plainsman

Here is Karen's HOT photo. No, I didn't go there but I suspect it is just as interesting.

You also have to consider what you want to do with the card. A "good value" card with 4 gig of memory may be useless if your application requires 6 gig of memory. If you plan to run 720p resolution, your choice my be different than if you plan to run 4K.

Actually, the new Cessna Longitude may be pretty interesting. I don't see any reason to go to deluxe over standard, but I might risk the premium deluxe for several aircraft and the likelihood that other updates may require it??

It probably would get by, but if you are buying a machine, you might want to consider a newer version. I would think I7 or I5 8700 or 8500 machines should be heavily discounted by now. Those would move you into the recommended zone, meaning you would be able exploit the features that differentiate the new simulator from older versions, greater detail and more vibrant graphics. If you are just above minimum specs, you will likely have to run the sim at lower resolutions and at lower settings. You also risk that new updates may eventually demand more processing power. If you had that machine, I would try it, but if you are buying, I would try for something more potent than just above the minimum.

I would suggest a different alternative. https://www.avadirect.com/ These guys have done my last three builds. They offer so many custom options and their pricing is competitive with the two you mention, but with much more professional build quality. You can get better power supplies, cases, and SSDs than you will likely find in Ibuypower or Cyberpowerpc.

That is very welcome news!

One aircraft seemingly overlooked, is the new Cessna Longitude. While I spent relatively little time in the Lears of past generations of MSFS, this plane may suffice to add functionality until ERJ-145s and CRJ-200s appear. I am sure the new Bonanza and the old but updated King Air will get plenty of use in my flight plans.

The import of the video is not about just Europe. They state that the image base is updateable in a 72 hour cycle for the ENTIRE PLANET! This means the data feed will be constantly updated to add new scenery or buildings. In a developing area, that means your flight in August will be different than the flight you make in October, new houses added and buildings constructed.

Steve, I know you may not be able to answer this because of the NDA, but from your comment it suggests that the simulator can be on a separate device than the operating system. FSX had to be on the drive with the operating system (there may have been a work around, but the install didn't give an option?). Can I run Windows 10 on my SSD and the simulator on my M.2?

You likely need at least 16mb of ram, and as little larger SSD. I would go with a 500mb or 1TB SSD and forget the hdd. Otherwise, it may depend on what monitor and resolution you plan to run. If you stick to 1080p and a desktop monitor, that is probably fine. If you plan to run 4K on a 35 inch monitor, that may be too weak.

The test videos do give a substantial advantage to Intel/Nvidia set up at the point of test which was a pre-release version. It was mentioned that there were efforts to optimize for AMD products in the works, but it was about a 25% advantage to Intel on that test setup??

If you plan to run the new MSFS, you might consider the RTX2060 Super. It is not only more powerful, but it is also more futureproof. It isn't a lot more than the GTX 1660ti.

They have done that.

You could also consider something like this if your MB supports it. Western Digital WD BLACK SN750 NVMe M.2 ~#150 for 1TB probably cheaper if you search.

Even though I am sure the 3700X is cheaper, the new simulator seems to favor Intel at the latest tests. Maybe an I7-10700K instead?

Thank You, that did the trick. I deleted the folder then used the FSX only discs to repair it. I can now fly as long as i want. I really won't miss acceleration much.

I had that checked as well. How long have you had it running on that machine, Steve? I upgraded my computer last fall, and it has never been able to activate. Do you have acceleration loaded? Somewhere I read that it was acceleration that had caused the activation failure?? I plan to get the new program, but there are so many planes that won't be available right away. I sure miss FSX. It ran fine on my Windows 8.1 machine. I have X-plane, but there is a lot missing and the program has wierd glitches like the autopilot failure if you change planes without closing the program.

Thank You Nels for sticking by the community for all those years! I go back to the 1990s. I was biguglyguy back then. Thanks again!

I got FS4.0, but I really didn't get into it until FS95. I subsequently have had FS98, FS2000, still have FS2002, FS2004, FSX, and then went to X-Plane 11.

Without hacking the registry, you can't run FSX on Windows 10. I have the same setup, Asus Z390, 9700K, and 1TB M.2 and a 500mb crucial SSD. FSX runs effortlessly on the 15 minutes I am allowed to use, at all settings completely maxed. I am running an RTX 2070. I also get 60 fps in X-plane at very high settings outside dense scenery, but the fan does speed up a little on that.

I am not sure speculative negativity is very helpful? We have been told a SDK is coming and there are already some 300 vendors in the pre-release loop. MSFS has always relied on the community to provide quality freeware enhancement. Why would that change in this addition?

Yes, that is the one I was referencing. Thank you!

There are a couple of test videos out showing early alpha versions getting ~35 fps with a 4mb GTX1060 and an I5-8400 at 1080p. The larger video ram will be needed to run higher resolutions.

I suspect you will be able to run at medium setting, which looked much better on the test video (I lost that link, sorry), than FSX. The low setting looked a lot like FSX or FS9 at higher settings, so if you stay at 1080p or 720 you probably will be happy. The test suggested the real need for massive processing power, came at 1440 and 4K resolutions, huge drops in frame rates to run at those resolutions with the weaker cards and processors tested. All the videos using less powerful systems were using early alpha versions, and several mentioned that the developer expected to get significant improvememnt with optimization that was still on going. By the time it is released, it may be more efficient for weaker systems? The tests did note a significant advantage to Intel processors at the point of the test, but mentioned that AMD optimization was not as far along but could improve by release.

Your processor and ram look pretty good, a reported test of a generation back I5 8400 showed about 35 fps with a GTX1060 or GTX1050. Your architecture is great, it isn't clear how much additional cores will be beneficial. I suspect the GTX1650 will be fine if you run at 1080P or 720. To run 4K, you might need a more powerful card. I agree, the places you need to look are enough memory and an SSD. Those are going to be important. Also getting a really good internet provider will be very critical!