About to give up

[arrow1]

After enjoying FS2004 for several years I am totally disappointed in FSX after installing it. It looks like you need a $3000.00 plus computer to run it properly. i have tried every combination in the settings but the result is a jerky, stuttering mess. The unfortunate thing is i will have to reinstall FS2004 and redownload all of my lost aircraft and scenery.

[Ragtopjohnny]

Sorry to hear this Arrow -

If you do use Flight1, you can download again for no charge - that's usually the case now adays. I know it's a pain, sorry to hear all this...:(

John Thuot II
A+/Network+

[ragupasta]

Im on a fairly old core2duo machine, 4gb ram and a 8800GT (315meg). I find that if I set my FPS at anything other than unlimited it jerks and gets stuttery. I can fly FSX with all sliders to the right apart from autogen buildings, and that is around 50%. Im getting 17fps in the vc, and anywhere up to 40fps in spot.

Nothing on this machine is overclocked. Everything is stock.

PS: I bought all thje parts for this machine off ebay for £300 and built it myself. I cant imagine me paying that kind of cash for any pc.

[arrow1]

i don't have a $3000.00 computer, but what i meant was that you probably do need one as I see from the size of the forum that there is a lot of problems with FSX.
I have a Mac OS Version 10.6.2
Processor: 2 GHz Intel Core Duo
Memory; 2 GB 533 MHz DR22SDRAM
Graphics:
Chipset Model: ATV Radeon X1600
Display: VRAM 128 MB
Resolution:1680x1050
32 Bit colour.
As far as i know i don't have a direct x video card. is this the problem?
I installed FSX in Windows XP and i also installed Service pack 1.
P.S. As usual the guy at the store misled me when he said my setup would run it!

[ragupasta]

Your ram is a problem 533MHz is very slow ram, and 2gb is not a lot for FSX. Im not a tech guru at all, so others might be able to help you better than I. If you want advice for a system to fly FSX/other flight sim, its better to ask people here than some store guy who wants to make a sale.

[arrow1]

Well the back of the FSX Deluxe box says:Processor 1.0 GHz. So i guess that is a load of crap as it appears that you need at least 3 GHz, as my 2.0 will not run it properly.
Is 3 GHz. a minimum?

[ladamson]

Well the back of the FSX Deluxe box says:Processor 1.0 GHz. So i guess that is a load of crap as it appears that you need at least 3 GHz, as my 2.0 will not run it properly.
Is 3 GHz. a minimum?

I updated my computer three years ago for FSX. It still works. CPU is so old now, that I don't even remember the specs.

edit: P.S. --- I still have FS2004. They can run side by side. I consider them as two different sims.

[ragupasta]

I run a:

Conroe core2duo @ 2.13MHz
Memory: 4GB Kingston 1033MHz DDR2
NVidia 8800GT 320meg, driver version: 196.21
Windows 7 x64

This is not the quickest machine in the world, but runs FSX just fine. The specs on the box are a load of old cobblers. I never believe any of that rubbish printed on there.

[bumpkin]

I am running on Dell Studio Laptop

Core i5@2.3
4096Mb 1333 RAM
Radeon 4570 Mobility
Win 7 x64

FSX is fine on that.


Previously ran it on

Core2Dou@1.5
2038Mb RAM
Intel Integrated Graphics

Could run FSX well as long as water effects and autogen kept low.


FSX could run on a 1.0GHz, but you would have to turn everything down so that it looked like FS98:)

[vlooi]

Hi Arrow, your machine is simply inadequate to run FSX. A few important points if you want to run FSX reasonably, meaning better graphics than FS2004, and with acceptable frames:

1. At least a Core 2 Duo clocked to 3Ghz, preferably overclocked to 4Ghz
2. At least 4Gb PC6400 Memory or higher
3. Radeon 4870 / Geforce 8800GT, preferably with 1Gb or higher on-board memory (especially if you are running FSX at the resolution you are at the moment!)
4. At least 160Gb 7200rpm hard drive (for enough space, as this lady can get BIG)
5. Tweaks applied to the FSX config file as discussed on various sites
6. SP1 and SP2 installed, as this will impact frames dramatically
7. Defragged hard drive
8. Good quality add-on sound card (example X-FI), as this will lighten the burden on the CPU, freeing it up for other processes within the sim.

