Going to the Dark Side..Again.....

[TSR2]

Hi Tony,

Firstly, I wouldn't expect too much from FSX, the processor only runs at 2.4 GHz and is only single core, so performance many not be great, but I'm sure we can get it to run, I just doubt it will be anywhere near FS9.

Secondly, if possible, I'd suggest installing FSX on one of the other drives (i.e. Not the C:Drive) I've just recieved my GenX version2 DVD and I'm going to try that tonight, but again, loading scenery like the GenX stuff on your system might be like pulling teeth....
... Not being negative mate, just realistic. ;-)

[Tweek]

Of course, if you have the Horizon scenery, autogen won't be essential (personal choice, of course), so you could gain a lot of performance in that area.

The European desert textures are either fixed by those 8 huge files, or a simple landclass replacement. I used Cloud9's landclass, and now Ultimate Terrain X, and both made Britain green again, without the need for those files from AVSIM.

[tonymadge]

From FSX website:

Minimum System Requirements
Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista
Processor: 1.0 Ghz
RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista – 512MB
Hard Drive: 14GB
Video Card: 32MB DirectX 9 compatible

Firstly, I wouldn't expect too much from FSX, the processor only runs at 2.4 GHz and is only single core, so performance many not be great, but I'm sure we can get it to run, I just doubt it will be anywhere near FS9

Ummm so my "little" cpu which is over twice the min won't cut it then... Intel and AMD dont bother marking speeds on CPU's in the blurb as it means little once over 3ghz... dual core stuff is good but the core is split over the speed... not sure that will help much.. the CPU runs very quick and if FSX wont give me playable frame rates (I use the word playable as FSX is a game imho) then all this cack about SP1 and SP2 immproving things is cack?
I had a slide show before with sliders down so you telling me I am about to have the same pleasent experience? I am not asking for 50fps just about 25fps in most circumstances..
If the answer is no then the new Horizon discs will go straight on eBay and I can turn a little profit from them... I have not bought FSX yet... :@

[tonymadge]

I used Cloud9's landclass, and now Ultimate Terrain X,

what sort of price wil these cost?

[Tweek]

The problem is, nobody can give you a definitive answer to that. I heard of many people complaining of performance issues when I could run it quite acceptably on a supposedly inferior system (unfortunately, I can't quite remember my specs when I first had FSX).

But I do believe that SP1 and 2 give a performance boost. At least in my experience.

Cloud9 Xclass Europe costs just over a fiver, and Ultimate Terrain X costs about £18. Bear in mind, you get what you pay for. Xclass is just landclass, whereas UTX adds landclass, rivers, all roads (and I mean every road down to the quiet cul-de-sacs in Cheltenham), etc etc. http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=utxusa

[DaveB]

Hi Tony..

FSX doesn't run too bad on my XP3200 since the advent of SP2.. especially running GenX. Before SP2, GenX was a no-no. While testing DG's Beaufighter late on.. I had this happen..


Believe it or not.. that is Jersey below and there's now wrong with the Beaufighter DaveG reckons lack of video memory could be the problem (256mb 6800GT). This doesn't happen all the time and is probably a consequence of the Beau being a little thirsty on poly's. I reset the flight and all returned to normal. I have my framerate locked at 30 and I see 30 for the most part which isn't bad. I don't have a lot of the goodies turned on but that doesn't bother me As Skippy mentioned.. SP2 seems to have done something to prop textures but it really is a must to install ;-)

ATB
DaveB :tab:

[Chris Sykes]

that spec will run FSX with SP2 at a good 20FPS, i should know as my sistem is near enough the same...

[TSR2]

Tony... to be honest with you, I don't see any point in you spending money on all these addons with that system.

The "Minimum Spec" is that... a bare minimum. And you'll find the blurb on all games, not just those from MS state that "The above are specification that a computer MUST have to RUN this game." Given what we all now know about FSX, Before you spend anymore cash I'd like to see if anyone on here gets 25fps on a single core machine.

I'm not sure where you got your info on Multi Core processors, but its not correct. The only part that is split between the cores is the bus (think pipe) that provides Data from the memory to the cpu cores for processing, and this isn't always shared, many new (and I mean brand new) multicore mother boards are cleverer with this.

Much as I'd love you to enjoy FSX the way many of the guys do, I don't want to see you throwing good money after bad mate. You'd be better saving the money towards hardware, which would improve your FS9 experience (if it needed improving) and give you more options in the future.

[tonymadge]

Cheers Guys, ok I will invest in FSX ..again... :tab:

[tonymadge]

I'm confused Ben you saying not to bother with FSX??