Fly Away Simulation
SearchSearch 

Which is most crucial for great graphics

Pro Member Trainee
sinebar Trainee

So I have this PC which is a few years old. It's a Sony 1.7GHz Pentium 4. Windows XP. The max amount of ram it will hold is 512 meg. I could probably upgrade the processor. The ram is maxed out at 512. So if I put a really high performance graphics card in this thing could I run MS FSX with all the settings turned up to max? I mean what is the most crucial for getting great graphics and still get decent frame rates? Or will I have to get a new PC?

Pro Member First Officer
GoodisonBlue First Officer

Unfortuantly with 512mb of ram you are likely to struggle even with a top end card

Does your motherboard support pci express?

Pro Member Trainee
sinebar Trainee

GoodisonBlue wrote:

Unfortuantly with 512mb of ram you are likely to struggle even with a top end card

Does your motherboard support pci express?

I'm not sure. It's about 3 or 4 years old now. What is PCI express?

Pro Member Chief Captain
CRJCapt Chief Captain

The processor, RAM and video card all play a part in FPS, from what you've written, I would get a new computer. 😉

Pro Member First Officer
Steve (astrosteve) First Officer

Sinebar, you could not run FSX on max with most $3000 PC's. There are people on here w/ 3Ghz PC's and 2GB of ram and dual video cards that barely run half the max of FSX graphics.

WAKE UP!!!!! NO WAY IN HELL ON THAT DINOSAUR PC OF YOURS!!! 😂 😂 😂

Guest

if most of the computer cannot run FSX at full res, would WideView help?
i.e. distribute the processing to other computers.

http://www.wideview.it/

Pro Member Chief Captain
CRJCapt Chief Captain

Anonymous wrote:

if most of the computer cannot run FSX at full res, would WideView help?
i.e. distribute the processing to other computers.
http://www.wideview.it/

I don't think so, it distributes views but does not link the processors or RAM.

Pro Member Trainee
sinebar Trainee

astrosteve wrote:

Sinebar, you could not run FSX on max with most $3000 PC's. There are people on here w/ 3Ghz PC's and 2GB of ram and dual video cards that barely run half the max of FSX graphics.

WAKE UP!!!!! NO WAY IN HELL ON THAT DINOSAUR PC OF YOURS!!! 😂 😂 😂

Well I read somewhere that FSX was designed for future PC technology that isn't available to the general public yet. I guess they were thinking ahead.

Pro Member Trainee
sinebar Trainee

astrosteve wrote:

Sinebar, you could not run FSX on max with most $3000 PC's. There are people on here w/ 3Ghz PC's and 2GB of ram and dual video cards that barely run half the max of FSX graphics.

WAKE UP!!!!! NO WAY IN HELL ON THAT DINOSAUR PC OF YOURS!!! 😂 😂 😂

I'm running it on my HP Pavilion zd8000 right now and it does pretty well with settings on high. It's a 2.79 GHz P4 with a Radeon 600X 64meg graphics card and 2gig of ram. Not as powerfull as some on this forum though. If I could upgrade the graphics card things would be much better.

Pro Member First Officer
Steve (astrosteve) First Officer

Try running it with everything on Ultra-High including 100% traffic for everything and all shadows. Include 16X AA and 16X anistropic filtering and get back to me.

Good Luck!!! 😂 😂 😂

Pro Member Trainee
sinebar Trainee

astrosteve wrote:

Try running it with everything on Ultra-High including 100% traffic for everything and all shadows. Include 16X AA and 16X anistropic filtering and get back to me.

Good Luck!!! 😂 😂 😂

Oh I already tried that. High settings are about the limit.

Pro Member Trainee
tomax7 Trainee

Designed for future PC's? Ha! That's a good one. Maybe, OK, I'll bite. Then why sell it now? Why sell it with a BS low requirements unless one likes to be reminded of the 486 vs Pentium days paying Mech Warrior and chopped rates.

From choppy frames to changing the view options to restriction of planes, I'm sorry I bought the Deluxe Edition.

I have XP-SP2, 1GB DDR RAM, 256MB ATI Card, 120 GB hard drive with 50% free and OK, not a gamer machine, but 'above average' for the common user still running around with P4 1.4-2.4 and 512 RAM.

Deluxe says XP 256RAM, 1.GHz CPU, 15GB and 56 modem.

RIGHT!

I'm glad I still kept the FS9 on and bought the BEV program to improve the landscape.

Plus a few of my 2004 planes will not work in FSX, like the Fed-Ex MD-11 for instance.

AVOID FSX till...uh, well gee, the future? Maybe FSXI?

Pro Member First Officer
GoodisonBlue First Officer

tomax7 wrote:

Designed for future PC's? Ha! That's a good one. Maybe, OK, I'll bite. Then why sell it now? Why sell it with a BS low requirements unless one likes to be reminded of the 486 vs Pentium days paying Mech Warrior and chopped rates.

From choppy frames to changing the view options to restriction of planes, I'm sorry I bought the Deluxe Edition.

I have XP-SP2, 1GB DDR RAM, 256MB ATI Card, 120 GB hard drive with 50% free and OK, not a gamer machine, but 'above average' for the common user still running around with P4 1.4-2.4 and 512 RAM.

Deluxe says XP 256RAM, 1.GHz CPU, 15GB and 56 modem.

RIGHT!

I'm glad I still kept the FS9 on and bought the BEV program to improve the landscape.

Plus a few of my 2004 planes will not work in FSX, like the Fed-Ex MD-11 for instance.

AVOID FSX till...uh, well gee, the future? Maybe FSXI?

It's a no win situation for Microsoft.

Release an average sim that offered little more over Fs2004 but ran nicely on older technology - they'd get hammered for that

Or release something cutting edge that made the most of the best technology available (even more so when dx10 comes out)

Maybe, they should have waited till DX10 and vista were ready but they'd still have got the same complaints

This is forever the problem with IT software, people want new stuff to run perfectly on older kit

If some people had had their way, we'd still be playing solitaire on windows 3.1 but hey at least it'd be fast 🙂

Pro Member Chief Captain
RadarMan Chief Captain

GoodisonBlue wrote:

tomax7 wrote:

Designed for future PC's? Ha! That's a good one. Maybe, OK, I'll bite. Then why sell it now? Why sell it with a BS low requirements unless one likes to be reminded of the 486 vs Pentium days paying Mech Warrior and chopped rates.

From choppy frames to changing the view options to restriction of planes, I'm sorry I bought the Deluxe Edition.

I have XP-SP2, 1GB DDR RAM, 256MB ATI Card, 120 GB hard drive with 50% free and OK, not a gamer machine, but 'above average' for the common user still running around with P4 1.4-2.4 and 512 RAM.

Deluxe says XP 256RAM, 1.GHz CPU, 15GB and 56 modem.

RIGHT!

I'm glad I still kept the FS9 on and bought the BEV program to improve the landscape.

Plus a few of my 2004 planes will not work in FSX, like the Fed-Ex MD-11 for instance.

AVOID FSX till...uh, well gee, the future? Maybe FSXI?

It's a no win situation for Microsoft.

Release an average sim that offered little more over Fs2004 but ran nicely on older technology - they'd get hammered for that

Or release something cutting edge that made the most of the best technology available (even more so when dx10 comes out)

Maybe, they should have waited till DX10 and vista were ready but they'd still have got the same complaints

This is forever the problem with IT software, people want new stuff to run perfectly on older kit

If some people had had their way, we'd still be playing solitaire on windows 3.1 but hey at least it'd be fast 🙂

👍 Hear hear!!

Radar

All times are GMT Page 1 of 1

Related Questions