Your biggest bottlenecks in your system is your CPU and video card. (By the way, it is a Direct X 9 capable card).

[Brushstrokes]

It really depends on what you expect from it. I like the eye candy around the airports and traffic and because of that I get crappy performance. To me, if you cant have those, why even go to FSX? Thats exactly why I have FS9 loaded as well. I agree, if you want a nice simming experience and not a game, you really have to have a decent computer. Mine is about "moderate" so Im never really happy with the way it can handle FSX
HP m9150 Q6600 Core2 quad / 2.66 / 8500gt nvidia

[arrow1]

Thanks everyone for your input. I had received the FSX as a gift from my son in law as he knew i enjoyed FS2004. I am retired so I won't be purchasing a new computer to run the game. This computer is fairly new and it is used mostly for my wife's work.
So I guess i will remove the FSX and reinstall the FS2004. My son in law has a very expensive computer which "may" run FSX. He has a little son who liked my FS2004.
Happy simming everyone!!!!

[ScatterbrainKid]

Just for the record here in Britain you can buy an FSX-capable PC for around £600 (900 US dollars), that's peanuts compared to something like say a car.
I'm retired like you and bought an £800 PC and £300 28" monitor last year, but then I'm not married and can splash out on whatever I please..;)

[arrow1]

Unfortunately , mine was a gift and my son in law went by the supposed specs on the box . So back to FS9

[ScatterbrainKid]

Are you in Britain? I've got mates around the country who might be able to let you have an FSX-capable PC dirt cheap if you can drive over to pick it up

[magnetite]

The first time I bought a computer for FSX was my Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4 GHz. It has 4 GB DDR2 800 RAM (3 GB because of XP 32-bit), 8800 GTS, as well as some WD Raptors in RAID 0. It can run FSX fine, however, when I start adding stuff like payware addons and heavy CPU intensive planes like the PMDG 747-400X, my newest Core i7 equivalent (Q9550) system has some troubles with it as well.

Think for me, I might wait several years before upgrading again. For what I do with my system, the Q9550 is good enough. However, for FSX, it is not, so I'm waiting around for the octa-core CPUs to come out. I normally upgrade my computer every 2 years, but in this case, might be every 3-4 years or more.

I know someone said earlier that the minimum specs were 1 GHz, however, if you want to get the most out of it, you'll need 4+ GHz overclocked. If that were the case, they needed to say that on the retail box. ;)

[arrow1]

Thanks for the offer Scatterbrain But i am in Canada . So much for a solution.
Yes the box does indeed say 1.0 GHz processor.
News Flash. I went back into FSX in the last hour, turned everything down except the Global mesh at max and left the aircraft ultra High, frame rate at 30 and the blasted thing ran with no hesitation but obviously the scenery etc suffers.
Maybe I will try to persevere. I bet though that i won't be able to put too many add on aircraft like I did in FS2004.
By the way my favorite aircraft was the F-18 RAAF which i had in FS2004. Does anyone know where i can get a "complete F-18 add on for FSX

[McFlysky]

i don't have a $3000.00 computer, but what i meant was that you probably do need one as I see from the size of the forum that there is a lot of problems with FSX.
I have a Mac OS Version 10.6.2
Processor: 2 GHz Intel Core Duo
Memory; 2 GB 533 MHz DR22SDRAM
Graphics:
Chipset Model: ATV Radeon X1600
Display: VRAM 128 MB
Resolution:1680x1050
32 Bit colour.
As far as i know i don't have a direct x video card. is this the problem?
I installed FSX in Windows XP and i also installed Service pack 1.
P.S. As usual the guy at the store misled me when he said my setup would run it!


Your computer is definitely on the weak side.

[jdoon5261]

there's always the AMD version of the $3000 computer. It's called the $1500 computer. If you scavange some parts from your old system it's called the $1000 computer.

John

[magnetite]

Does anyone know where i can get a "complete F-18 add on for FSX

The Acceleration expansion pack comes with an F-18, however, I don't know if it's fully functional. I've tried it. Works pretty good.

[ziffel]

there's always the AMD version of the $3000 computer. It's called the $1500 computer. If you scavange some parts from your old system it's called the $1000 computer.

