paulfar Posted September 9, 2016 Posted September 9, 2016 I've had the following system since Feb 2010 and figure it's time to upgrade with hopes of getting better performance from FS9. Please understand I'm not totally unhappy, but I just want to bring myself up to date. I have the usual stutters around airports with AI, shimmers below 5,000 ft in the ground textures and wavy hills & mountains off in the distance. Present System: O/S Windows XP DP55WG S1156ATX ATX Motherboard MSI #R5870-PM2DIG PCle Graphics Card G GDDR5 RAM (ATI) Add-on Software Ultimate Terrain - USA-Canada - Europe FS Genesis - Worldwide (Not the newest version) Flight Environment - Flight One Software German Airports British Airports My plan is to upgrade to Windows 7 64 bit, since I've seen many favorable comments re; compatibility with FS9. I would like to get a better motherboard with more RAM and also a new graphics card with plenty of guts. I have no real problem with my ATI graphics card, but have heard that Nvidea may be better for FS9. I just don't know. Any Comments? I don't have the knowledge or expertise to go out and buy an upgrade without some guidance. Sure as hell, I'd get the wrong hardware. So, any help would be appreciated in pointing me in the right direction. I have a computer "guy" coming to the house next week and would like to have some info to share with him from knowledgeable folks. BTW: My new computer will be totally dedicated to flight sim operations. Thanks for any advice, Paul USAF (Ret)
Guest LoisZell Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 As you have officially acknowledged, FS2004 is a deadlock all things considered. Be that as it may, moving up to FSX (or IMHO far better to P3D) would just bode well in mix with another PC, as your Dell is likewise extremely obsolete and FSX basically requests CPU, CPU and CPU and no less than a PC with 8GB RAM. Obviously with FSX you can utilize some of your old addons, however you additionally need to go for other significantly more progressed addons and those addons in blend with each other need a decent equipment. So on the off chance that you are as of now content with what you got, just stick to FS2004 until you can purchase a decent PC.
paulfar Posted September 12, 2016 Author Posted September 12, 2016 Thanks for your comments. For the time being I intend to stay with FS2004 since some of the bug-a-boos I mentioned are not crucial to my current fltsim operations. If I'm able to tweak a few things here and there, that's fine, if not, I'll still be OK. Paul
il88pp Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 You don't mention the cpu. For fs9 and x the cpu has to be fast. Fsx is not hard at all. Never had a problem with it. Not with installing. Not with anything after that either. Just don't expect it to be fs9. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Luke Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 If it's Socket 1156, it's Lynnfield or Clarkdale, or the gen right before Sandy Bridge. To be honest, if he's just going to stick with FS9 I'm not sure that an upgrade would make a meaningful difference. If he's hell-bent on spending money the most noticeable performance boost to that system would be an SSD. Wouldn't do much for FS9, but make everything else "feel" faster. Cheers! Luke
leuen Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 To be honest, if he's just going to stick with FS9 I'm not sure that an upgrade would make a meaningful difference. Of course it does! I upgraded my desktop two years ago and meanwhile even use FS9 with 2560x1440 resolution and a 27" monitor. I replaced motherboard (ASUS Z-78-A), processor (Intel Core i7 4770 3.4 GHz), memory (DDR-3 1600 2X4 GB) and graphic card (GTX770). I kept the former case with CD driver, wireless and everything for what I shouldn't waste money. Furthermore, and that's probably the most important, replaced harddisk by a 500 GB SSD. So everything is better, faster and for sure make a "meaningful difference"! Visit Retroavia Forum - FS9 in the pasts
Luke Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 So everything is better, faster and for sure make a "meaningful difference"! So what difference did you get in terms of frame rates using the old monitor? Cheers! Luke
leuen Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Average fps are about 60, excepted maybe approaching KJFK or KLAX. It's not just a question of fps, but also of sharpness. Depending on the most suitable driver. Visit Retroavia Forum - FS9 in the pasts
Luke Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Did you replace the monitor at the same time? I run at 2560x1440 as well. Cheers! Luke
leuen Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 No, one year later. To make things clear: the improvement isn't that spectacular, but an improvement anyway. Since I upgraded my desktop I didn't got flickering default buildings or trees anymore. Sometimes some few terminals at badly created airports. I still remain of the opinion that an upgrade is benefical, even for using exclusively FS9. Some are still confident with this, and I am one of thoses, after having tried several times FSX, P3D and Flight School at last. Visit Retroavia Forum - FS9 in the pasts
CRJ_simpilot Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 If you use 7 make sure you install to C drive and NOT in the programs folder. As Win 7 emulates the programs folder and it makes it very hard to install addons. OOM errors? Read this. "The great thing about flight simulation is that in real life there are no do-overs." - Abraham Lincoln c. 1865 An awesome weather website with oodles of Info. and options. Wile E. Coyote would be impressed.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.