Will this update be worth it?

[timholyoake]

Code: Select all

Hello every one. I want to use my system to run F.S. It runs 2004 very well indeed (all the sliders at the far right) and I am very happy.

I tried (several times) to load FS X . but to be honest the results are not as good as I had hoped for. So I am thinking of upgrading the system again.

1). I have:-
AMD 64 X2 Dual core 6000+ (2 x 2.98 I think). 4.00 Gig Ram. Vista 32 bit O/S. NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+


2). I was thinking of getting...
Vista 64 bit. and adding some extra RAM....

Will this work? Which Vista do I need. Is there a cieling as to the RAM a 64bit O/S will recognise?

Many thanks for the help guys. Several people / web sites have said different things, but none are directed purely at FS...

[Chris Trott]

Umm... if you're having problems with that computer, then it's not with the hardware. I'm running FSX just fine on an Athlon 1.2GHz single core in 32 Bit XP with 2GB of RAM.

I would thoroughly suggest ensuring that you have both Service Packs installed with current video and sound card drivers. I've found that my Sound Card (an old Soundblaster Live!5.1DE) is holding up my computer more than anything else and that will be the next upgrade (a 64-bit OS will be next).

[TSR2]

Adding more RAM will make no difference at all. FSX is a 32bit application so won't use any more than 2GB in a default system. There are way to make it use more but really not worth it.

I've been running Vista x64 for the past 20 months without issue and have tried the config changes which allow it to use more than 3GB, but I could see no noticeable benefit.

Best way to improve performance on a system of that spec is make sure you have a separate hard disk (not partition) for your FS. Some people will actually use 3 hard disks, one for the OS, one for FSX and one for GenX (or equivilant) VFR scenery. This is shown to work well.

Hope that saves you some work.

[simondix]

Just a quick question on a similar vein. I have a portable hard disk attached to my computer by USB. Would that be detrimental to performance if I put FSX on that.

[TSR2]

Just a quick question on a similar vein. I have a portable hard disk attached to my computer by USB. Would that be detrimental to performance if I put FSX on that.

YES! USB drives ARE NOT designed to replace normal hard disks. They are backup or archieve devices. The only posible exception is eSATA, but it is still not good practice to install windows applications on removable storage.

[simondix]

Thanks for the info!

[timholyoake]

Many thanks for the info folks. You have probably saved me much money. I am perfectly happy with FS9, and as such have ditched FS X until such time as I can be bothered.
Thanks again...

Tim

[TSR2]

Why will FSX not run on the current system, its pretty meaty as it is and mine runs perfectly well with 4GB.

[Chris Trott]

Agreed. The only reason I can see from your post for FSX not working is (honestly) either unrealistic expectations of the user or failure of the user to set it up properly. There is no other reason for the program to be unable to run well on your machine with 20-30 FPS and high levels of detail.

[ChrisHunt]

Tim, what results were you hoping for? How does your experience differ from this? As others have said your system should be adequate already but I would consider overclocking the processor(s) to increase speed, preferably to around 3.2Gb. You should not need to do anything else.

A thought occurs - have you turned on the DX10 preview in FSX - if yes then this will hit performance significantly.

Regards,
Chris