Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Flight sim computer

Last response: in Systems
Share
June 25, 2007 4:26:46 PM

Ok what do I need...
I am going to be doing some heavy flight simulations but am on a very strict budget. So far the hardest thing is the video card. I know I need a fast processor and a video card with atleast 512 mb. of ram.

I am thinking of a dual core processor 2.4 -3 ghz and the evga geforce 8800 (640mb). The other components I will have to take it easy on but I need the video card... and maybe two to run the 4 monitors. One on one dvi slot and 3 out of the other with triple head to go.
Any feedback will help thanks

More about : flight sim computer

June 25, 2007 11:31:54 PM

^^ i dont think "heavy flight simulations" means the same thing as flight smulator...
Related resources
June 25, 2007 11:54:58 PM

RAM, you want at least 2GB whether you are talking X-Plane or FSX. I upgraded from 1GB and it helped a lot, but you also want to make sure the hard disk the program sits on is very fast. My disk is a Samsung 500GB and the sim pauses and the screen turns white while it loads new scenery or if I'm working in the cockpit.
June 26, 2007 12:02:46 PM

I am talking running flight simulator at high graphics with 4 monitors so it will need alot to keep it going. I am actually going to use it to practice for my real flight training which is starting tonight.
June 26, 2007 1:08:31 PM

Four monitors with high quality graphics!?

You will need a monster. Core Quad with 2x8800GTS 640 Mb minimun, better a pair of 8800GTX.

Get ready to spend a lot of money.
June 26, 2007 1:25:31 PM

The phrase "very strict budget" has different meanings for different people.
June 26, 2007 1:33:05 PM

A 6GRAND COMPUTER. Hell the consumer level technology wont push 4 monitors at high resolutions on that game maxed out
June 26, 2007 1:44:58 PM

That's true, but still you will need at least two graphics cards to use 4 monitors...
"very strict budget" and "gaming with 4 monitors" in the same post...

SINTAX ERROR :lol: 

PS: And for Flight Simulator X or X-plane, least 4 Gb of RAM. The huge textures are memory killers.
June 26, 2007 2:59:02 PM

Have you guys ever heard of the triple head to go? well anyway it will let you run 3 monitors off of one dvi slot without sacrificing any more than 5 fps. I was then going to hook a fourth monitor to the second dvi slot... my budget is from 1000-1500 considering that without a "very strict budget" you can end up with a $3000 computer before you can get your controllers and monitors.

everywhere I can find says that four gigs of RAM is way overkill and two will do just fine
June 26, 2007 3:05:27 PM

ok here the computer I am aiming for as a baseline will be able to run 4 monitors on a geforce 7900 gtx at 39 FPS which is plenty for 3840 x 1024 resolution
June 26, 2007 3:06:01 PM

I'm not sure that's going to work... and even if it does, I'm picturing a slide show like experience.
June 26, 2007 3:06:26 PM

EDIT: Sorry, now i understand what did you meant.

But still, you're planning to play on insanely high resolutions. I'm not changing my opinion. You will need a powerhouse to run decently Flight Simulator X or X-Plane on those monitors.

It would be better to buy two high-end GPUs, plugging a monitor on each output of the cards and assigning a different camera to each monitor.
June 26, 2007 3:07:46 PM

You must be planning on lowering the settings to achieve that FPS at that resolution... and is that the maximum FPS or the minimum? The minimum could be drastically lower than that number. I just don't think you're going to be able to do what you want to do on your budget. I'm not trying to rain on your parade... it's just an opinion.
June 26, 2007 3:17:09 PM

yeah I know exactly what you mean. I am really just trying not to break the bank ya know. I really don't need the absolutely stunning graphics outside the aircraft and I will only be playing at 2400 x 600 resolution where I can get about 71 FPS off three monitors I don't know about 4. I have seen some pretty good flight simulators on family computers exactly the way I am going to set mine up and they work pretty well. my computer won't be that great right away but I will add a second video card within the first few months. That is proabably when I will get the Triple head to go. At first I will only be able to afford 2 monitors.
June 26, 2007 3:23:35 PM

Well, i played Flight Simulator X on a Core Duo, 2 Gb RAM, 7900 GS 256 Mb, 1024x768 quality high.

Average: 36 fps

I don't think (personally) you will be able to pull it off what you intend to do. But i've already said what i think about the matter. If you're that sure of being able to do it, i will say no more.

