Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: FSX limitations on utilizing PC resources

  1. Default FSX limitations on utilizing PC resources

    Hey all,

    I know that stuff of this kind has already been discussed in the forums, but I would be grateful, if you could give me a summary or redirect me to an appropriate thread. My question is as follows:

    I'm in the process of building myself a new PC. Not for flight siming only, but while I'm on it I would like to maximize performance for this as well. Obviously FSX is not really new and I vaguely remember of reading about some limitations to the resources it can utilize.

    So:
    Is it true FSX can use 4 GB RAM only, so more RAM is only necessary to keep your system and other applications running in the background. (Thinking of doing 16 GB)

    How about the CPU usage and multithreading? Better to use e.g. QuadCore with higher frequency, than more cores with a bit lower frequency?

    How about the GPU? Not intending to go for IGP, but wondering whether I should keep my old GPU with 2 GB DRAM?

    How much of an impact does an SSD for running FSX have?

    How well are FSX, PMDG 777 and Concorde X working under Windows 10?

    Loads of questions I know, but many thanks in advance for some answers!! :-)

    Cheers!

  2. Default

    Old and can't use hardware so don't need to buy? Nonsense spread by *&%#! Ram is ok amount. Fastest i7 modern cpu, fastest videocard, fast ddr4 ram, good board that handles overclocking. Skimping won't get you same performance. On matter how much those *?&% wish it was so.
    No shortcuts for reading. Be prepared to be reading about best hardware choices for a few months. Not here per se, on sites and forums dealing with hardware. And on manufacturers sites, comparing various parts and ALL their specs. After all, you must in the end be able to make YOUR OWN informed decision when spending between $1300 and $2300.

  3. #3

    Default

    Here is my system as it is, its a HP laptop i3 quad core processor @ 1.9GHz. 8 Gb ram, on board intel hd video using shared memory and a 7200rpm hard drive @750gb space. I run Win 10 home 64 bit. I have both boxed FSX and FSX-se. I use the box mostly with AS16, ASCA. Most of my aircraft is freeware save for level-d 767 and 2 perfect flight sets. I normally get between 30-50 fps. Hope this helps you.... AD

  4. Default

    But, amberdog, if you would use a dedicated graphics card to get some decent details, and use a large monitor resolution of today, (and switch off Dx10 mode?), you would
    be down to 5-10 fps if that.
    (And with a nice modern plane like a PMDG 737-800 your fsx would come to a grinding halt.)

    The point is: there's way too much that makes a difference on fps to even attempt listing
    it all. From hardware to software, from all the details to the fsx settings and graphics card settings, etc. Just too much to even list/ let alone make a decent decision on it.

    Best is. Decide on a budget. Then get the best processor you can afford.
    You can always upgrade a graphics card later. You can't (won't) upgrade a processor. After spending $300++
    on that, you won't buy another for at least 4 years, and by then newer processors don't fit in your old mainboard.
    So no upgrade route.
    Adding a better graphics card later is always an option though.

    So best processor, basic good core ram and mainboard.
    hard disks that will last you a few years.
    And some sort of videocard. Whatever you do, not just HDgraphics.

    That still leaves thousands of options for parts to consider. Don't rush into buying.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    6,270

    Default

    I fully agree with il88pp that your equipment and settings can make a big difference. With a 3.2 MHz i7 960, 12 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 970 and SSDs for C: and D: (D: is where I have FSX and P3D), I can't usually do much better than 30 fps (consistently, that is) on P3D, and worse on FSX. But I'm using a 1080p monitor and have my display settings low to med high, depending on where I'm flying (in big cities I'm almost down to a slideshow, even at low settings).

    So as mentioned above, get the best processor you can and, if you go with P3D you'll also want a top graphics card (it makes a big difference with P3D), and SSDs will improve performance a lot when starting up and will reduce stutter tendencies when caused by discs loading scenery, etc. It'll help TrackIR run more smoothly, too.

    Larry N.

    As Skylab would say:
    Remember: Aviation is NOT an exact Science!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Pontefract, West Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    843

    Default

    Hi Sailor512,

    Whilst you will be using the rig for FSX, you do need to factor in what other uses you are going to use the rig for and adjust your 'build' accordingly. If you base your requirements solely on the limitations of FSX then you are likely to impact on other software that you may be intending to use. Base your build on the requirements of the most demanding app - most new apps require a higher spec than FSX anyway so FSX should run well on a rig built based on the most demanding product.

    As il88pp has stated, you must base your rig on your own overall requirements. However, WRT the Qs you have asked.....

    RAM - yes, because FSX is a 32-bit program it can only access a max of 4Gb. 8Gb should the minimum that you should consider (although 16Gb is a better choice) as it will allow FSX to use the full 4Gb even when other tasks are happening in the background and allows flexibility for the more demanding apps that you may run.

