System Build Help needed !

[RLY]

Hi all,

I tried to post this in the hardware and technical sections but wasn't allowed for some reason. They were greyed out.

 

Anyway, I'm not super techy, (that's an understatement).

 

My son is training to be a pilot (IRL).

 

I've got dragged in to getting him a flight simulator setup as a combo of multiple xmas and birthday gifts...

 

I was looking to get a VR unit, decent PC, yoke, throttle, rudders (maybe a combined airbus controller too).

 

What I really wanted was a supplier who could do that AND would also come out to the house and set it all u properly.

 

Anyone know of someone who does that kind of service?

 

Even a PC supplier that might come out ad do it all?

 

Are there niche flight sim providers like this?

 

The usual pc builders won't they just ship, the providers of the flight control equipment as far as I can see also, won't, they just ship.

 

I get that i can just source this stuff and get my son to build it all, but i sort of wanted it to be done and a surprise i suppose, if possible. 

 

So, anyone got any ideas or can point me in the right place.

 

OR, am I really overthinking all this and it's actually a lot easier to do and setup than i am imagining?

 

Thanks in advance for any tips or help.

 

Merry Xmas btw !!

 

 

[chicagorandy]

How "techie" is your pilot in training? It is relatively simple to unbox and set up a PC and flight sim hardware. I submit that if I can do it? Anybody can. And knowing someone was willing to drop $4-$5K on MY present would fer darn sure motivate me to get it done right or find a buddy who could -lol I'll assume you realize that VR requires a higher level PC machine to run well. Best wishes for his journey to PIC. 

[PZSW001]

You may want to look at xbox. That has a good price and in combination with Quest2 vr may be in your budget. 
On yokes etc there is a lot of choice but honeycom or the cheaper logitech may be in your budget.

If money is no issue, let a specialist pc shop assemble a desktop case around a AMD7800x3d + Nvidia4080 or 4090. 
But that will be 2.5k excl Quest3/monitor etc. Have the assembler test it. These are sensitive components so static protection and correct sequence is important.

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Boxed - Processor4.2 GHz (5.0 GHz) - 8-cores - 16 threads

Be quiet! Dark rock Pro Cpu cooler

Be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 750W

ASUS TUF Gaming GeForce RTX 4080 - Videocard16GB GDDR6X - PCIe 4.0 - 2x HDMI 2.1a - 3x Display

ASUS TUF GAMING X670E-PLUS - Motherboard ATX - Socket AM5 - AMD X670 - DDR5

Kingston FURY Beast Black - memoryDDR5 - 32 GB: 2 x 16 GB - 288-PIN - 6000 MHz

Samsung 980 Pro with heatsink - SSDcoded- 1 TB - intern - M.2 2280 - PCI Express

Edited December 8, 2023 by PZSW001
Typo’s

[pfrunder]

I purchased a system from Jetline Systems (jetlinesystems.com) a few years ago and am very pleased with it. They specialize in flightsim computers, have several levels to choose from and assemble then test each rig before shipping. 

 

-Randy

 

[johnyyz]

All you need other than a good computer like i7 10900K and RTX 3080, MSFS, ......  is a joystick like CH F16 and rudder peddles

You can add programs to MSFS to make it more realistic.

Extra hardware is a waste of money.

[ViperPilot2]

Seems like little has changed compared to even fifteen Years ago, when some were considering rigs with water cooling in order to run FSX without stutters... 

 

Oh, those were the days; ACES thinking one way, the rest of the Industry another.

[loki]

1 hour ago, ViperPilot2 said:

Seems like little has changed compared to even fifteen Years ago, when some were considering rigs with water cooling in order to run FSX without stutters... 

 

Oh, those were the days; ACES thinking one way, the rest of the Industry another.

 

Unlike with FSX, it is very possible to get good performance with MSFS without having to buy the best of the best and then overclock it. Though if you want to max out every setting with multiple 4k monitors and still hit 60+ FPS then, yes, you will need the best system money can buy.

 

ACES went the way they did because that's where Intel, and others, said they were going when FSX development started. Those plans didn't work out so Intel and AMD changed course too late in the development cycle for FSX and many games (Crysis was affected by this too, for example) to change course. And then ACES was unceremoniously dropped before they could fully adjust course with the next sim version they were worked on.

[ViperPilot2]

35 minutes ago, loki said:

 

Unlike with FSX, it is very possible to get good performance with MSFS without having to buy the best of the best and then overclock it. Though if you want to max out every setting with multiple 4k monitors and still hit 60+ FPS then, yes, you will need the best system money can buy.

 

ACES went the way they did because that's where Intel, and others, said they were going when FSX development started. Those plans didn't work out so Intel and AMD changed course too late in the development cycle for FSX and many games (Crysis was affected by this too, for example) to change course. And then ACES was unceremoniously dropped before they could fully adjust course with the next sim version they were worked on.

