Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Who can run Flight Sim X on MAX graphics? I need your help!!!!

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 13, 2008 6:08:05 AM

I play FSX a lot and I went from a e6600 to a Q9550 and I didn't notice a lick of difference. Ok, maybe about 10% increase on frames. That is still way lower then I expected. So who of you can run it all maxed out, not just of High or on Ultra High, but everything customly maxed out? Here's my specs below. Please let me know what I need to do to be able to play it all maxed out with very good frames. I am very disappointed with the Q9550 so far. I hope its just user error that can be fixed and not something I just wasted money on.

My Specs:
Quad Core Q9550 2.83GHz 1333Mhz 12MB cache 45nm
EVGA 8800GT 512MB Superclocked (Core 700, Mem 975)
2GB Corssair XMS2 DDR2 800 (4-4-4-12) 2.1 volts
EVGA 780i Mobo
700w OCZ GamerXStream PSU
320GB Hard drive 16MB cache 7200RPM
Sound Blaster Audigy SE
Windows XP

So this is what I have and I can run everything on Ultra High settings with good frames, but as soon as I add light bloom effects or traffic it craps out on me. What can I do?
November 13, 2008 9:38:18 AM

Upgrade your graphics card. You will likely need a HD4870/GTX260/GTX280 to come close to maxing it out. Possibly multiples of the above cards. I'll see if I can find some benches.
November 13, 2008 10:29:13 AM

If youve recently upgraded your pc are there any configuration files that the game sets up on installation that need deleting and recreating? just wandering if it checks on core numbers when its first ran or installed and decides thats how many cores to send the work to?

I had a massive headache with oblivion a few months after upgrading graphics cards (properly cleaning graphics drivers etc) I went to play the game again and realised I had some textures really washed out and allsorts of graphical anomalies, I knew my graphics card was working fine, so I assumed file corruption so I uninstalled and reinstalled oblivion - then the game wouldnt even launch without crashing, I tried uninstalling oblivion and reinstalling on another drive, I tried different patchs different forms of uninstall and reinstalling to make sure old damaged files werent being undeleted instead of actually installed fresh, I went through reinstalling the game and all the plugings 6 times before I solved the problem...

Eventually the cause of my problem turned out to be a configuration file in my documents\my games\oblivion that the game sets up first time its ran, but doesnt delete with uninstallation and reinstallation. Once I deleted the file and allowed the game to recreate it everything worked fine, I dont think I ever actually needed to reinstall the game in the first place...
Related resources
November 13, 2008 5:01:42 PM

those games barely max out a mid range dual core CPU

those games are more GPU intensive and cpu intensive.

if you look at system requirements, you will notice that cpu requirements only change slightly over time while videocard requirements are on a endless warp speed skyrocket
November 13, 2008 5:02:50 PM

mi1ez said:
Upgrade your graphics card. You will likely need a HD4870/GTX260/GTX280 to come close to maxing it out. Possibly multiples of the above cards. I'll see if I can find some benches.


Yeah, please let me know if you find anything. Do you by chance have it on max? If so what do you have? I am tired of having to turn off and tweak graphics to get smooth frames depending on the city i fly into.
November 13, 2008 6:58:35 PM

Alright this is beginning to piss me off and is getting really frustrating. I borrowed my roommates 8800Gt and installed it to run SLI. So now I have a Q9550 with two 8800Gt's in SLI. So the first test I wanted to do was to run Flight Sim X. Ok you ready for this? NO fricken difference. My $319 Quad and an extra $150 8800GT total of $469 didn't do a darn thing for FSX. That game is really pissing me off. What does it take for that game to even run on high? What do the developers have? Bunch of bull!!!!!

Ok the good news. Crysis improved dramatically. With only one 8800GT I turn off Ailising(sp?) and have somewhat good frame rate. Now with two 8800Gt's WOW! Now I can put the ailising to 2x and it begins to run like I had only with one card. So with ailising off dramatic improvement. With it on 2x it back to the frame rate as when i had one if that makes since. So I would call that a 35 to 40% improvement. Not bad.