John

intel i5-750 : 200
mobo: ~125
ATI 5770: 160
4GB DDR3 115
Antec 300 case: 60
700 w PSU ~100 tops
1TB HD: 85
DVD drive: 25
Windows 7: 120
-----------------
total $990

These are based on average prices I've seen lately on parts.

[ScatterbrainKid]

My outfit cost me 800 GB pounds (1200 US dollars) a year ago-
Intel core2 E8600@3.33Ghz
3 Gb RAM
Nvidia Geforce 9800 GTX 512Mb
WinXP Home

and it plays FSX just fine; but at todays prices I could get the same system for 600 GB pounds.
The bottom line is anybody can afford one, it's simply a question of having the guts to fork out the cash for a 'recreational item', especially with a frowning wife looking over your shoulder..;)

[jdoon5261]

intel i5-750 : 200
mobo: ~125
ATI 5770: 160
4GB DDR3 115
Antec 300 case: 60
700 w PSU ~100 tops
1TB HD: 85
DVD drive: 25
Windows 7: 120
-----------------
total $990

These are based on average prices I've seen lately on parts.

AMD 695 185
mobo: 100
ATI 5770: 160
4GB DDR3 115
Antec 300 case: 60
700 w PSU 100 tops
1TB HD: 85
DVD drive: 25
Windows 7: 120
-----------------
total $950

These are based on average prices I've seen lately on parts.
Cut and paste is great. :D
You will need a good cooler on either system to obtain 4.0Ghz

Futuremark ORB is a great place to get a feel for the average overclock of CPU's. The database is huge. I take the 50 top clocks of a given CPU drop the top 10 and bottom 10. Add the 30 remaining and divide by 30. I haven't done this for the i5 but just a sampling indicates its speed is on par with the AMD 965. Both cores and their socket layouts are pretty young so there will probably be upgrade potential for both.

Just for yuks take a look at these ones.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=11386095
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=13169697
John

[N069NT]

After enjoying FS2004 for several years I am totally disappointed in FSX after installing it. It looks like you need a $3000.00 plus computer to run it properly. i have tried every combination in the settings but the result is a jerky, stuttering mess. The unfortunate thing is i will have to reinstall FS2004 and redownload all of my lost aircraft and scenery.

Arrow: it's really more of a combination of everything you have more than one thing. Older CPU tech speed doesn't mean much. For example, when I downloaded the FSX demo several years ago, I had a Pentium 4 3.2GHz Intel Northwood CPU (mildly overclocked from 2.8GHz), 1GB RDRAM, and GeForce 7800GS AGP video card as the gaming rig. It was upgraded several times since the original build with a Northwood 2.26GHz chip, 512MG RDRAM, and Ti4600 GPU back in 2002. Long story short, it ran like crap unless really scaling back settings, which made the point moot considering how good FS9 looked after years of enhancements and downloads.

So, I continued with FS9 and add-ons until finally deciding to build a new rig around the E8400 chip which ran stock at 3.0GHz and PCIe GPU (ATI HD 4870 later upgraded to a GTX 275). Even at stock speed that Core 2 chip ran circles around the Northwood chip at a higher frequency and made FSX very playable at medium to medium high settings at 1680x1050 22" LCD settings. Overclocking to 3.8GHz and then to 4.2Ghz and then 4.4GHz of course sweetened the deal, especially with heavy CPU usage of payware and freeware add-ons of scenery and aircraft - and 1920x1200, well, that's just eye candy to behold.

You can build and overclock to 4GHz your own Core 2 Duo rig for around $1,000 (US) that will run FSX very well at high settings. You've got to pay if you want to play, and the argument over upgrading for the next FS version dates back to FS98 at least (when I got started). Don't give up even though it sounds like you have. Plan and save - and learn how to build your own rig. If you have even the slightest tinkering ability you can do it as many others here have just based on forum help and encouragement. Learning how to build is well worth it - you just have to be motivated. The end result is unbelievable, but bear in mind to this day not one of us with fast computers is able to run max settings in heavy scenery without a heavy frame rate drop. Period.

[arrow1]

My FS2004 was really great with all the addons , scenery etc but I was looking forward to the change.As I said in an earlier post, i had a little success this afternoon with the settings so i am going to keep trying. i just enjoy the simulator. I know diddly squat on the technical side.
There won't be a powerful computer in my future.
P.S. The cat needs new shoes!!!!!