 

I look back at those days with a little nostalgia; nary a day went by without some conversation in the Forums about Overclocking, Excess Heat, and slow Framerates...

[jgf]

Lol, I always felt overclocking was for status, not performance. 

 

Twenty years ago Mercedes briefly resurrected the supercharger.  They tacked one onto their small four banger, put it in a sporty model, and charged exorbitantly for it.  It ran rough at low speeds, required excessive maintenance, and had less power then the standard V8 that came in that car ....but you got a little chrome "K" appended to the model number on the front fender. 

Overclocking was the same thing.  You took a small cpu, overclocked it, and got a marginally stable system that ran hot, constantly needed tweaking, and you hoped to replace it before the cpu was cooked.  But your system was "supercharged".  Better to start with a faster cpu and save yourself the time and trouble.

[ViperPilot2]

23 minutes ago, jgf said:

Lol, I always felt overclocking was for status, not performance. 

 

Twenty years ago Mercedes briefly resurrected the supercharger.  They tacked one onto their small four banger, put it in a sporty model, and charged exorbitantly for it.  It ran rough at low speeds, required excessive maintenance, and had less power then the standard V8 that came in that car ....but you got a little chrome "K" appended to the model number on the front fender. 

Overclocking was the same thing.  You took a small cpu, overclocked it, and got a marginally stable system that ran hot, constantly needed tweaking, and you hoped to replace it before the cpu was cooked.  But your system was "supercharged".  Better to start with a faster cpu and save yourself the time and trouble.

 

I remember that seemed to be the goal back then. 30 fps was the bees' knees. Heck, I get 11-15 fps with FS9 on this old Laptop and it's fine with me.

[tiger1962]

4 hours ago, ViperPilot2 said:

I remember that seemed to be the goal back then. 30 fps was the bees' knees. Heck, I get 11-15 fps with FS9 on this old Laptop and it's fine with me.

 

Well said ViperPilot2 - fps is the bees knees in shooter games, but absolutely not in flight sim.  

[jgf]

I have FS2004 capped at 25fps, it maintains that 90% of the time ....til I get around Heathrow, LAX, or similar, when 15fps becomes the norm.  But movies, on film not digital IMAX stuff, were filmed and shown at 24fps and we never complained about that.

[ViperPilot2]

9 hours ago, jgf said:

I have FS2004 capped at 25fps, it maintains that 90% of the time ....til I get around Heathrow, LAX, or similar, when 15fps becomes the norm.  But movies, on film not digital IMAX stuff, were filmed and shown at 24fps and we never complained about that.

 

It's why I've never invested in Payware Scenery, or spent more than $15.00 on a Payware Airplane. All of the horror stories! Resource vampires!

[jgf]

In my case it's the AI around those airports.  But if you want a resource hog, try the old Blue Sky scenery (freeware) for the Grand Canyon area;  so detailed my old system couldn't load it quickly enough to even keep up with a Piper Cub flying over it (hard to find now, apparently Blue Sky pulled it when they released the FSX version).

 

 

[Darrin Johnson]

Hello Everyone,

 

I am returning to flightsimming after a nearly 10 year hiatus. Seems I may forego purchasing MSFS 2020 in anticipation of MSFS 2024 being released this year. I am eyeing an Intel i7-14700 KF, 32 GB DDR5-5600, 12 GB GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6X, 2 TB SSD rig at Microcenter. I know we don’t yet have the ideal specs for ‘24, but given the recommended specs shared thus far and ideal specs known for MSFS ‘20, may I assume this rig will be fine to run ‘24 smoothly? I would also add an ultra widescreen monitor and a second, smaller flatscreen but probably would not necessarily be tied to running the ultra wide in 4K.

 

Any thoughts would be much appreciated. 
 

Thanks, 

 

Darrin

Edited January 21 by Darrin Johnson

[Sweetd31]

On 12/4/2023 at 6:06 AM, RLY said:

I was looking to get a VR unit, decent PC, yoke, throttle, rudders (maybe a combined airbus controller too).

Rudders would be pretty cool ngl... I'll be honest, if you are not too deep in the budget yet, FSX was released in 2006 and is a great way to start learning the concepts of flying and even practicing your instrument rating. 

 

I play hybrid with an xbox controller, mouse and keyboard, if you hold down spacebar, you can look all around the cabin and even read the fine print if you scroll with the wheel. VR would be cool, but definitely not necessary. Yoke is usually most peoples first purchase, either fighter jet style or twohanded. In saying that, I am 99% certain everything is usb plug in, and the software is either provided or automatically downloads. FSim should recognize it just by plugging it in, at least that is how it works for the xbox controller. Remember the throttle is "set", something like an xbox controller is fully immersive for something like that. 