That Flight sim thing is still a bunch of bull.
November 13, 2008 7:33:47 PM

Chances are that FSX isn't meant to be run with Multiple graphics cards. I never really see anyone bench with it so I can't say for sure or not.
November 13, 2008 8:13:50 PM

Are there any patches for the FSX? Try patching, they may have made the code more economical.
Also, are your graphics drivers up to date?
Have you tried overclocking your GPU? It sounds like the game is GPU rather than CPU bound.
November 13, 2008 9:23:35 PM

Hey guys check this out...

I just got 2GB more of RAM. I actually see a bit of a difference. It actually is running somewhat smoother and when i checked my memory usage its up to about 70%. Thanks guys that was a good tip and a good start. Before my memory usage levels were going above 100%. Not good.

There is a patch and I have it. Its to utilize multy cores. Also i am OCing my GPU from 650core and 950mem to 700core and 975mem stable.

Keep feeding me more of your tips. I think we are starting to get somewhere.
November 14, 2008 1:07:23 AM

Guys apparently Flight sim is not a graphics intensive game either. The biggest increase in performance I have noticed is when I changed the RAM. I played the game with two 8800GT's in SLI with the 4GB Memory and still no difference from only with a single 8800Gt. That tells me the GPU doesn't matter much for that game.

Here's the reason. I did a benchmark with Crysis with 4GB RAM and one 8800GT. The best average frames were 14.06 and the worst average was 12.98. When i installed the second 8800GT in SLI with that same benchmark the best was 22.37 and the worst was 19.93. That is a major increase for crysis and we know that, that is a graphics card intensive game. With that same setup with the huge increase I tired Flight Sim and still no difference at ALL.

So when putting in my $319 Q9550 I was able to just slightly increase graphics by about 10%. I still wasn't happy with the lag, stuttering, and low frame rate. Then when I installed 2 more GB or memory. Hum... I was somewhat surprised. It gained in performance by another 15% on top of the earlier 10%. So with the new CPU and two more Gigs of RAM I increased performance by 25%. Not bad, but not what I was expecting at all. I thought I would be sailing through the air without a low frame anywhere in sight. Not even close. That 25% increase I still cant run on full graphics and it is still sluggish and stuttering constantly. Lame once again.

So I dont think a better GPU would do it. Like I said, not a lick of difference from one GPU to two in SLI. Thats just a hint that it probably wont get better with a better card. I dont know what it is then. I have supposedly a very good CPU, a good GPU setup in SLI, and 4GB ram. I can only dream of what the developers must be using to make this game run right
November 14, 2008 12:26:25 PM

I am running FSX smoothly with maxed settings on 1680x1050. I have 4gbs ram, q6600 oced to 3.0ghz, and a gtx 260. What resolution are your playing on?
November 14, 2008 1:15:23 PM

Zstratto has the right idea. Rather than get some pair of economy-class cards in SLI... a buff single card is probably the way to go. GTX 200 series or single 4870.
November 14, 2008 1:18:41 PM

Spitfire7 said:
Guys apparently Flight sim is not a graphics intensive game either. The biggest increase in performance I have noticed is when I changed the RAM. I played the game with two 8800GT's in SLI with the 4GB Memory and still no difference from only with a single 8800Gt. That tells me the GPU doesn't matter much for that game.

Here's the reason. I did a benchmark with Crysis with 4GB RAM and one 8800GT. The best average frames were 14.06 and the worst average was 12.98. When i installed the second 8800GT in SLI with that same benchmark the best was 22.37 and the worst was 19.93. That is a major increase for crysis and we know that, that is a graphics card intensive game. With that same setup with the huge increase I tired Flight Sim and still no difference at ALL.

