Fsx tweak

[SABA2000]

Hello everybody.I am on this forum to ask for some advice.Sorry for my english I don't have a high level.I recently installed FX on my PC and I realised that when I use addons like PMDG 737NGX and others I have very low fps.Perhaps I have a crap pc.I tried different tweaks like venetubo and others but none worked.If anyone has some suggestions may he plz help me!:I am desperate.Thnxs.

 

Here are my pc specifications:

Intel® Celeron® CPU N2480 @2.16Ghz

4Go RAM

Intel® HD Graphics.

 

Again tnxs for the help!!!!!

[pvarn]

Your computer is too weak. You have to use very low options settings. The special/advanced add-ons will make FSX run worse. Your specs look like you are trying to use a laptop. Weak laptops do not run FSX well.

 

You need 3.5GHz or better to run advanced add-ons and high settings.

 

-Pv-

[W2DR]

I agree, the PC is just too weak. But even if your computer is too old and too slow to run the add-ons you can still have some fun if you want to earn how to fly. Look at this website: http://www.navfltsm.addr.com/index.htm .

 

Download the trainer aircraft, move your FSX sliders to the left to reduce the details and increase the FPS, and follow the lessons. It's not flying the PMDG 737 but it's still a lot of fun and better than giving up.

 

Or, you can do a lot better on your PC with FS2004. It doesn't cost much these days and you can still learn a lot about airplanes and flying.

 

Doug

[SABA2000]

Thnxs for your help.I am going to purchase another pc soon.I am using a laptop indeed.But I have a question:What's the difference between intel HD Graphics and Nvidia?

[evm]

Thnxs for your help.I am going to purchase another pc soon.I am using a laptop indeed.But I have a question:What's the difference between intel HD Graphics and Nvidia?

 

In real world terms, the Intel HD is the everyday Volkswagen whereas Nvidia would be the Formula One racecar.

 

Intel adds a graphics adapter to the base package of chipset and CPU so you don't need to buy additional hardware for your basic PC. NVIDIA produces specialized GPUs for expansion cards to fulfill one task extremely well - compute and display graphics. To get good results with FSX buy the most expensive NVIDIA card your budget allows for.

[Rupert]

In real world terms, the Intel HD is the everyday Volkswagen whereas Nvidia would be the Formula One racecar.

 

Intel adds a graphics adapter to the base package of chipset and CPU so you don't need to buy additional hardware for your basic PC. NVIDIA produces specialized GPUs for expansion cards to fulfill one task extremely well - compute and display graphics. To get good results with FSX buy the most expensive NVIDIA card your budget allows for.

 

I'd say buy the fastest CPU you can afford. A good NVIDIA card is a great idea. That's all I use. But remember, FSX is an old CPU based program. Buy a lot of CPU speed, make sure you have the acceleration packs, and if possible swing for 8 gig of ram.

[SABA2000]

Alright.I got it.I will try to afford a better pc aven though my means are limited.Again thnxs for our help to u guys

[evm]

Alright.I got it.I will try to afford a better pc aven though my means are limited.Again thnxs for our help to u guys

 

If you are on a budget, I'd like to suggest you stay away from laptops. And with desktops, you don't need a top-of-the-line super-current system, you can aim for a little older stuff too. I know from experience that an I7 3770K OC'd to 4,2 GHz on an Z77 ASUS board with 8 GByte RAM (1600 or better) will run FSX quite well, if you can get at least a GTX 660 OC or better with it. Preferably you get all the pieces at their best price and assemble them yourself.

[MBKHOU]

I'd say buy the fastest CPU you can afford. A good NVIDIA card is a great idea. That's all I use. But remember, FSX is an old CPU based program. Buy a lot of CPU speed, make sure you have the acceleration packs, and if possible swing for 8 gig of ram.

 

I agree. With FSX, the CPU is the most important. You can have a fast CPU and use

cheap video, and have a pretty good frame rate as long as the display res ain't too

awful high. But it's gonna be hard to get a good rate from a slow to mediocre CPU

even with a hot rod video card.

Where the video card gets really important is when one runs a high resolution.

That can drag the cheap video down to a near crawl in comparison to better cards.

 

But I'd always worry about the CPU first, and then the video later as needed.

And I agree.. One doesn't need a i7 to run well enough for gov work. My older

Phenom II ran the 737NGX quite well overall. Plenty good enough to smoothly fly

in most scenarios. But say the i5's and such.. An i5 can run FSX quite well, and cost

a good bit less than an i7. And in many cases some of the med to upper end AMD CPU's

can give good bang for limited bucks. Not quite the brute math horsepower of a newer i7,

but still plenty good enough to smoothly fly in most scenarios.

