What kind of PC?

[Gnorfie]

Hello all,

Just a quick question: i have a AMD dualcore 3600 PC with 2 ghz memory and a good 1GB videocard. Fs2004 works ok, almost optimal settings. Today i bought a Dual Core 2 x 1,6 Ghz Intel, and a Nvidia i730 nForce kaart (256 MB) This pc is intended for other applications. What shall i do? Keep my AMD pc for FS2004 or shall i put the fast videocard in the Pentium Dualcore? I don't know the difference in speed between the two processors.

Thanx i.a.

Benno from Holland.

[ralmav]

Hi Benno ,
if FS runs fine on your AMD machine ,keep it as it is..never touch a running system !

[knmi]

I am curious, how do you make FS 2004 benfit from a dual core?
I noticed when switching to my 2x2 AMD motherboard from single processor Intel 4, 3000, there were no significiant improvement. I could see that the AMD board used only one core for the FS. A FS limitation? What about FSX and multicore?

Framerate is king (shift Z Z), use your video card where you can benefit from it. Usually in a multi monitor fs setup. I use 5 of 'em with lousy videocards. I wish for a triplehead2go, digital!

Knut Michalsen

[Michael Carter]

FS9 cannot use a dual core processor, but it does allow a lighter load for background programs running, which for FS, should be at a minimum under any circumstances.

Mine is a dual core, but without building my own system, it is getting more difficult to fine an off-the-shelf system that doesn't have a dual-core processor.

It is also getting difficult to find an off-the-shelf system that has XP or XP-Pro loaded. I have read that some manufacturers have started offering a wider (though limited) selection of systems with XP or XP-Pro that are pretty much top of the line. Complains and derogatory comments are all over the Web about the quirks, compatibility, and reliability of MS's latest and greatest.

No thanks.

[Kennair]

Well I must say my new system is Quad core with Vista64 SP1 running FS9 & FSX. I was a bit nervous at first after reading similar "complaints and derogatory comments", but to no avail. All loaded, worked and continues without issue. However I haven't started running all the hardware interface cards for my system just the basic flight sim software.

Time will tell but often issues are caused by much more than operating system. And yes FSX can use multiple cores but FS9 can't.

My 2 cents.

Ken.

[Prof Bill]

Hi Ken,
I am glad you brought up the subject of running QUAD COREs with VISTA.
I was initially very wary of VISTA as a result of rather tortous experiences when I first began to migrate some of the scientific applications in the labs.

I am now delighted that with VISTAs performance (especially with QUAD CORES) and endless features that are a major improvement on XP. There is no way any of us here would consider going back to XP.

My personal experiences have been similar with FSX and there is no way I would abandon VISTAs feature rich facilities especially performance tweaking capabilities. The pain is a dim and distant memory!!

For those who are still thinking about VISTA and FSX they may well find that the May 2008 issue of Computer Pilot could provide some answers to questions they are concerned about.

www.pcaviator.com

There promises to be an article by Roy Hinds looking at the process of migrating to VISTA with a special focus on Flight Simulator software. He promises to tell what works, what does not work and what you need to do to get it all working properly.

I hope that this may persuade some more to use VISTA and FSX.

Bill.

[Georg Schneider]

Hi all !

The big problem with Vista is the amount of system memory you need to run only the entire system probably!
You need minimum 1GB Ram to run Vista without sitting whole day waiting
I have a Computer Business and involved many years with XP and now with Vista.

For a testsystem i have a New Siemens Notebook with Dualcore 2,4GHZ and 2GB system memory and Geforce 8600GS graphic card.

On it i run Vista Ultimate 32bit version and FSX
I must pull down all slider more than half way down to get 10-12frames
I`ve done all the twaekings you can find on the Net.
And for me this is not axceptible!

On the other hand i put a new PC togehther for my 737NG pit

Intel Core Duo E8400 3GHZ @ 3,8GHZ stable ->watercoolded 18-20Celcius idle/24-28Celcius at 100%CPU usage
Mainboard: Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6
RAM:Corsair Dominator DDR2-800 /4 GB->watercooled
2*Geforce 8800 GTX /768MB->watercooled
1*HD Raptor 10000U/min 40GB for system->watercooled
1*HD Raptor 10000U/min 160GB for FS2004->watercooled

For a test i installed Vista Ultimate and FSX and made the twakings:
Frames not over 20 with all slider half way

So i installed good old XP64bit to use 4gb RAM and FS2004 and guess what????!!!!

All sliders full up also AI at 100% for testing(normaly 48%)
Made the test with PMDG737Ng,Active sky6,skai package100%,ground
envirement pro,night envirement and FS Global 2008

Ground level at the Gate PMDG737 2D cockpit i got 80-100frames
Ground level at the Gate PMDG737 3D cockpit i got 50-75frames

Airborn at 25000 feet i got in 2D cockpit 140-170 frames
Same with 3D cockpit i got 100-120 frames

Outsideview at 25000feet i got between 350-480 frames sometimes frames went up till 580

Now for me the conclusion is i will stick with XP and FS2004
till some Hardware is out maybe in 5-6years you can run FSX same level

BTW.:next view days is screenshottime and i put some up on my HP
so nobody tell me a liar !