So when putting in my $319 Q9550 I was able to just slightly increase graphics by about 10%. I still wasn't happy with the lag, stuttering, and low frame rate. Then when I installed 2 more GB or memory. Hum... I was somewhat surprised. It gained in performance by another 15% on top of the earlier 10%. So with the new CPU and two more Gigs of RAM I increased performance by 25%. Not bad, but not what I was expecting at all. I thought I would be sailing through the air without a low frame anywhere in sight. Not even close. That 25% increase I still cant run on full graphics and it is still sluggish and stuttering constantly. Lame once again.

So I dont think a better GPU would do it. Like I said, not a lick of difference from one GPU to two in SLI. Thats just a hint that it probably wont get better with a better card. I dont know what it is then. I have supposedly a very good CPU, a good GPU setup in SLI, and 4GB ram. I can only dream of what the developers must be using to make this game run right



SLI only helps if you have a game that makes use of SLI, and even then SLI only offers a 20-30% performance boost at most

which means a laggy game may be 20-30% less laggy if the video card is a bottleneck

when I was building one of my friends a really cheap gaming pc, I went with a amd x2 5200+ (overclocked), 2GB memory and a nvidia GTX 280 (overclocked) , windows xp pro (tweaked for performance, 11 running processes at startup )

everything is low-midrange except the videocard, and he can max out crysis with no problem, and also run flight simulator x with no problem

I would have gone with higher end parts but he was on a very limited budget and wanted to spend as little as possible

while the graphis of fsx may not bee the best, due to the view distance and the number of items on the screen, it can lag a videocard pretty well

and it is not very optimized for performance either


PS if you want to try something cool, try this

get the grove demo from nvidia (designed to show off the power of a geforce 2), then have it render a crap load of trees, trust me, i will lag a GTX280

November 14, 2008 6:25:20 PM

Zstratto said:
I am running FSX smoothly with maxed settings on 1680x1050. I have 4gbs ram, q6600 oced to 3.0ghz, and a gtx 260. What resolution are your playing on?


I am running at 1680x1050 as well. So it would seem that we have pretty much the same system except for the GPU. By what you are saying, my GPU is a mojor bottlenck for my CPU right? Are you saying that you can run FSX with absolutely everything to the maxed out settings? Not just the pre arranged Ultra High settings, but taking it a step further to manually increase everything to the max?

So if I get a GTX 280, 260, or even a 9800GX2 then I should be smooth sailing with everything maxed, including Bloom, traffic maxed, draw distance, etc. right? In a sense, it should even be slightly better then yours because of the Q9550 vs. Q6600 difference right? I dont mean to put your CPU down, I just want to know the truth. Thanks.
November 15, 2008 3:00:37 AM

Zstratto said:
I am running FSX smoothly with maxed settings on 1680x1050. I have 4gbs ram, q6600 oced to 3.0ghz, and a gtx 260. What resolution are your playing on?


What frames are you getting in FSX?

Also, in your opinion which would be better the GTX 260, 280, or 9800GX2. I probably dont want to spend over $300 unless the results would really really be worth it in everything.
January 6, 2009 9:55:16 PM

Ok, well i know this is an older post but i have been looking for the "miracle soluton", for flight sim x too. I am currently running a 8800 gt super just like you with 2 gigs of ram and a quad core 9500. I get up to about half graphics at 25 fps.

I just ordered a gtx260 and 4 gigs of corsair. and they will be here by thursday. cost me 377 dollars for both so if you already havent solved your problem ill be glad to let you know how it goes. I dont know what it is about flight sim x that eats up so much, i mean i bought call of duty world at war and it runs 60 fps with extra frames to spare at full eye candy, and its a newer game. At any rate ill let you know the results!
January 6, 2009 10:23:57 PM

m1garand427 said:
Ok, well i know this is an older post but i have been looking for the "miracle soluton", for flight sim x too. I am currently running a 8800 gt super just like you with 2 gigs of ram and a quad core 9500. I get up to about half graphics at 25 fps.

I just ordered a gtx260 and 4 gigs of corsair. and they will be here by thursday. cost me 377 dollars for both so if you already havent solved your problem ill be glad to let you know how it goes. I dont know what it is about flight sim x that eats up so much, i mean i bought call of duty world at war and it runs 60 fps with extra frames to spare at full eye candy, and its a newer game. At any rate ill let you know the results!


