|
Post by Tom Goodrick on Aug 28, 2008 9:27:28 GMT -5
Many of our members have installed FSX and have used it with varying degrees of success. They will be happy to answer your questions. One question many people have is what sort of computer is required to run it well. Several have had success and can answer that.
I am not one of them. I would have to dump my old reliable 2000 machine running Win 98 and get a new one with that new OS that everyone hates (VISTA).
|
|
|
Post by hanspetter on Aug 29, 2008 11:23:03 GMT -5
Even though I'm not really in a position to answer this here's a quick comment. Regarding hardware requirements most recent computers with a decent 3D video card are able to run FSX with most sliders to the left. If you want all sliders to the right you'll have to wait since there's no current rig that can handle it.
Regarding the Vista OS you don't have to accept Vista if you decide to buy a new PC. That is, if you buy it from shop that caters to gamers and is used to customizing things you'll definitely get the option of choosing Win XP. Conversely, if you go to some community store / standard electronics store you'll get a choice between a few general purpose computers, all with the latest Windows OS pre-installed. (That's what I got for my birthday -- the most powerful standard PC from a standard computer shop).
Here's my advice: Consider the purchase of a more powerful computer and get it from a shop that customizes game computers. Choose Win XP as your next OS. It's well-tested and it's probably the best Windows OS so far. It does everything Vista does without the extra overhead including the requirement to confirm every operation you want to carry out. If you ever want to try FSX it will install under Win XP. FSX requires Win XP or Vista. The only limitation is that DirectX 10 and future version are Vista only. But then, you may not want FSX at all. You may elect to rediscover FS9 as I do these days.
However, to those who do have a Vista OS there are steps to take if you want to use the resources more wisely. That is, if you can live without some of the default pretty layout options. You can go "classic view" for most folder options. Further you can disable all of the "Aero" features. Aero uses your 3D card to display semi-transparent borders and other pretty stuff. It looks great but it comes with a cost. I don't know whether it still taxes the system when you're in a game or a sim window though.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Peterson on Aug 29, 2008 17:46:22 GMT -5
My old system was: Windows XP Pro ASRock Motherboard K7S41GX AMD Sempron 2800+ running at 2.0 GHz Crucial X1600 Pro AGP Video card with 512 MB RAM 1 GB PC2700 Ram 80 GB Seagate ATA Hard drive 450 W Power supply
This system would run FSX with the sliders mostly to the left, getting 15 - 20 fps. In busy areas (KSEA) it would bog down, so I didn't fly in those areas.
My new system is: Windows XP on a full sized tower with 3 case fans, AM2 AMD 690G HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard, 4 GB DDR2 667 RAM, even though XP can only use 3.25 GB, Radeon HD 3850 512 MB 256-bit GDDR3 OCI Express 2.0 x 16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card, AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Dual Core processor at 2.5 GHz, 650 W Power Supply.
FSX Deluxe is out of the box with no upgrades, the frame rate is set to unlimited. (I did add a couple of tweaks suggested by flame on the old board.) Settings are: detail radius - large mesh complexity - 81 mesh resolution - 76 m texture resolution - 1 m water effects - high 1.x scenery complexity - very dense autogen density - dense special effects - high cloud draw distance - 80 mi detailed cloud density medium
I'm getting about 30 fps, a little less in "busy areas", a little more in rural areas. That seems to work pretty good for me, and is probably an adequate system. One thing I did notice, because one on my 2 GB memory modules was bad out of the box I was running FSX on only 2 GB RAM. When I added a good memory module - to get back to 4GB - I picked up about 5 fps, so having the max RAM that XP can hanle is helpful.
I think hanspetter has good advice
|
|
|
Post by flaminghotsauce on Aug 29, 2008 19:02:29 GMT -5
The best results I've seen are dual-core cpu machines running 3.0 or better on speed, XP64 bit on a 64 bit processor, with 800 speed RAM.
64 bit processor and XP 64 bit will allow faster operation, and will recognize RAM past 3.2 or 3.5 or whatever the limit is. That is the primary consideration, followed by a MB that will allow the fastest RAM one can afford. Then the best video card you can afford, and so on. If one ends up with Vista 64 bit, it would be preferable to have the future memory expansion capability. Don't forget a good PSU.
FSX is more cpu intensive than gpu intensive which is why Hans and I can do fine with our 256 meg 8500 video cards. More is always better, of course. When the 8800 series cards get cheap enough, I'll probably pick one up. I CAN crush my video rendering by setting the BigMcLargeHuge LCD to run at it's native 1600x1050 for FSX. I usually run it lower than that. Still looks great at 1200x ? and flies much better. No stuttering.