[ScatterbrainKid]

Yeah FS2004 is a dam fine sim and I played it for years. FSX is a bit better graphics-wise but not enough to warrant buying a new PC just to run it.
PS:- and FSX is a lot more temperamental than FS2004, just look around this forum to see how many people are having glitchy probs with FSX, especially after installing various addons..
Incidentally, I'm Win XP Home and it runs FSX like a dream, I can't speak for Vista or Win 7..

[turbofire]

I agree whole heartedly with vlooi and the others. Even with a pc with plenty memory, you need an up-to-date video card. If fs9 runs okay on your computer, I would consider a reinstall. Otherwise, I would think about investing in a pc with a fairly decent HD, a good processor, and, of course, the video card(s).

[cvearl]

I have been lucky.

Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz stock.
4GB PC2-6400 RAM
ATi 4870 512MB
Xp 32 and Vista 64 on another hard drive.

In any case. Locked at 30 fps almost always. Most stuff cranked up. Current settings are as per the PNW scenery manual. No tweaks except for wideviewaspect=true or whatever it is called. Tongass X works great as well.

In the new PNW scenery from FTX I get 30 fps everywhere but Vancouver and Seattle. In those two places I drop scenery complexity to Dense and autogen to normal and I am in the mid to high teens and low twenties. Back in the rural areas and smaller airports I go to Very dense and dense and I am 30 fps all the time.

I run at 1680x1050x32 with 4xAA and 8xAF and vSync.

C.

[ragupasta]

I agree with what N069NT says about tinkering. Like I said I am not a techy guy, and I built my own with no help or documentation. I asked a freind, he told me what silver paste to use on the processor/heatsink. He advised me to buy a ground bracelet to kill the static electricity from your skin before handling the processor chip. Took me about 2 hours from start of an empty case to making the first boot into bios to check things were all good.

From that experience, I wont ever buy a pc from a shop again. I will build my own to exactly the spec I want for less than half the cost.

If you got common sense, you should'nt have any problems building your own rig. Plus it was fun and a great sense of acheivement afterwards.

[ronzo155]

Try "TigerDirect" for a computer deal. I bought my current PC and Vidcard from there.
I too am retired, and I always buy "refurbished" hardware from Tigerdirect.
I have:
Q6600
6Mgs of ram
750Gig HD
Nvidia 8800GTX
Which runs FX just fine
Along with a 37in. HD TV/Monitor
I paid $1100 US for the whole thing.

BTW, The rule of thumb for "Min" specs is: Double them, and you'll get the "actual" required specs.

[iainso]

I don't have any problems on my spec, which cost less than $500 to setup. I can have most of the sliders at maximum. Autogen and 3d objects do hit the FPS though, so I keep these fairly low. I saw a big improvement when I got my graphics card, but it was still perfectly playable before getting it.

[rhodges]

If you are not too critical, there is an F18 Superhornet from FS9 that works fine as far as I am concerned in FSX.

For some time I have just copied the aircraft when I upgraded my system, so don't remember for sure what combination of the files I have archived ended up being the final installation. I also am not sure the panel I use if part of any of these downloads either. All these files are probably available at this site, or AVSim.

For what it is worth (in progression as to what dates I downloaded the files:

ai_fa-18.zip (12-9-03)
f18car04.zip (2-18-04)
fa18_esh.zip (3-30-04)
18e-fix2.zip (4-16-04)
fa18e231.zip (7-18-04)
shmach18.zip (7-17-04)

The "description-notes" in my aicraft.cfg are quoted below:

description=Notes: "Team FS KBT" Model design by Daisuke Yamamoto. Flight dynamics and Painted by Hiroaki Kubota. XML(Effects) by Toshikazu Shimizu.

Good luck:
RTH





The Acceleration expansion pack comes with an F-18, however, I don't know if it's fully functional. I've tried it. Works pretty good.

[arrow1]

I took your advice and successfully installed the RAAF F18 Superhornet which i had used previously in my FS2004. It works fine. The only change i made was to take the "sound" from my Avro Arrow for FS9 and installed it in the F18.
The Avro Arrow sound is GREAT!

Gordon

P.S. The FSX is improving and growing on me.