Everybody who wants a good system for FS2004 should use
a Dualcore with at least 2GHZ and a good mainboard and a Geforce with at least 512MBRam(maybe Geforce8600),and for XP32bit 3GBram and for
XP64bit the full 4GBram

The bottleneck is the system Ram and the HD.
When you have fast Ram speed and a standart SATA2 HD with 7200U/min
the best ram is useless!
The only thing that brings more frames is the combination of fast ram/HD/graphics !
Use the Raptor HD`s with 10000U/min and 4,6m/sec access time
together with fast ram(low latency) and a good Geforce and you have
no problems with stutters and low frames!

And finally defragment your hard drive with a good tool like
"O&O defrag" !Because windows defrag wont do the job right!
All these and more you can read in the various tweeking guides

Thats only my thought of the XP/VISTA argueing

Greetings and happy flying

Georg

[andarlite]

Hi all !


On the other hand i put a new PC togehther for my 737NG pit

Intel Core Duo E8400 3GHZ @ 3,8GHZ stable ->watercoolded 18-20Celcius idle/24-28Celcius at 100%CPU usage
Mainboard: Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6
RAM:Corsair Dominator DDR2-800 /4 GB->watercooled
2*Geforce 8800 GTX /768MB->watercooled
1*HD Raptor 10000U/min 40GB for system->watercooled
1*HD Raptor 10000U/min 160GB for FS2004->watercooled

For a test i installed Vista Ultimate and FSX and made the twakings:
Frames not over 20 with all slider half way

Hi Georg

There should be absolutely no reason why you couldn't get better results with a system like that for FSX. There are people with lesser system that get better results that what you are getting. Do you have all updated drivers for everything? Are you on SP1 or SP2? Are you using Nhancer for your video card? What version of Nvidea are you using?.... people have been getting good results with version 174.74 beta.

Your correct in saying that no hardware is available to run FSX maxed out, but your system should run fine with sliders at 50% and still look good with acceptable frames rates at least 30 with no blurries or stutters.

Regards,
Henry

[Joe60]

Funny I was just messing with this stuff today as I have not been here in a while and see this post.
Well I have just bought myself a new machine with the tight budget that I have.

My previous and old faithfull 4 year old PC:
Intel P4 - 2.6 gig Northbrige
Intel D865GLC Motherboard and chipset
1 gig memory
nVidia 6600GTS256 graphics card
Windows Xp Pro SP2 + all updates.
80 gig IDE Hard drive.

My new PC:
Intel P4 E6850 3gig 2 Core Duo CPU
Intel Dragontail Peak Motherboard
4 gigs Kingmax 800 mhz memory
nVidia 8800GT512oc Graphics card (V8803GT52)
Windows Xp Pro SP2 + all updates.
200 gig SATA Hard Drive

PS. I have all the latest drivers etc except for the new 8800 graphics card as that I'm using what has been adviced for FSX which is about 3 drivers ago.

Old PC
FS 2004
It gives me an average of 42 PFS with everything set to High and Very Dense.
Hardware set at 1024 x 768 + everything on.
Flying etc is good with the odd hicup when terrain updates.

FSX - Oh man this sucks and probably the reason I got a new PC
Average FPS 9.2
Even if I mess with the settings it does not change much and eitherway never reaches 10 FPS.
Flying is pitiful and the game got shelved in the bottom drawer.

New PC
FS2004 with same settings and extra's gives me 75 FPS.
Flying and soaring is an absolute pleasure, even with the most highest city and building updates.
This is at 1280 x 1024 btw.

FSX - I really expected better than this and must admit I am very dissapointed.
14.5 FPS
With everything set down a notch it still never sees more than 16 FPS.
And yes I did the proper recommended clean boot install with the Acceleration pack etc.

My Conclusion:
Unless you are a really hardened (and possibly wealthy) FSX simmer and have a seperate dedicated PC with Vista Premium that can see multi cores etc, I have decided to once again shelve FSX and go back to my beautifull FS2004 with its zillions of available updates and put FSX back in the bottom drawer possible until death do us part.

Some interesting points and tests I did tough.
For XP to use past 2 gigs of memory you must add the extra instruction in the Boot.ini file as recommended else you only use 2 gigs.
This alone stepped my FSX from 15 odd to 18.
Secondly although I have all the lastest updates etc in my Xp SP2, I went and installed SP3 from Microsoft and this pushed the FPS up to 20.5
Dissabling my LAN from the internet, disabling my antivirus, MS Office Package and all other stuff I have running gave me a further improvement to 22 FPS.
But at the end of the day I'm trying to suck blood out of a stone as anything under 40 FPS is not even worth having.

[Kennair]

Joe, looking at your specs FSX should also soar. Somethings wrong! I highly recommend AlacrityPC to stop all services before flight and a good payware defrag program to keep you clean.

BTW all the movies you've seen or ever will run at 25 or 26 frames per second depending on which part of the world you live in so there's really no point going over this rate in FS, all you're doing is taking away precious CPU cycles from doing other tasks like loading scenery and generating weather etc. The human eye can't tell the difference above this FPS.

Ken.