[Sweetd31]

Consider X-plane as well, I hear it has cut above flight models compared to FS2020

[Nicolemen]

On 1/20/2024 at 11:13 AM, Darrin Johnson said:

Hello Everyone,

 

I am returning to flightsimming after a nearly 10 year hiatus. Seems I may forego purchasing MSFS 2020 in anticipation of MSFS 2024 being released this year. I am eyeing an Intel i7-14700 KF, 32 GB DDR5-5600, 12 GB GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6X, 2 TB SSD rig at Microcenter. I know we don’t yet have the ideal specs for ‘24, but given the recommended specs shared thus far and ideal specs known for MSFS ‘20, may I assume this rig will be fine to run ‘24 smoothly? I would also add an ultra widescreen monitor and a second, smaller flatscreen but probably would not necessarily be tied to running the ultra wide in 4K.

 

Any thoughts would be much appreciated. 
 

Thanks, 

 

Darrin

 

Welcome back to flightsimming! That rig you're eyeing sounds pretty powerful and should handle MSFS 2024 quite well, especially with the RTX 4070 and 32 GB of DDR5 RAM. Even if we don't have the exact specs for 2024 yet, your setup is definitely above the recommended specs for MSFS 2020, so you should be in good shape. Adding an ultra widescreen monitor will enhance the experience, and not running it in 4K will help maintain smooth performance.

[lnuss]

On 5/20/2024 at 4:13 PM, Sweetd31 said:

Consider X-plane as well, I hear it has cut above flight models compared to FS2020

So much, in both sims, has to do with how much time and effort the developer did to make it right. I have FSX aircraft that a friend (RIP) developed so that they'll even spin and do decent snap rolls (both tough to get right), among other things. They far exceed anything I have encountered in X-Plane, and while XP may have default aircraft that are a little better than FSX default ones, they both are able to have decent flight models if the developer knows what he's doing beyond physical appearance.

 

So first impressions aren't always correct...

[Sweetd31]

6 hours ago, lnuss said:

So much, in both sims, has to do with how much time and effort the developer did to make it right. I have FSX aircraft that a friend (RIP) developed so that they'll even spin and do decent snap rolls (both tough to get right), among other things. They far exceed anything I have encountered in X-Plane, and while XP may have default aircraft that are a little better than FSX default ones, they both are able to have decent flight models if the developer knows what he's doing beyond physical appearance.

 

So first impressions aren't always correct...

I'm with you on that big time, I tested so many planes recently. The one thing that drives me nuts, is when big studios take the time to make killer jets that look, fly well, have fully functioning cockpits, but DOESNT HAVE A GLIDE SLOPE!!!! So frustrating. I downloaded the F15 mission pack with Afghanistan airbases that are pitch black dark.  

[PhrogPhlyer]

14 hours ago, Sweetd31 said:

The one thing that drives me nuts, is when big studios take the time to make killer jets that look, fly well, have fully functioning cockpits, but DOESNT HAVE A GLIDE SLOPE!!!!

I agree, this can be frustrating.

But maybe consider this may be a way to improve your instrument flying skills.

Should the GS fail while on the approach, you would continue to use distance indication via DME, but must determine your own decent rate (using the decent chart and profile GS angle)  and try to hit the altitudes on the approach chart profile.

 

 

 

[Rupert]

As Phrog says it never hurts to practice doing the basics well.  It's great when the plane does things for you.  But it's even better when you can take the pride of doing it correctly yourself!  Isn't that really what we all are shooting for when we sim?

[Sweetd31]

So if I understand correctly, by the time I reach 150 kts I should be roughly 750 feet at an attack of three degrees, assuming I began my descent at 1800 feet? I was listening to professional F16 pilot say they quite often land by watching angle of attack in case the above scenario of glideslope loss occurs. I think for most airports the localizer is about ten miles out? 

 

In your case, I see turn heading 127 at 2400 feet, is procedure to just trust the DME and go around if you don't see threshold markings by your decision altitude to go around? I imagine this could be nerve racking in real life. (it was nerve racking in the sim, I got saturated and crashed)

[Sweetd31]

Check those beauties out, turns out the F16 does have a glideslope, and what a difference it makes. The glideslope and localizer in HUD is bada$$, but it is handflown. I did some investigation, during IFR of severe weather and almost no visibility, ATC had me fly GPS to runway 4 due to the crosswind, which I thought was odd. IF you look in this photo I am landing runway 35 heading 354, runway 4 is the perpendicular runway. Well upon further examination, runway 22 has an ILS, but runway 4 does not, so you can only pick up the localizer super close to the runway. My guess is that the in game ATC didn't register or doesnt think that logically, I wouldve rather landed in a cross wind knowing where I am going vs. landing GPS which I thought was strange in the first place.  

 

BTW this is an actual operating field for the Texas Air National guard and their fleet of block 50 F16. They practice this almost exclusively in IFR conditions. Every time there is a rainstorm, you can guarantee the F16s or the T38s are flying. 

PS: How about that 7XSO intercept! Beautiful!

[tiger1962]

@Sweetd31 Well done, but you're posting this in the FS2024 discussion thread instead of the FSX thread.