I dont want to be the bearer of bad news, but I did get the GTX 260 core 216 Black Edition, plus the Quad 9550, plus 4 GB Ram. I still cant play on maxed out. I still have to take away some of the eye candy for that game. I found that for the most part I can run with everything maxed if I dont have the glow effect on. Even then, I was getting about 27fps up and down.

I will soon be using the GTX 280 xxx edition which is pretty much one of the best cards on the market and will let you know how that runs it.
January 6, 2009 11:01:43 PM

Hahahaha, were all gonna become poor because of Flight Sim X, the game cost 50 bucks but for me I built a system over 2000 dollars just to run it. lol
January 6, 2009 11:08:16 PM

I still want to know what the programmers use to run it
February 23, 2009 5:45:12 AM

geforce gtx 280
2.83 ghz quad core
8 gb ram
latest physx driver

full graphic settings= 12 14fps, on dual view around 6-8 fps

air traffic minimal, water effects none, special effects low, auto generated trees and buildings low = 22-30 fps

im tired of trying the best setting for mfsx and this is the best setting where i can get the balanced quality and performance. can someone help me what i can do do increase frame rate with higher settings by not overclocking anything?
February 23, 2009 4:56:32 PM

So it looks to me that you have the Q9550? I have that one as well and from my experience you dont get much performance out of it unless you go above 3Ghz. I put mine up to 3.83 for quite some time with a noticable performance increase, but went back down to 3.4 stable right now and I am getting better frames then you are on most of your settings. I also have 4GB RAM in XP, and a GTX 260 core 216 Black Edition which was rated higher performance then the stock 280.

Everything Ultra High settings, Auto Gen buildings 3/4 the way up, no building shadows. Water FX MAXED, Cloud draw distance low, scenery complexity draw distance medium to low. Bloom on, sun flare on, and all other eye candy on. 29-32 FPS. Heavy scenery, 25fps.

Try lowering your draw distance. Its usually wasted resources anyways. Its better to live with beautiful surroundings and blurry far off distance.
February 24, 2009 10:36:45 PM

Hmm, I just got a new system but have not re-installed this game yet. I use my PC mostly for doing audio, but now I remember the horrid performance on my old machine, this should be a good test.

Core7 920 @ stock speed
9GB DDR3
ATI 4850 1GB

I will give it a shot tonight and see what it runs like.
February 25, 2009 1:33:47 AM

CptTripps said:
Hmm, I just got a new system but have not re-installed this game yet. I use my PC mostly for doing audio, but now I remember the horrid performance on my old machine, this should be a good test.

Core7 920 @ stock speed
9GB DDR3
ATI 4850 1GB

I will give it a shot tonight and see what it runs like.


Oh yeah, I cant wait to see what a Core i7 can do. This will be a good test, because I think the nVidia cards do better for this game, but you do have 9GB of RAM and an i7. So please give us a detailed layout of your results. What settings do you have it on (very detailed) etc.?
February 25, 2009 8:40:50 PM

Gonna try again tonight. Ran out of time yesterday as it was 2.5 yo meltdown night :) 
February 25, 2009 10:10:29 PM

Heading home in a couple hours. Is there a certain city I should fly in? I always fly Alaska (where I live) which ran alright, maybe because there is nothing up here :) 

I am very curious to see what the major bottleneck (cpu vs. gpu) is for this game. It does not look so good that it should kill systems. Would have to remove some RAM to see if that makes any difference, so probably won't go that far.

I will jack everything 100% and watch the slideshow just for results and then lower them until playable. Wish I had a beefier GPU to test for yall, but I don't :) 
February 26, 2009 1:16:19 PM

try to fly into chicago ohare from the lakefront.
That should use a lot of scenery including water and should be a good test.
February 27, 2009 10:54:12 PM

LA is a super heavy stress test because its soooooooo big and spread out for miles with so much scenery. Take off from LAX and fly into downtown.
March 5, 2009 3:27:29 AM

Guys, if you are not aware yet FSX is extremely cpu bound. The sim will scale out to 32 cores. Brilliant huh, way to go M$. I'm sure the next FS will be greatly improved. :kaola:  Anyway OC the crap out of your processor and make sure you have made good use of all the tweaks other users have come across.

