FSX is really starting to annoy me. I bought this program when it first came out, installed it on a not quite up to the task computer, and was not impressed so I kept on with FS2004. We recently had to purchase a new computer so I was keeping FSX in mind.
Got the new computer, installed FSX, run it, again not impressed. The following are the highest settings I can run to make it playable;
General - High
Aircraft - Ultra High
Scenery - Low
Weather - Very Low
Traffic - Minimal
Specs on new computer;
Athlon II processor (2.8 Ghz)
4 GB RAM
1 TB hard drive
PNY GeForce 210 graphics card
1 GB DDR2
The salesgal at Best Buy is telling me this thing should fly on max graphics. I am not a tech whiz, but I think it should run higher that it is. Someone please evaluate my specs and tell me what I am missing.
Thanks in advance
Shut off the traffic and though you don't have it listed lower the autogen to med, or less.
You have a dual core CPU when everyone has bought a quad core and now switching to a 6 core.
FSX is CPU driven.
Lock the FPS at 20.
4 gigs is fine if you have XP, if you have W7 get 6-8 gigs (I have 12).
That card is old and now inexpensive.
I doubt that a store bought computer with specs like that has a good power supply so don't push it with adding new hardware.
Next time you want a gaming machine don't ask a salesgirl in Best Buy ask someone who uses FSX or go to a computer forum and get some advice.
Maybe think about building your next machine, more power for the buck.
I'll go back and sue.
No way that setup would run FSX. I should know.... minus the 1 TB HDD, I had that same systems spec about 5 years ago.
The salesgal at Best Buy is telling me this thing should fly on max graphics.
Not being sexist or even cynical but what would the gal know about FS? I think it's a fair bet that she doesn't own let alone has ever used ANY iteration of FS. She and all other sales staff base their 'wisdom' on one criterion: Computer games in general. We have learned over time that a rig that can run pretty much any game you throw at it, will NOT necessarily be able to handle FSX.
Sorry to sound negative... but fact is fact.
I'm going to back Tailhook up on that one. Just because you can play Rift, EQ2, or other high end virtual world games, does not mean you will be able to do FSX... It is a memory hog for starters... The more you add to it, the more it eats your computer's soul.
Kindly tell sales girl, she has no idea what she's talking about in this instance.
Based on the stats you posted FSX SHOULD run.... Will it remain running, that is the big question.
Not to contradict Radarman... something I rarely do, but with FSX you actually WANT to keep FPS set to unlimited, not locked to any given number. Unlike FS2004, FSX actually performs WORSE when locked into a given FPS number. Just leave it at unlimited.
...but with FSX you actually WANT to keep FPS set to unlimited, not locked to any given number. Unlike FS2004, FSX actually performs WORSE when locked into a given FPS number. Just leave it at unlimited.
Bel presently I can't remember whether you ever used fs9 or not - but we have had debates in the past re the 'Unlimited FPS' setting in fs9. A consensus was never reached but many of us have found that using the 'Unlimited' option was indeed the best. I have experimented with this on two different machines, two different monitors and many different fs9 installs.
I find your statement re FSX and the 'Unlimited' setting interesting as I've never tried it but certainly will.
ERGO: If we are both right, yet another mystery will have been solved and we can happily live ever after...
Oh, if only it were that simple
I hear ya Tailhook, and yes when I started posting here I was on FS2004. I only got into FSX in the last couple years.
I have noticed a marked difference in using unlimited vs setting it to a "number". But test it yourself and see.
As for FS204, I uninstalled it... Could not tell you what I had it set to before, but I remember those debates.