    CPU - Generally FSX will only use one core, irrespective of how many are available. The higher speed may have relevance BUT, WRT the often seen comments about getting the 'fastest' available CPU, GPU etc, it is IMO is often overstated. As amberdog1 has pointed out at post #3 (and I have on several other such related threads) you don't necessary need the 'fastest' CPU available to run FSX.

    Remember, whilst the development of FSX has stood still, PC components have continuously developed. The specs of the highest spec 2007 era CPU that FSX was designed to run on is well below, in terms of both speed and capabilities, the specs of even an 'old' low end 'legacy'/4th generation i3, which again is, in comparison to a current 7th gen low end i3, slow. However, the 4th Gen i3 is capable of running FSX very well.

    GPU - As with the CPU, it is not necessary to have a high end GPU. Your main problem here is that the 'old' GPU may not be compatible with the new motherboard.

    SSD - whilst using a SSD will give faster OS and other program loading times it will have very little or no impact on the FPS rate of FSX and most other apps. Depending on your budget go for either the largest SSD you can afford OR a small SSD (say 128GB or 256Gb) for the OS and a separate large HDD for FSX and other apps

    Win 10 - FSX and addons work fine on Win 10. There are a few things that may cause issues, especially in a fresh vanilla install but all have fixes available. Search the forum for Win 10 related problems and you will see that they all easily resolved if encountered. In fact most of them can be negated by some pre-FSX installation work - for example, FSX requires Visual C++ 2005 to run. W10 does not normally ship with it and the version included on the FSX install disk is woefully out of date and in a lot, so checking if it is installed into W10 before install FSX is a good ideal. If not, downloading and installing the 2005 Redistributable package will negate the risk of encountering problems relating to the lack of C++.

    Finally FTR - I have two rigs running FSX (both laptops) running Win 10 Creators Update.

    Rig 1 has a i5-450M 2.4Ghz CPU, 8Gb RAM with both an Onboard Intel HD GPU (2GB shared memory) and a dedicated ATI Mobility Radeon HD5650 GPU (2Gb dedicated).

    Rig 2 has a i7-4702MQ 2.2Ghz (with 3.2Ghz Turbo Boost), 16Gb RAM with both an Onboard Intel HD GPU (2GB dedicated memory) and a dedicated NVIDIA GeForce GT750M GPU (2Gb dedicated).

    Both rigs run FSX well, FPS is locked at 30FPS on both and I have a mixture of scenery and aircraft addons that range from 'light to heavy' in terms of complexity, visuals and resource requirements. Both rigs have similar FSX settings, the exceptions being that on Rig 1 the scenery complexity slider is set at dense (very dense on rig 2) and the Mesh Complexity slider is set at 80 (100 on rig 2). Rig 1 will sometimes drop FPS (usually only by 3-4FPS) when loading very complex scenery but rig 2 has no such issues and I have never encountered scenery 'blurries' or 'stutters' on either rig.
    Regards

    Brian

  7. #7

    Default

    All I was trying to say is you don't have to get the most powerful rig to enjoy FSX and still have a good flight. I'd love to have something better but I don't have the resources yet so I have to make do with what I have. For what it is I do very well.
    Happy Flyin yall

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    14,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberdog1 View Post
    All I was trying to say is you don't have to get the most powerful rig to enjoy FSX and still have a good flight. I'd love to have something better but I don't have the resources yet so I have to make do with what I have. For what it is I do very well.
    Happy Flyin yall
    Me too! My computer is the equivalent of rubbing 2 sticks together
    Mr Zippy Sent from my keyboard using "Whackamole", NudgeAKey + 2 Fingers

    Emachines T3418 AMD 3400+ processor 2GHZ/256KB L2 Cashe 2Gig Ram 160Gig HDD NVidia GEForce 6100 GPU Running WinXP Home Can't believe it still works! Running FSX Standard with SP1 and SP2

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    6,270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberdog1 View Post
    All I was trying to say is you don't have to get the most powerful rig to enjoy FSX and still have a good flight. I'd love to have something better but I don't have the resources yet so I have to make do with what I have. For what it is I do very well.
    Happy Flyin yall
    That's true, you don't have to have the most powerful (my system is 7 years old, too), but it helps. I'd gotten the impression you were saying "don't bother with more" but I guess I misunderstood -- sorry. Also, you were reporting frame rates that can't give a great deal of detail, which is fine, but should be acknowledged.

    Larry N.

    As Skylab would say:
    Remember: Aviation is NOT an exact Science!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    12,085

    Default

    You don't need to spend anywhere near $1300 for a solid FSX system. I just did so last month for $700.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FS2004 PC resources
    By gchiham in forum FS2004
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-08-2014, 10:08 PM
  2. Planes, cars and Pc resources.
    By lefu in forum FSX
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-20-2013, 02:11 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-2011, 04:35 AM
  4. Utilizing All Runways
    By rcancian in forum FSX
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 07:57 AM
  5. Releasing PC Resources
    By gatwickuk in forum FSX
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-19-2006, 02:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •