Jump to content

Sven Groot 1044304

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Sven Groot 1044304

  • Birthday 11/25/1981
  1. "The network" as such doesn't to anything to handle them. Yes, that means you can have pilots who taxi on the gr[Mod - Happy Thoughts], park in a lake, or float a few feet off the ground because they have a different scenery than you. If you have a specific scenery for an airport it can be helpful to note that in your remarks, so ATC can keep that in mind when giving you gate [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments or taxi instructions (e.g. if you fly to London Heathrow EGLL it helps if you let ATC know via the remarks if you have scenery that includes terminal 5).
  2. The answer's no. For one thing, you have plenty of physical RAM ([Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming your post's supposed to say 4GB), but even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't increase your FPS. Having more virtual memory gives you more breathing room if you run very memory-intensive apps, it doesn't normally affect performance on a game. Also, no matter what all those performance tuning sites say, in 99.9% of all cases letting Windows handle virtual memory size is going to be the best option.
  3. All PCs sold today have 64 bit CPUs, that one is no exception. The question is whether or not to run a 64 bit OS. That machine does not come with a 64 bit OS included; no pre-made consumer system does. Considering the hardware and software compatibility issues that still exist with 64 bit versions of Windows, I would not recommend using it unless you know exactly what you're doing. And if you don't mind me saying, it doesn't sound like you do. Don't worry about it. If you don't know what it is, then you don't need it.
  4. Suffice it to say that if you don't know what it is, you're better off not using it. Technical: a 32 bit CPU can address only 4GB of physical RAM, of which a portion is reserved for hardware DMA. To get around this limitation, CPUs have moved to 64 bit addressing which can address a theoretical maximum of 16 billion gigabyte. The current generation of CPUs are all support 64 bit, but in order to use it you also need an operating system that can handle the 64 bit addressing. There are special versions of Windows that can do this, but 99.9999% of consumers don't use these. Not yet, at least
  5. 3GB RAM is fine. Unless you're going to run a 64 bit OS there's very little point in having more.
  6. I should also note that if you are looking to upgrade the CPU of your current system, forget about it. No modern CPU will fit in the socket of your current motherboard. If you want a new CPU, you need a new computer.
  7. MHz numbers of old CPUs and new CPUs are not comparable. A Pentium 4 at 3.2GHz is slower than a Core 2 Duo at 2GHz. I've run FSX quite well on a Core 2 Duo E6600 which is 2.4GHz. That said, as I've told you before, FSX is very resource hungry. No matter what hardware you'll throw at it, especially on the CPU side, it'll be able to use it. So you buy whatever the maximum is that you can afford. Don't get too fixed on the MHz number. It hasn't been a good method of determining the actual speed of a CPU for many years, and that's especially true if you're getting a dual core or quad c
  8. The issue here is not moving the existing hard drive to a new system, it's moving an existing OS installation to a new system. There are two issues to keep in mind: - Windows cannot switch to another HAL* after it's been installed. What this means is that if you switch from a single-core (or single-CPU) system to a multi-core (or multi-CPU) system you must reinstall, otherwise the extra core/CPU will not be used. - Windows XP is very bad at having the motherboard changed. Depending on how big the change is (e.g. if you're sticking with an Intel chipset it's more likely to work than if yo
  9. It's a dual core processor, and actually Apple uses Core 2 Duos in the current Macs as well.
  10. My only guess is that you might've made a typo specifying the folder to install FSX in. I have FSX installed on my E: partition, it definitely shouldn't be a problem. As for the performance, make sure you have FSX SP1 and SP2 installed, they help a lot. Then fiddle with the sliders until you get an acceptable performance level for your PC. Reformatting the drive (make sure you use NTFS) might not be a bad idea, it might have some permissions set that belong to the old PC. That still shouldn't cause the problem you're seeing, though.
  11. Arogon, it sounds like you may have been having a different issue where FSX was actually running out of address space, not virtual memory. A 32 bit process has 2GB address space(*) so it cannot use more memory no matter how much memory your system has, physical or virtual. (*) FSX as of SP2 is large address aware, which means that if you use the /3G switch to boot Windows it gets 3GB address space, and if you run a 64 bit version of Windows it gets 4GB.
  12. Since I use neither nVidia nor FS9 I can't be sure, but I remember reading that FS9, nVidia and FSAA are things that don't always work well together.
  13. DISCLAIMER: I'm not an expert on overclocking, just relaying some of my limited experience. First, read some reviews about your CPU and especially your motherboard, and if possible your RAM. A lot of gamer sites list their overclocking experience with a particular model so you know what to watch out for. On most modern CPUs the multiplier is locked so the only way to overclock it is to increase the FSB speed. This has the effect of not only overclocking the CPU, but also the motherboard itself and the RAM. Make sure all components are of high quality and can handle it (especially RAM; a lo
  14. I have the Level-D 767 and I do not have the problems you describe. Note that if you are using FSX Acceleration there is a bug that causes the FMC to lose performance data after the engines are started. In that case you need to enter the information on the PERF INIT and TAKEOFF pages after you start the engines or the FMS will not be fully configured and not function correctly.
  15. I would never touch nVidia again (unless there are some drastic changes), but there are people who would say the same thing about ATI as well.
  • Create New...