Good luck
June 26, 2007 3:28:19 PM

Quote:
... which is plenty for 3840 x 1024 resolution


Quote:
... I will only be playing at 2400 x 600


Keep it up and you'll be gaming in VGA at 320 X 200 @ 256 colors.
June 26, 2007 3:40:39 PM

what I was just saying that in the review I picked my video card it said what it could run at but I an only going to run it 2400 x 600
June 26, 2007 3:41:33 PM

although it may be cool to see 320x200 on flight simulator x
June 26, 2007 4:37:58 PM

Good luck mate, the new M$ flight sim runs slowly on 2x 8800GTX at 1600x1200. Four monitors at max settings just can't be done. Period

Two monitors...maybe

Latest flight sim runs TERRIBLY, check the VGA charts lol
June 26, 2007 4:48:31 PM

i also have to disagree. there is no one graphic card that will able to push those kind of frame rates on 4 monitors. and there is a big problem with your triple head dvi plug. that splitter will only replicate the image across three of those monitors. to run 4 monitors you need 4 different, separate dvi outputs. this can be achieved through sli or crossfire. at the very least you need at least the 8800gts sli'd to achieve decent frames. and anyone who has played a flight sim like that should know that you need a lot of ram. it is a fact that the higher resolution you run, the bigger the textures, the more system memory you need. i also suggest running the simulation under the dx9 path instead of the dx10 path because the dx10 path incurs a big performance penalty. i seriously suggest learning how to overclock then overclocking your given processor at the very least to 3.2ghz. flight simulations are an overall system hog and the physics calculations will push your processor. getting a e6600 and overclocking it will allow you to save money for the second video card.

EDIT:
understand that using the splitter will not allow you to use your monitors in the way you intend to. as it is splitting the output, and is external of the graphics card, you will see the same image spanning across the 3 monitors. basically a waste of time. you will also see slightly worse image quality because of the dilution.
June 26, 2007 5:08:50 PM

OK, knuckles, you're not making sense here.

First, you say you're on a very strict budget. You never once mentioned how much that budget is, so how are we supposed to help?

Next, in the very same post, you said that you're taking real flight lessons (lucky dog), and that you're "needing" all of this to help. Well in that department I can give you some advice.

First, you really don't need to crank the resolutions in FSX (assuming that's what you're using). 1280*1024, 32b color-depth, are just fine.

Second, you also don't really need 4 monitors at all to experience realism. Perhaps two, but that's it. If you're really wanting to use FSX to practice, then crank the settings to Custom and set everything to max difficulty and follow all of the training FSX offers.

As for the hardware, I am running an e6300 (OCd to 2.33), 2GBs PC-8500 at 5-5-5-15, 2t, WD2500YS HDDs x2 (one is Windows and the other applications) (Not in RAID), X-Fi Platinum, Plextor PX-755SA, and an old CRT at 1280*1024, 85Hz refresh, 32b color depth, max graphic settings. Oh and the MB is an EVGA 680i.

I found that moving the game over to another drive (not on the system drive), has been the most useful in load times and playability.

What you really need is a good TAS (throttle and stick) setup. Something like the Saitek X-58 or X-52 (I have this one), or something similar. You can spend considerable time programming all of the buttons/knobs/sliders to do whatever you want. Very helpful for trim, POV, radios, and the like.

And one more thing: don't try to run 4 monitors at such high-res when you have crappy hardware. Get the hardware first, then add monitors.
June 26, 2007 5:58:43 PM

Quote:
i i also suggest running the simulation under the dx9 path instead of the dx10 path because the dx10 path incurs a big performance penalty.



??? I suppose since there is no DX10 FSX the OP will by default be forced to follow that advice. Most of what I have seen in dx10 so far has resulted in a light cpu load and this would be ideal for FSX which will use all the CPU speed you can give it.

Quote:
So with all that, let me state that we are still on track for a Fall 2007 delivery of FSX-DX10.


Link.
June 26, 2007 6:08:28 PM

lol good catch i thought there was a dx10 patch for the flight sim 06. don't need to be mean about it though. we're all here to help.
June 26, 2007 6:20:53 PM

BTW, the FSX team has released SP1 for FSX. The current SP fixes lots of scenery glitches and also allows FSX to take adavantage of multicore systems. No word on the DX10 thing yet. Be warned, the SP is HUGE, as in over 400MBs!
June 26, 2007 6:34:39 PM

Quote:
lol good catch i thought there was a dx10 patch for the flight sim 06. don't need to be mean about it though. we're all here to help.

Didn't think I was being mean sorry, to the point perhaps. I just wouldn't jump to any conclusion that it won't run will in dx10. Taylor predicts a slight performance increase in DX10.

Quote:
BTW, the FSX team has released SP1 for FSX. The current SP fixes lots of scenery glitches and also allows FSX to take adavantage of multicore systems. No word on the DX10 thing yet. Be warned, the SP is HUGE, as in over 400MBs!