This forum is a good place to get help if you still need more including tweaking.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/forumdisplay.php?...

March 6, 2009 3:54:00 AM

check out my sig, i can max fsx 1680x1050, about 15fps, but u have a quad core so itll be better for you
March 6, 2009 4:14:13 AM

ryanb213 said:
check out my sig, i can max fsx 1680x1050, about 15fps, but u have a quad core so itll be better for you



Read my post several posts up. My Quad still doesn't give me the performance that it should according to the FSX company and fans. I think if I max everything its about 15fps too.
April 16, 2009 3:38:29 PM

sdf is right on the money.

I have also done quite a bit of research on Flight Simulator X, and have heard from the developers that it is EXTREMELY processor-bound for performance, which would also confirm why you have not had much luck with performance increases due to better graphics cards, etc. I had actually read from one of the developers that FSX was designed to scale to use up to 256 processors in the future. I'll have to see if I can find the clip in my archives where they pointed this out--unfortunately I don't have it in front of me at the moment.

The best thing that you could probably do to increase FSX performance at this point would be to try to overclock your CPU if possible, or get yourself a Core i7 system (which you probably really didn't want to hear at this point--sorry for the bad news). :-(

Here is another link to a FSX board in case they have any other ideas that may help you out--best of luck!

http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/index.php?showforu...
April 17, 2009 1:52:43 PM

Spitfire 7
Not sure if you are still following this but here is a couple of links that could help.

First I found that the FSX.CFG file can be deleted as it will be recreated when you run it again. That should ensure that your upgrades are noticed.
I would reccomend making a backup of it just in case though.
I just remaned mine fsxbackup.cfg and then started the prog and it made a new one.

In the links below there are a couple of settings that i think may apply to help you.
Job Scheduler [Affinity Mask] should match the amount of cores that you want to use. If you have four and only want to use three you can do that also but make sure it is over 1.

[BufferPools] increases the memory pools for textures to reduce the lookup stage and helps control stutters.

There are many other things in there you can change.
I run My lowly AMD X2 @3.150G with basically everything on high except
Aircraft cast shadows on itself (off) Major frame killer
Autogen 1 notch below high
Light Bloom off (dont like it)
Clouds on medium (I like to see where Im going till I get better)
One other thing I do is cap the FPS at 28. Anything above that and my frame rate swings wildly so I let the processor have that extra time to work instead of making the extra frames that I can see no difference in.

Ps I know the one link says spambait. Dont worry about that. I promise it is a good site> Ive been there many times.

http://www.highflightsimulations.com/fsxcfg.html
http://members.cox.net/spambait/FSXTweakGuide.pdf
April 17, 2009 3:56:16 PM

OK, did a little more searching and found the clip on YouTube from Phil Taylor, one of the developers at Microsoft Games. He does in fact say in this clip (starting at about 2:25) that the game was made to scale up to 256 cores, as the terrain engine itself uses 64 files alone. There was also more good news below the clip in the comments section, as it appears that people have found that FSX runs beautifully on Windows 7 beta, although I haven't tried this myself to see if this is true. This could possibly turn out to be your holy grail, and you should be able to download a copy of Windows 7 beta for free, so no more hardware upgrades to have to pay for! :-)

I also did some more searching yesterday, and found a free tool online called AlacrityPC! that many users have found helps them to run FSX quite well on their XP systems, even if they don't have the latest/greatest setup available. You can download it from here: http://download.cnet.com/AlacrityPC/3000-2094_4-1081999...

Hope you are eventually able to get the performance you are looking for; let us all know if you were able to find any solutions that appear to be a magic bullet for you.

