Peter Bruns 982413 Posted July 8, 2007 at 09:33 PM Posted July 8, 2007 at 09:33 PM For some time now I've been hearing about how dissapointing FSX has been to a lot of people, and how even the hottest systems can barely run it. But the other day I was on some website from England where the author dispelled some of these roomers and says even an adequate machine will run FSX O.K. I see plenty of posts here regarding FSX so it must mean that not everyone is throwing thier FSX CDs away and reverting back to FS9. So can anyone tell me REALLY what I need to run FSX, with reasonably good framr rates and third party add-ons? My set up is currently a Pentium D slightly overclocked past 3gigs, 1gig RAM, one 250 MB card, and XP Pro. I would go out and get another gig of RAM if I had to. But if I have to do that AND buy another card, a larger HD drive, or upgrade my CPU... sorry it ain't worth it to me at this point. Has anyone used Xplane? I was wondering what the performance and system requirements are for that compared to FSX. can you add-on payware aircraft to Xplane? Thanks. Peter Bruns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry James 901346 Posted July 8, 2007 at 10:17 PM Posted July 8, 2007 at 10:17 PM You’ll probably get about as many difference opinions as you get responses. It would ultimately be up to you to actually get it and test it and see how it works for you. Myself, I liked it when I first saw the preview that they released. Even then many people complained. I knew what I was getting when I went and purchased it and I liked what I got. I have my complaints, but not enough complaints to drop it. I had to run the sliders down extremely low, initially. I eventually doubled the ram to two gigs, upgraded my video card to the 7600 GT, and of course installed the SP1 patch. Each upgrade allowed me to turn the graphics up a little more. My computer continues to grow, and every few months I’m sure I’ll do another enhancement and be able to turn the graphics up even more. So, performance has never been a problem. If performance is what I want, I adjust the graphics down until I’m at the level I want to be. Then I fly. When I first came into the flight community with 2004 I had a system that ran FS9 poorly. I needed all the graphic sliders down low. I flow with performance (with the sliders low) and liked the environment my rig continued to grow. I expected the same thing with FSX and so far have what I expected from the start. I’m looking forward to the DX10 upgrade. When that happens, I’m sure I’ll like FSX even more. It’ll run on a system much lower than the minimum requirement. During my test for answering support questions I actually installed it on a 10 year old computer that only had 256 megs of ram and was able to fly without any problems. Of course most of the sliders were about as low as they could go. I also put it on a low end Laptop and it worked okay (with the sliders down low). I’m comfortable with it and would recommend it to anyone starting out. The more they like the environment will be the more they can invest in upgrading the hardware, revealing more and more eye candy. But as far as getting on and experiencing flight simulation, you can do that with the sliders down low. The only thing that would have held me back would have not being able to connect to VATSIM. Since that has always been available, there was nothing fully missing that I couldn’t wait for it to catch up. By the way, you can always download the preview free and choose for yourself. My current machine, I’m sure is a low end by most of what I’ve been seeing in the messages. It’s a 3.6 ghz, 2gigs Ram, geForce 7600 GT 256 meg video card, 250 Sata drive. With the Windows Vista I was able to add a 4g ready boost disk cashe. Just my humble opinion… -- L. James -- L. D. James [email protected] www.apollo3.com/~ljames sticky: Not a regular post, but a special thread/message stuck to the top with special meaning… containing important forum information. For FSInn/VATSIM issues, please test the FSInn Installation sticky and linked FAQ. It really works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Gugliotta 992193 Posted July 31, 2007 at 12:00 PM Posted July 31, 2007 at 12:00 PM I had FS9 working perfectly with Vatsim flying, LD767, Ultimate Traffic, dual screens, voice activated software, throttles, yoke,rudder pedals etc. Then I got this great idea to upgrade to FSX on my 3.0 Ghz 256 mb video card fairly new computer. Well FSX ran like a dog, so I spent $6000 on the fastes computer out there. Quad Core 3.47 Ghts, dual 8800 cards etc., with VISTA. Well setting up FSX was a nightmare. Settingup the controllers another one, installing LD767 went easy, setting up FSini crashed my computer. I had to do a system restore and now I don't fly on line. The real difference between FS9 and FSX is eye candy (moving cars, boats, better trees - a bit better graphics). But if FS9 is working perfectly and you have EVERYTHING working fine, don't kill yourself by doing what UI did - It was not worth it and I am worse off and $6000 poorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry James 901346 Posted July 31, 2007 at 12:11 PM Posted July 31, 2007 at 12:11 PM Well setting up FSX was a nightmare. Settingup the controllers another one, installing LD767 went easy, setting up FSini crashed my computer. I had to do a system restore and now I don't fly on line.The real difference between FS9 and FSX is eye candy (moving cars, boats, better trees - a bit better graphics). But if FS9 is working perfectly and you have EVERYTHING working fine, don't kill yourself by doing what UI did - It was not worth it and I am worse off and $6000 poorer. The problem you had with FSInn was probably the outdated PRC which should be updated soon. The updated information is in the first message "Installing FSInn" in the FSInn Help forum area. I never have problems with FS9 or FSX. I even installed it on machines far below the recommended standard and it worked perfectly each time. ( http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=20466 ). The visual experience (eye candy) is a nice addition. But I see many other features that are not included in FS9. The Views of the other pilots on VATSIM is an outstanding feature. The shared skies is a very nice feature to have. I can understand someone who has a lot invested in FS9 to not want to loose all his addons. But for someone just starting out, I believe it to be a serious mistake to start out building libraries of addons for FS9, they really should start out by building up for the new environment that continues to catch on more and more each day. -- L. James -- L. D. James [email protected] www.apollo3.com/~ljames sticky: Not a regular post, but a special thread/message stuck to the top with special meaning… containing important forum information. For FSInn/VATSIM issues, please test the FSInn Installation sticky and linked FAQ. It really works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Weiner 1020040 Posted August 1, 2007 at 04:26 PM Posted August 1, 2007 at 04:26 PM Download the FSX demo and see how it runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry James 901346 Posted August 1, 2007 at 04:35 PM Posted August 1, 2007 at 04:35 PM Download the FSX demo and see how it runs. Good idea, except for the fact that SP1 (which isn't available for the demo) added FPS and stability. There's also not provisions to test how it will be in a multiplayer environment. The demo isn't representative of FSX's performance. However, It does give some idea what FSX is about. -- L. James -- L. D. James [email protected] www.apollo3.com/~ljames sticky: Not a regular post, but a special thread/message stuck to the top with special meaning… containing important forum information. For FSInn/VATSIM issues, please test the FSInn Installation sticky and linked FAQ. It really works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts