flight sim x

BostonB

Celtic Mech wrote: »

Yeah i downloaded sp2 the other day. it seemed to make quite a difference on fps. seems to allow things to run smoother. i am gettin about 30+fps. My laptop is a Dell inspiron 9400, Pentium core 2 T7200 2ghz, 2gb ram, Nvidia GeForce 7900 GS

I have the same laptop, I didn't get FSX because the demo was too slow. I'm still on 2004 ATM. Is it worth upgrading now with the patches?

pclancy

Depends really, i know a massive amount of the FS community are still using FS2004 and have no plans for change...theres even a lot of people using 2000 that are happy with the experience the addons and customisation has done for them. I do remember the demo being slower the the finished product though. The overall scenery is way better, you get better cockpits etc and more airports/activities but thats about it.

BostonB

I don't have any addon's for 2004, tbh I don't even use it that much. I would like if the scenery looked more realistic though. I like the idea of thermals too.

pclancy

Personally I think the scenery does look better, the aircraft, airports, water and weather very much so. If celtic is getting those framerates from the same laptop sure go for it!

BostonB

I was getting more like 10fps with the demo.

I had a 1710 with same spec only a 7950GTX (512mb) and that was a lot faster in the demo. Gave it back as there was a problem with the screen.

pclancy

hmmm 10fps is pretty pants, I dunno what to say then tbh but if you hae the same spec as celtic why not give it a shot?

Fabio

I get about 20fps from FS2004 with almost all of the bars in settings set to the max and it looks fine...

Actually can anyone on here recommend a good plane, a jet airliner preferably that actually requires me to do some flying rather than simply setting the autopilot for the transatatlantic flight and heading off to sleep (exaggeration!).

BostonB

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0806/SST/SST.htm
http://www.avsim.com/pages/0108/ATR72/ATR72.htm

Fabio

I've been meaning to get Concorde for quite some time now but at the moment I am going about completing every test in FS2004 and acquring the licenses...just to keep it official haha!

Has anyone else gone and done this? Not touch a jet till you pass all of the requirements to do so in the tests?

BostonB

I haven't but I'd love to do it. Haven't had the time tbh. I always wanted to get into something like this

http://www.aeroworx.com/b200.html
http://www.avsim.com/pages/0904/b200/b200.htm

Fabio

They look like mighty fine planes alright....I really like flying the KingAir in FS2004 though I only have the default one but still...

pclancy

Have ye seen the PMDG 737 or 747 and the Captain Sim 757? I love those planes, amazing realism...

Bob the Builder

Those specs will run fsx quite well. FSX will be jumpy anyway if all settings are set to ultra high. Try and make sure you have a large FSB (Front Side Bus) figure. I don't know why, but it does improve performance.

http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/f/fsb.htm

MooseJam wrote: »

terrabyte harddrive I'd assume

Why would anyone possibly want that much memory, even for gaming! I have trouble filling 100gb, never mind 1000gb.

pclancy

Yes good fast RAM (properly setup and clocked), high end processor, high-end motherboard and obviously an excellent graphics card are whats needed, FSB speed and chipset type on the board is just one of several fast requirements for all gaming.

It looks fantastic with DX10 so a card that supports that would be a must for a new PC. I think we'll see a lot of new hardware over the coming years that will take full advantage of DX10 and FSX and its abilities taken better advantage of then we see at the moment.

Its gonna mean forking out more cash for new gear though Again.

Some good info on FSX's development can be found on this blokes blog http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/default.aspx

Fabio

So any news on the flight sim forum?

moby10

someone told me that vista uses almost a gig of ram alone and that there are hundreds of small programmes running all the time and suggested that i should install windows xp and and delete some of these unnecessary programmes and that would hughely improve the performance of flight sim? also i am going to post some pics in the ultra high settings to see what anyone thinks coz im not so sure if they are really that good-maybe i have something wrong in the settings-if anyone can help
(i will try to put some pics on tomorrow).
thanks

Fabio

I doubt Vista uses a gig of ram alone cos it can only handle up to 3 gigs (or around that)...

Mind you, you probably do have some stuff on it that ain't needed and is taking up RAM but then so do I I'd say!

pclancy

On all the systems I've seen running vista since its been released i dont think ive seen any use less then 500-600Mb of RAM even when idle. There are a lot more processes running behind the scenes then XP. Running at a gig is over the top though, there must be too much stuff installed such as antivirus or other software thats eating resources.

However so far Ive been actually impressed by how FSX has run in vista on my own laptop considering its graphics card is crap. I havnt been able to figure out if the fact im running 64bit is making a difference or not.

What graphics card have you got Moby?

moby10

im using dual ge force 8800 gtx 768 mb but it is only 32 mb ? im not great with computers but i think the system is only using one graphic card because in settings (fsx) it gives me an option to pick which graphic card i want and i can only pick one of them.????