May 20, 2009 7:02:32 AM

Well my friend I run FSX on max graphics with my simple system,I play this game a lots because I use as a part of my training,I am a pilot holding a private pilot license with instruments rating now I'm going to take the writing test next week for my multieng. rating and commercial license,so for my homework I got use a basic software like FSX as a flying simulator,flying IFR at all the time and ILS for appro. to the runway,well so I'm a pro using this software in my less money system,so copy ,I have a motherboard which everybody said that this mobo is real bad,but they are wrong I had have this mobo for about 1year and 5month and I can play any game with not problems,I can see a lot of boats in my home town port which is miami sea port in my FSX software,I add on cars and trucks in my software I even add on roads to my FSX soft. and the cars move so fast with no problems,well I'm using a XFX nFORCE 630i 7100 nVIDIA GEFORCE onboard graphic card with 512mb with 2gb DDR2 667mghz pc533 and a segabate bar. 250 gb hard drive a intel pentium dual core E2200 2.20 ghz a comp.case with 450w with 3 fan cooler,so I spent 285 dollars on this system and I don't need a junk video card to play FSX or FS9 or FEAR or company of hero or others games,and my computer don't get hot it always in cool temperature,my cpu have a factory intel fan which people said this fan is a junk but they are wrong,this factory fan from intel is good,so you don't have to spend a lot of money on junk and crap super complicated game system,like I said before I'm a pro all those super system and video card are junks all it is the same junk made in taiwan or usa or japan,the reason they got make money selling those junks,I used alienware a junk,voodooo whatever another junk,well my friend remember that everyday they make new junk to make you change your cool system for a new junk,so my friend bunasuerte
May 20, 2009 1:53:56 PM

Wow thats hard to read.
All of that in 3 sentences.
Well 2 periods.
July 9, 2009 2:01:09 AM

I have been trying to run FS smoothly since FS2002 and each version of the game seems to be well above and beyond the technology available to run it. Each time I just about configure a system fast enough to run the game - along comes a new version to poo poo the machine!

I am now running FSX on a Q9450 with 4 GB Corsair Dominator RAM with 2 x XFX GTX8800 xxx cards in SLi - not a slow system. I am running it on a 1920 x 1200 screen, but even so - taxing to the runway at heathrow will give around 5 - 8 frames per second. Much better when in the air, but still never tops 20 fps.

I can agree with most of the posts that graphic cards seem to make little difference, neither does SLi - hardly noticeable. Running the game in a smaller window makes little difference either.

I think the bottleneck must be at the CPU. Graphic settings in the game does make a difference, but you have to take such a hit on the game itself, one cant help to get a little frustrated!

I do know that the limitations of any 32 bit operating system will dictate that no more than 2gb of ram can be assigned to any one program, so any more than 4gb of RAM would be pointless.
Maybe Vista 64 or the new windows 7 64 bit will help as the game can access the full amount of memory the machine has to offer - far quicker than dragging it from a hard drive. However, this information still needs to be processed and this is probably still the main issue! Just my 2 pennies worth!
July 27, 2009 9:05:59 PM

Well, here is my experience with the game/requirements:

I am running a Core i7 920 @ stock speed
GTX275 nVidia Card - 1+ GB RAM
6GB Corsair Dominator DDR3 @ 1600
Vista Home Premium 64

I havent come across anything I couldnt run great/maxed out, except for FSX. I also have the Expansion pack which comes with the "performance" enhancing service packs.

I have looked far and wide across the internet and on various flightsim sights, but nothing seems to give me a decent performance boost unless I turn the graphics down to medium/high and in some airport/cities to even lower.

Since it does seem processor intensive, might only be able to max it out on a $1000 core i7 extreme, which is absolutely insane - way to go Microsoft... I am looking for a decent sim that runs well - any ideas?
July 28, 2009 11:00:10 AM

^ I don't think so, I can max the settings out (traffic @ max, scenery @ max, etc.) and I get >15fps at Kennedy with an i7 920 @ stock + turbo, 6GB @1600MHz, dual 4850's and a WDC black 500GB.

