2.
If you follow this it's spread it across both.

http://www.flightsimulationforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=379

This may be a mute point if SP1 address the problem.

What part of my computer specs would you recomend I upgrade to improve FSX 100%

XPS 410 Intel Core 2 Duo Proccessor E400
1.8 GHz, 800FS with 2MB cache
250 GB - 7200RPM
ATI Radeon X 1300 Pro 256MB DVIVGA
2GB DDR2 SDRAM ar 667MHz

RM - whether you follow that article or not, the CPU load doesnt change. You cant unclick both processors.

JLangevin wrote:

RM - whether you follow that article or not, the CPU load doesnt change. You cant unclick both processors.

I don't do both.
I leave one, close out, come back and recheck it then I see it spread across both.
Does it help. I doubt it but it possibly can prevent a system crash when i surf while flying.

As for Vista dunno?

Hmm, Ill give it a try... Ill report back shortly.

Essentially what it did was swap wich processor got the load... It did let the other processor do a little more, but were there any benifits? Nope... I hope that SP1 will allows 1 processor to do things like traffic and such that way we dont take such a large hit.

JLangevin wrote:

Essentially what it did was swap wich processor got the load... It did let the other processor do a little more, but were there any benifits? Nope... I hope that SP1 will allows 1 processor to do things like traffic and such that way we dont take such a large hit.

That would be a dream come true.
I already have all the scenery maxed out if that could handle FSX would be beautiful and be able to handle on on airport scenery when it comes out.

Hi guys,

Which version of FS would run nicely on a laptop with these specifications:

AMD Turion X2 TL50
1gb RAM
120GB Hard drive
Geforce Go6100 (128 integrated)?

Would I get an acceptable performance with FSX or should I aim a bit lower?

Thank you

JuAl wrote:

Hi guys,

Which version of FS would run nicely on a laptop with these specifications:

AMD Turion X2 TL50
1gb RAM
120GB Hard drive
Geforce Go6100 (128 integrated)?

Would I get an acceptable performance with FSX or should I aim a bit lower?

Thank you

Go for FS9, FSX would struggle with that card but run fairly nice with FS9.

My FSX doesn't run good either, here are my specs:

Windows XP Professional 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 1.79Ghz (64bit)
114GB Free Hard Drive Space
1.02GB RAM (1022 MB)
NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS
I have DirectX 10

I also have Combat Simulator WWII Europe series and Flight Simulator 2004 and they run smoothly.

You're on a pretty slow processor, which FSX is heavily dependant on, and your video card isn't doing you too many favors either. You'll have to upgrade if you want to crank settings.

Traches wrote:

You're on a pretty slow processor, which FSX is heavily dependant on, and your video card isn't doing you too many favors either. You'll have to upgrade if you want to crank settings.

Not to mention that the RAM is subpar too. You'll need more then 3 GB of RAM wihth that current setup.

Just build a new computer altogether.

ok so i played the std edition fine but the delux runs really bad any help

crash and burn guest wrote:

ok so i played the std edition fine but the delux runs really bad any help

Turn down some of your slides, especially autogen and AI.

I've now got:
AMD A4-3300M Dual-core APU 1.90 Ghz
Windows 7 Home Premium
6.14GB RAM DDR3
320GB Hard Drive
AMD/ATI Radeon(TM) HD 6480G
Direct X 11

ZambiblasianOgre wrote:

I've now got:
AMD A4-3300M Dual-core APU 1.90 Ghz
Windows 7 Home Premium
6.14GB RAM DDR3
320GB Hard Drive
AMD/ATI Radeon(TM) HD 6480G
Direct X 11

Looks like a laptop, nice.

Again I would leave it at default and then start moving the slides (scenery first) up (leave it locked at 20FPS) and back off when it starts to look like a slide show.

Laptops unless they cost thousands are not the best gaming machines.

my fsx can't go any where complex with out going to 8 or 10 fps i runing
(i vas over a not very complex airport (default scenery) and it went to 8 10 fps) :

AMD Athlon II 250 (3.0 Ghz duo x64)
4 GB DDR4 RAM
ATI radon HD 6450 1GB
500GB SATA 5.9 GB/S
GIGABYTE MB

Hi. when it comes to computer specs... i am stuuuuuupid... 😳 so i was hoping i could get some help

I have a(n)
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 3.40GHz 3.6GB RAM Radeon X1300/1550 Series
..... ya i think thats it but my fsx still runs at about 3 FPS when there is a lot of scenery around me... and the thing is, I DON'T want to turn down the scenery so could someone please help me???