FS X requirements for a smooth feel

The place for all your flight-sim experiences, questions, etc...
Post Reply
teddybAIR
Posts: 1602
Joined: 02 Mar 2004, 00:00
Location: Steenokkerzeel
Contact:

FS X requirements for a smooth feel

Post by teddybAIR »

Hello fellow flightsimmers,

It has been a while since I have visited this part of luchtzak as I am moving to another house and my computer crashed ( :evil: , and I had just saved enough $ to buy my first A320 [of Air Belgium VA of course!])...

As my computer crashed, I am faced with the dilemma of either having it repaired, either buying a new one that can run fs X smoothly. And therefore I would like your input on the minimum system requirements to run fs x smoothly. What kind of system is needed to run the program with sufficient framerates? My framerates on this computer were locked at 20 fps and I wouldn't like to give in on the fps as this is really a greate determinator of realism to me.

Thanks a lot for your input
bAIR

User avatar
vc-10
Posts: 766
Joined: 05 May 2005, 00:00
Location: Under Heathrow flightpath

Post by vc-10 »

How much do you have? I've got a Dell Latitude D620 laptop, with an Intel Centrino Duo 1.66GHz processor, and a 256mb NVidia graphics card, which runs FSX as smooth as FS2004 ever did, with better graphics, especially now I've got the SP1 installed! :D

teddybAIR
Posts: 1602
Joined: 02 Mar 2004, 00:00
Location: Steenokkerzeel
Contact:

Post by teddybAIR »

Well,

My rig won't run FS X properly as it is a laptop with the following specs:

Processor: 3.2 Ghz
RAM: 512Mb
Graphics card: 128 Mb

It runs fs2004 smoothly at 20fps (locked) in flight and easily 19 fps around airports with very high ai-traffic. Nevertheless, my system is to light to run fs X and I am considering to stick with my current fs2004.

Best regards,
bAIR

User avatar
Skyfighter
Posts: 257
Joined: 18 Mar 2006, 00:00
Location: Antwerp (Ekeren)

Post by Skyfighter »

Hi,

As RAM you should have MIN. 2 GB but DDR3 RAM is upcomming so I should wait.
Also a dualcore would do nice
and an Nvidia Gforce 7xxx series minimum. (ALWAYS BUY PCI-slots)
HDD of 300GB is more than enough

As you see these will cost a lot. If you have plans to buy new stuff I advise you to wait at least till december 2007. There is a big evolution at the moment in hardware. DIRECTX10 is also something for nice performance. Once VIsta is also worked out you will have a FS tuned PC

greets

User avatar
vc-10
Posts: 766
Joined: 05 May 2005, 00:00
Location: Under Heathrow flightpath

Post by vc-10 »

I've only got 1GB. It's fine, but airports with lots of AI do get a bit draggy and slow....

User avatar
Skyfighter
Posts: 257
Joined: 18 Mar 2006, 00:00
Location: Antwerp (Ekeren)

Post by Skyfighter »

1 Gig is enough but you won't get high performance. I only have 512mb :) and fsx is at this moment a bit to high. FS9 is no problem.

But the RAM memory is not the only thing you need for high performance.
You're graphics card and processor are also very important.

KrisLHT
Posts: 13
Joined: 04 Sep 2007, 16:51
Location: Oost vlaanderen

Post by KrisLHT »

I don't recommend running FSX on Vista.
I've tried and it isn't completely compatible yet.
Some issues with the menus can occur (especially if you run it under the aero engine).

It is also best to install already the service pack 1 for fsx.
It claims to let fsx run faster... but i doubt it.
Even on my pc with 4gig ram and a 640Mb videocard it tends to slow down at full detail.

On my previous pc with 1gig ram and core speed of 1.5GHZ it also ran but had to switch off a lot of detail!

experimenting is the key word :!:

User avatar
Bottie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 18 Jan 2004, 00:00
Location: 2nm from EBUL
Contact:

Post by Bottie »

KrisLHT wrote:I don't recommend running FSX on Vista.
I've tried and it isn't completely compatible yet.
Some issues with the menus can occur (especially if you run it under the aero engine).

It is also best to install already the service pack 1 for fsx.
It claims to let fsx run faster... but i doubt it.
Even on my pc with 4gig ram and a 640Mb videocard it tends to slow down at full detail.

On my previous pc with 1gig ram and core speed of 1.5GHZ it also ran but had to switch off a lot of detail!

experimenting is the key word :!:


For me it's the other way. I recommend running FS-X on Vista, but on the 64bit-version.

My setup:

Core 2 duo E6600
4Gb Ram
GeForce 8800 GTX 768mb
30" TFT - 2560x1200


On the 32-bit version it didn't run smoothly, after the switch to 64-bit it runs very smoothly. About the Aero-engine, this shuts down when you start FS-X, so I can't really imagine this gives some problems?

KrisLHT
Posts: 13
Joined: 04 Sep 2007, 16:51
Location: Oost vlaanderen

Post by KrisLHT »

I also run it under the 64 bits vista, but i still have the impression that it works better on XP.

Btw my specs: E6850-4Gig ram-8800GTS

Also with vista the menus on fs-x are distorted (colors and lettertype).
Even tough fsx says it's switches back to standard instead of aero.
Maybe it's a driver glitch of the videocard drivers?
Anyway on xp no problems at all :-)

User avatar
Bottie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 18 Jan 2004, 00:00
Location: 2nm from EBUL
Contact:

Post by Bottie »

KrisLHT wrote:I also run it under the 64 bits vista, but i still have the impression that it works better on XP.

Btw my specs: E6850-4Gig ram-8800GTS

Also with vista the menus on fs-x are distorted (colors and lettertype).
Even tough fsx says it's switches back to standard instead of aero.
Maybe it's a driver glitch of the videocard drivers?
Anyway on xp no problems at all :-)

If it runs smoothly on my system with the 2560x1600-resolution, then it should run for sure smoothly on yours, because on FS-X CPU-power is more important than GPU-power. Here no distorted menus at all :)

Post Reply