I'm running SP1 with the Acceleration pack, so maybe the complete SP2 slows it down a bit.
July 29, 2009 3:55:44 AM

The i7 920 isn't any slower than the i7 965/975 if you overclock it. But if you really want max FSX performance you should go for a dual Opteron rig or something :D 
September 13, 2009 12:25:15 AM

BornSlippy said:
I have been trying to run FS smoothly since FS2002 and each version of the game seems to be well above and beyond the technology available to run it. Each time I just about configure a system fast enough to run the game - along comes a new version to poo poo the machine!

I am now running FSX on a Q9450 with 4 GB Corsair Dominator RAM with 2 x XFX GTX8800 xxx cards in SLi - not a slow system. I am running it on a 1920 x 1200 screen, but even so - taxing to the runway at heathrow will give around 5 - 8 frames per second. Much better when in the air, but still never tops 20 fps.

I can agree with most of the posts that graphic cards seem to make little difference, neither does SLi - hardly noticeable. Running the game in a smaller window makes little difference either.

I think the bottleneck must be at the CPU. Graphic settings in the game does make a difference, but you have to take such a hit on the game itself, one cant help to get a little frustrated!

I do know that the limitations of any 32 bit operating system will dictate that no more than 2gb of ram can be assigned to any one program, so any more than 4gb of RAM would be pointless.
Maybe Vista 64 or the new windows 7 64 bit will help as the game can access the full amount of memory the machine has to offer - far quicker than dragging it from a hard drive. However, this information still needs to be processed and this is probably still the main issue! Just my 2 pennies worth!




I have windows vista home premium 64 bit, and it really doesn't make any difference even though I have 8 gig of ram. I have a quad core 2.4 MHz, my motherboard is a XFX Nforce 680i LT and for graphics I tried SLI with at least 3 different nvidia cards but no joy:( 
I got tired of trying so many cards and finally settle for an ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series xxx edition which gives me a performance as close as I had with 2 nvidia gtx 1gb 280. FSX runs better once you enable the directx 10 demo, but if you try to play with something other than the default aircraft or scenery, it will run crapy, since add on payware are very FR unfriendly. I keep on hearing that what FSX needs is more CPU and I agree, and I don't think video cards make much difference. FS 2004 on the other hand runs very nice on my system, and since I have several payware add ons, I rather stick to it although the downside is that add on traffic or airports do not run on 64 bit. I could only find a commuter traffic that works, but other than that it runs great with all the graphics maxed out.
December 12, 2009 2:00:16 AM

Spitfire7 said:
Alright this is beginning to piss me off and is getting really frustrating. I borrowed my roommates 8800Gt and installed it to run SLI. So now I have a Q9550 with two 8800Gt's in SLI. So the first test I wanted to do was to run Flight Sim X. Ok you ready for this? NO fricken difference. My $319 Quad and an extra $150 8800GT total of $469 didn't do a darn thing for FSX. That game is really pissing me off. What does it take for that game to even run on high? What do the developers have? Bunch of bull!!!!!

Ok the good news. Crysis improved dramatically. With only one 8800GT I turn off Ailising(sp?) and have somewhat good frame rate. Now with two 8800Gt's WOW! Now I can put the ailising to 2x and it begins to run like I had only with one card. So with ailising off dramatic improvement. With it on 2x it back to the frame rate as when i had one if that makes since. So I would call that a 35 to 40% improvement. Not bad.

That Flight sim thing is still a bunch of bull.

i fly fsx, all sliders to the right, no quarter, balls to the wall, all eye candy and no stutter.
sager 8662
p9700
nvidia 260 x 1 gb
p9700 pulls 28 watts. you don't need a bad ass cpu for fsx. just alot of cache and memory. you are downloading files as you fly.
the more speed and memory you have, the better the result!
December 12, 2009 2:28:42 AM

Spitfire7 said:
I play FSX a lot and I went from a e6600 to a Q9550 and I didn't notice a lick of difference. Ok, maybe about 10% increase on frames. That is still way lower then I expected. So who of you can run it all maxed out, not just of High or on Ultra High, but everything customly maxed out? Here's my specs below. Please let me know what I need to do to be able to play it all maxed out with very good frames. I am very disappointed with the Q9550 so far. I hope its just user error that can be fixed and not something I just wasted money on.

My Specs:
Quad Core Q9550 2.83GHz 1333Mhz 12MB cache 45nm
EVGA 8800GT 512MB Superclocked (Core 700, Mem 975)
2GB Corssair XMS2 DDR2 800 (4-4-4-12) 2.1 volts
EVGA 780i Mobo
700w OCZ GamerXStream PSU
320GB Hard drive 16MB cache 7200RPM
Sound Blaster Audigy SE
Windows XP

So this is what I have and I can run everything on Ultra High settings with good frames, but as soon as I add light bloom effects or traffic it craps out on me. What can I do?

add memory! add memory! add memory!
December 12, 2009 10:50:53 AM

my manager can totally max out fsx @ 1920x1200 with a gtx 275 and dual xeon w5890's
January 4, 2010 10:27:04 AM

with a core i7 920, gtx295 in quad sli, 12gb 1.8ghz ram, im having a blast :D  , the trick with fsx is ram though it has very little need for gpu from what i have seen. try that
April 12, 2010 8:26:01 AM

Hi, I would like to know if FSX can run on Windows 7? If the answer is yes, how well can it run with this specs? (What kind of settings can i go up to? )

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

Intel Core i5 CPU 750 @ 2.67Ghz

4Gb DDR3 RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GT330 2Gb

1Tb HDD
April 13, 2010 2:05:00 PM

Quote:
Hello,

It can run on Windows 7.0, and I heard it is better on 7 than Vista. Vista is a mess on FSX.

BTW...good components. You shopuld get 18-22 FPS.

:) 



Thanks alot. I'd like to know what kind on settings (e.g high/ultra high) can i go to and run it smoothly. DO reply if u know. Thanks :D 
June 24, 2010 7:36:43 AM

My system:
Asus P6T
I7 920 (overclocked)
12 gb Corsair XMS RAM
2 X Nvidia Geforce 9800GT (SLI)
1 TB WD Caviar HD
Multi-monitor
Windows 7 Pro x64

I agree that you only need so much GPU power for this software. If you look at what the information fed to the GPU has to go through, it's: (disk data out, processing by cpu, then bus and memory data out ---> GPU. Unfortunately, the graphics paradigm for FSX is one in which it literally has to "create" (draw) many of the sim objects, and then translate them into a 3 dimensional perspective (scenery, traffic, weather, etc.) If you question your hardware's capability:

!. Is your disk putting our data fast enough?
2. Is your processor processing the data it gets fast enough
3. Is your memory/bus bandwith adequate?

The amount of information FSX needs to process depends not only what graphics settings you're running, but also the autogen density (weather/scenery scope) of the area in which you're flying. In addition some addons, are very complex in that they open quite a few processes and create very lifelike 3d graphic views. If you're running multi-monitor, each additional window displayed consumes cpu as well as gpu processing power. (Try closing one and watch the frame rate jump.) Frame rates will also be higher in the 2D cockpit versus the 3D.

With regard to the hardware requirements, I've instructed in real airline simulators (retired airline pilot) and even they used to get bogged down. (And they cost a little more than our machines.) No, the processing required is simply amazing, even for FSX. Watch the video by the MS game develper and even he doesn't blink when he implied that FSX could even take advantage of 256+ cores.

So the sad fact is, even today, is that each of our systems could be brought to its knees, given the right conditions in FSX. Most of us will have to sacrifice somewhere, be it software modification, hardware modification, or just accepting lower performance/quality. If you follow Microsoft's own advice, they will tell you that a 3 ghz processor is really the minimum to get "decent perfomance". Now multiply that by the number of cores/threads in YOUR cpu and take a bite out of the 256+ threads that FSX could use and you get an idea of where the technology stands, even today!
June 25, 2010 2:41:47 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!