Setting the frames to "unlimited" is better than restricting fps. I can't explain, but it works better.
I really like FSX. Little things like small hills I know on local roads are accurately depicted. I flew up the Mississippi river to Naveau Ill and the cliffs were where they are supposed to be, althought the train bridge across the river just north of there was a messy pair of drawn lines!
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Jan 24, 2009 15:37:25 GMT -5
I tried XP x64 (luckily I had a free legal copy) and it ran everything fine except Unreal Tournament 3, my "other" game. So I bit the bullet and tried Vista x64, which I didn't hate nearly as much as I figured I would, especially after the release of SP1.
I've had this rig nearly a year now and it runs FSX really well, but there are still a few slowdowns-- it's still the heavy clouds.
Intel E8400 watercooled and overclocked to 4.16 GHz ATi Radeon 3870x2 Abit IP35-Pro (motherboard) 4 GB G.Skill PC 1000 RAM 700W OZC GameXtreme PSU
My biggest regret was finally letting go of the analog stick and pedals I'd had for years. There is absolutely NO gameport in Vista. Honestly there was some sentimental attachment to each unit. The pedals I got for my birthday in Feb. of 2000. Tom and I probably exchanged fifty emails that day as he helped the then computer noob (me) to get them working. The joystick had been sent to me by Hans Petter all the way from Norway. There's a happy ending, though, as I gave them to a guy who had just returned from military duty in Iraq. He'd gotten into flightsim over there and was hoping to take real flying lessons. I ought to find out if he ever did.
|
|
|
Post by flaminghotsauce on Apr 30, 2009 22:03:44 GMT -5
I thought I'd drag this thread back up instead of starting a new thread.
Currently I'm running an HP with an AMD Phenom quad core 2.5, 6 gigs of memory, and a 256 memory card on Vista 64 bit.
I've been toying with the idea of buying the Real Air Duke for FSX, but having flown some hard IFR in the Baron I thought maybe not. I've always cheated UP the sliders to get the most out of the sim as best as the machinery is able to handle it. The Baron adventures were leading me into unflyable frame rates of 10 ish.
Tonight, I took the opposite approach. I started to test with the sliders as far DOWN as I can stand, while pushing the frame lock up as far as possible. I started with weather on the lowest setting that still features detailed clouds. The scenery stuff on low, traffic on low, etc..... the only thing is the aircraft itself is on ultra high so it looks good, and the gauges are legible.
This works great! I miss the extra 5,700 houses per block, but the trees still look great, the weather was actual download and was chock full of clouds (and rain at KSTL) and looked good. I tested NY LaGuardia, DC, KSEA, and mostly saw framed 20 and above in the high-density areas. I set the scenery to the lowest that would still pop up the airport buildings, terminals, etc. because it just looks silly to land on a runway with nowhere to park.
When out in the less intense areas, I was seeing frames in the 40's and the land and stuff was still looking really good. As long as the aircraft itself is super high quality, I don't feel so much like I"m playing a cheesy game. I'm very impressed with the quality of detail with the settings set so low. I'll be flying FSX a LOT more often now, and I just might get that Duke after all.
Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Peterson on May 2, 2009 0:28:58 GMT -5
Hi Flame, I've gotten interested in taildraggers and I have downloaded some nice ones in FS9. On take-off in the 2-d panel I use Shift+Backspace or Shift+Enter to change the eye point up or down so I can see the runway (the Wide view works, too). But in FSX that only works in the 3-d panel, and the Wide view looks upward at the static_pitch angle. So, in FSX, do you know of a way I can look over the nose to see the runway on take-off in the 2-d panel??? Or is that just an "improvement" in FSX?
|
|
|
Post by Tom Goodrick on May 2, 2009 11:00:03 GMT -5
This is just a thought. I have not been terribly successful at it. But in the real world pilots taking off and landing in tail draggers cannot see the runway at all. They have no buttons to push that help. The way they do it is to learn to watch the left edge of the runway and use that as a guide. On takeoff, once you start rolling with stick back you can move the stick forward to raise the tail as soon as possible. On landing you watch the left edge until you are slow enough to S turn. I find using the 3D panel best on landings and takeoffs in tail draggers. The J-3 Cub is good for practicing this. I first learned to fly in the real Cub. You can't see a thing straight ahead.
|
|
|
Post by flaminghotsauce on May 2, 2009 16:20:46 GMT -5
I don't know. I use only the 3d panel in FSX. It's one or the other and I've never turned on the 2d....