The Phenom II was a pretty good rig being I spent chump change building it.

IE: I paid $115 for the CPU and MB if I remember right. And that was for a black box

unlocked CPU. It was actually sold as a 3.2 ghz dual core, but it actually had four cores,

which for the majority of the people that tried them, do work. Mine did work, so I had a

quad core for peanuts.. And also OC'ed it a bit too.

 

I paid a lot more for this current i7 4790 rig than I did the last build. But I did pretty

much replace everything, including a new case and an 850w PS. And an extra new HD,

and had to buy Win 7 to put on it..

I don't use anywhere near that power right now, but it might come in handy if I ever

start running really manly video cards.

[SABA2000]

But do the specs above guarantee me a very fluid flight simulator?After some reseach on internet I've discovered that some people still have issues on FSX with almost the same specs as these

[Rupert]

But do the specs above guarantee me a very fluid flight simulator?After some reseach on internet I've discovered that some people still have issues on FSX with almost the same specs as these

 

As in almost every ad you see on TV there is a disclaimer that applies to all of my our advice and opinions. YOU EXPERIENCE MAY VARY Nope, no guarantees! We're just simmers, like you.

[pvarn]

FSX would deliver the claims on the package if it wasn't for add-ons which MS never supported and never will because they have no control over the affects these have.

 

There is a reason MS posts on their site FSX is not supported on operating systems past Vista. We are all walking in territory the sim was not designed for.

 

What it WAS designed for was to provide increasingly complex immersion as the CPU clock speed increases which it does.

 

-Pv-

[evm]

But do the specs above guarantee me a very fluid flight simulator?After some reseach on internet I've discovered that some people still have issues on FSX with almost the same specs as these

 

With the right settings and addons and after a lot of tweaking, it will run OK, yes. But guarantee? No. FSX can kill any machine out there if you set the resolution and sliders high enough and throw enough addons at it. FSX is not a "game" in the traditional sense, that was developed to run at a predefined pace. It is a platform for any kind of addon imaginable, even those your PC can not cope with. You could buy the most elaborate and expensive PC system on the market, and you could still step up FSX to slow it down to crawl and stutter. But you can set it up to run satisfactory, even on moderate systems like the one I described. But you need to work on it, research , tweak, test etc. until you are satisfied. There is no "fire and forget" solution.

[SABA2000]

While waiting for me to get another pc can anyone give me the best settings with my specs so as to get the maximum fps because it's gonna take a while before I afford another pc.

[evm]

While waiting for me to get another pc can anyone give me the best settings with my specs so as to get the maximum fps because it's gonna take a while before I afford another pc.

 

Sorry, but only you can do that on your own system, there are no generic tweaks or magic bullets.

 

I suggest that you first get rid of all the tweaks you already tried - reset the fsx.cfg to its default state (make a copy, then delete it - FSX will build a new one). Then you choose the FSX screen resolution that matches your laptops full screen. Activate Bilinear Filtering and AntiAliasing, turn all the sliders down/left. See how FSX performs (default plane, not NGX). If FPS are OK, then go to Trilinear, then Anisotropic. Choose the best setting for you. Then slowly turn up the sliders until you get a still manageable performance - 30 FPS would be good to have, do not go much lower - the NGX will do that for you. Then set the NGX VC to low resolution and turn down the MFD refresh rates. Turn off the displays on the copilot side.

 

Do not touch the fsx.cfg directly, stay with the ingame menus. With your system you may do more damage than good when tweaking directly. That one is for later, if you have the sim running OK and want to try to squeeze the last ounce out of it.

 

In my experience, the FSX tweaks generally won't make a weak system perform noticably better. But they will help to get a good system to work better still.

[SABA2000]

Thanks all for your help.It's being a pleasure talking (writing) to u:-).

[SABA2000]

You might find this question stupid but how doI I turn down copilot vc displays on NGX?

[MBKHOU]

You might find this question stupid but how doI I turn down copilot vc displays on NGX?

 

With the latest versions, the VC performance settings are in the Operations Center.

To turn off the F/O displays, I think that is done in the FMC menus. I've never done

that, so not sure.

As far as the performance settings, VC textures generally don't effect frame rate,

so you might as well run those high res. Ditto for VC model.

But the VC displays do effect the frame rate, and you can get a couple or so extra

fps using low res cockpit displays vs high. Or at least that was about the difference

when I was running the Phenom II box.

[SABA2000]

Thanks all for your help