BTW, how do you like those Maules in the default hanger? I flew it on our Colorado fling, but that 's the only time I've gotten in the taildragger business in FSX.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Peterson on May 2, 2009 23:55:24 GMT -5
Thanks, guys. I realize that in a real tail dragger there is no button to push to see over the nose, and that you couldn't begin to raise the seat high enough, so you have to look to the left and down or look forward just to the left of the engine cowling to see the edge of the runway on take off or landing. But in a real plane you can do that and still keep an eye on the instruments. That is hard to do in the sim - especially FSX - when the 2d panel takes up the whole lower half of the screen. The only tail draggers native to FSX are the Cub, DC-3 and Maule (which I have not flown). The Cub is not much of a problem, like Tom says the tail comes up quick. On the DC-3 the 3d panel has a fair view looking out of the left front window, but you can't see much of the instruments. The Maule in no problem because you can see over the nose even in the 2d panel. The issue is really with the plane that I downloaded, a Waco Aristocrat. It is a pretty plane but it flies not so well and I 'm still working on it. The 2d panel is only so-so and the 3d panel is not as good. I modified the left side of the panel.bmp of the 2d panel by making a clear area so now I can look past the panel, along the left side of the plane and see the edge of the runway. This works pretty good but it takes some practice. I haven't decided if I'll keep the plane yet. I've got it flying pretty good, I can get it slowed down on approach and touch down at about 50 mph, but it takes forever - and a lot of runaway - to get it stopped.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Goodrick on May 3, 2009 10:03:25 GMT -5
I must admit I usually tap W to get a clear view with instruments when I take off in the DC-3. We should examine what instruments we need during takeoffs and landings.
During a takeoff, your ear plays a major part combined with peeks at the airspeed indicator to learn if the engine(s0 is/are operating properly, and when it is safe to fly although this is often felt more than seen even in FS. You may need to glance at some engine instruments to be sure of proper engine operation. I tried a takeoff twice in the Duke yesterday in a heavy rain storm and lost the right engine during taxi or at the start of takeoff each time. You want to determine something like that in time to keep the plane on the runway.
During landing your time to see both the panel and the runway is on final. That is when you can adjust and finalize the alignment and the airspeed. When you start to flare you must already have the airspeed near or just above stall. If you are trying for a three-point landing, it must be just above stall so that the flare actually causes a stall during the deceleration. For wheel landing as normally done in a DC-3, the speed should be at least 15% above stall for the weight and configuration when you start the flare. It is a mild flare. Rather than watching an altimeter, the proper way to judge a final approach is the picture you see out the windshield. This holds true even as the runway disappears in a taildragger after the flare.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Peterson on May 3, 2009 18:59:40 GMT -5
Good points, Tom. I guess the nose wheel planes have spoiled me, making take off and landings "easier". I expect I'll be getting more "experience" flying the tail draggers. I'm having fun flying them around small airports with grass strips, etc. I'll try to stop using the "over the nose button". I have a Waco S3HD, a Stearman, a Cessna 195, a Stagger wing and a Spartan Executive. I saw picture somewhere of a restored SE-5A just about to touch down in a perfect three point landing, nose high. The pilot is looking off to his right where there is a white 2 rail fence running parallel to the strip. I suspect he was using the fence as a reference.
|
|
|
Post by flaminghotsauce on Jul 2, 2009 13:01:24 GMT -5
I just reinstalled my OS, FSX and X--Plane. I've been using Windows 7 release candidate as the "upgrade" install over Vista, which works fine. But just out of curiosity, I reloaded the OS as a "new" installation without Vista underneath. I just wanted to see if it ran better.
FSX ran worse at first. I forgot to reload SP1 and 2. Half the frame rates plus stutters. But after I downloaded and installed SP1 it was back to normal. SP1 makes a tremendous difference in performance.
Don't forget SP1!
According to my above post about the performance, I'd say I had not SP1-ed the install at that point. I now am running the airplane graphics on Ultra-high, global is ultra-high, weather, scenery, and traffic on high. My frame lock is at 60 and in the local area, I am in the upper 50's in clear weather, 30's to 50's in clouds and rain, and smooth operation.
Don't forget SP1!
|
|
|
Post by flaminghotsauce on Jul 29, 2009 7:19:57 GMT -5
Something else I was messing with: I usually use 1650x1050 x 32 as the screen resolution. I had never tried using the 1650x1050 x 16. Using the 16 seems to speed up the frame rates, but I hardly notice any difference in the visual quality. Actually I haven't noticed any difference.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Hendrix (bgas046) on Dec 13, 2009 8:29:15 GMT -5
I got a new Dual Core Quad computer with lots of power, then installed FSX. Really don't like FSX so I removed it and went back to FS9. FS9 runs super on my new conputer.
|
|