I've been running the new patch for a couple of weeks now. It is nice to see the second processor being used. Before the patch processor usage would peg at 50%. Now it hovers around 60% and can get up to 75-80 when loading a lot of new scenery such as banking hard. Performance has definitely improved but it is still a very demanding game. Now I'm curious as to whether the quads are seeing an advantage over dual cores.
June 26, 2007 6:37:38 PM

Quote:
BTW, the FSX team has released SP1 for FSX. The current SP fixes lots of scenery glitches and also allows FSX to take adavantage of multicore systems. No word on the DX10 thing yet. Be warned, the SP is HUGE, as in over 400MBs!


To add to this post, SP1 for FSX is supposed to be able to scale out to use up to 32 cores. I've verified that it regularly uses around 85% of each of my cores during gameplay.

-G
June 26, 2007 6:41:48 PM

Not meaning to hijack this thread

But is FSX inefficient?? Or just demanding, or both

No fanboys telling me its the best thing since sliced bread.

Ive seen some DX10 screenshots tho *whistles*
June 26, 2007 6:41:49 PM

Quote:
Now I'm curious as to whether the quads are seeing an advantage over dual cores.


I wonder this too. Hopefully, someone will benchmark the differences between one, two and four cores.

Everything I've read points to FSX being more CPU than GPU intensive.
June 26, 2007 7:24:38 PM

Quote:
A 6GRAND COMPUTER. Hell the consumer level technology wont push 4 monitors at high resolutions on that game maxed out
enough said 8)
June 26, 2007 7:29:59 PM

Quote:
A 6GRAND COMPUTER. Hell the consumer level technology wont push 4 monitors at high resolutions on that game maxed out
enough said 8)
Don't discourage him too much! Won't it be fun to see him drop $1500 on a system with a certain level of expectation and then have reality give him a giant slap to the face? Virtually every post was unanimous, but something tells me he's going to do it his way anyway. You see these from time to time... people with an idea in their head... they ask a question to validate their idea... and when a different idea is suggested or their idea is criticized, they just ignore everyone else and go with their original one. Pretty humorous if you ask me.
June 26, 2007 11:31:37 PM

Well, all I can say for sure is that it takes 2 DVDs to install the bloody thing!

As for whether it's efficient or not, I can't say. But I do know that eye candy has a price to pay, and the game is really spectacular. It definitely needs as much horsepower as you can throw at it from the CPU, GPU, and the RAM. It also seems to run (load) better when installed on a separate drive.

I don't think DX10 will really add anything to the game because you should be playing it from the cockpit, only to venture outside of it to get your bearings or check on something. Plus, it's the settings of realism (in terms of difficulty) that really make the game interesting. Try the mission to the oil rig to rescue the workers when the settings are as difficult as you can make it! :) 

Gotta go and play hockey now.
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2007 12:09:12 AM

Yeah FSX is 15 gigs 8O
June 27, 2007 3:13:10 AM

To make matters worse for me is that I have so many projects going on that I haven't had the time to play FSX on my new rig (which I built specifically for this game) but maybe twice! :( 
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2007 3:32:19 AM

my problem is i have the FSX deluxe version but cant find the other
disc :x
June 27, 2007 4:55:05 AM

Quote:
Not meaning to hijack this thread

But is FSX inefficient?? Or just demanding, or both

No fanboys telling me its the best thing since sliced bread.

Ive seen some DX10 screenshots tho *whistles*


FSX is very demanding (especially on the CPU), but it is fairly inefficient too (all FS have been since FS2K).

The game was released severely handicapped since it was single-threaded, but it seems a patch has fixed that. That should allow it to distribute it's monstrous load and hopefull see significant performance increases.
June 27, 2007 4:55:56 AM

Quote:
my problem is i have the FSX deluxe version but cant find the other
disc :x


You could torrent and burn the other disc... and it won't exactly be illegal since you've bought it (I hope).
June 27, 2007 8:23:37 AM

Please don't brutally steal and plunder my little one liner :(  :( 
June 27, 2007 12:34:34 PM

The triple head to go will be my scenery monitors...I will be able to see out of the windows of the plane thats it. The next monitor coming out of the second DVI slot (which almost all video cards now have) will be my six pack or main controls / radio stack. I am not going for huge graphics and will proabably be running at lower resolutions. I do not want to exceed 1500 but if I can get under 2000 I will be fine. oh and by the way I am going to be listening to your comments rodney. There is a place called aviation world in toronto. It is where you get all of your flight training stuffs and they have a whole section on flight simulator including a simulator with four monitors running at lower resolutions (fsx) and spread over four monitors with a family computer. I don;t know how they did it but it runs pretty smooth. All I want is a computer that will be able to run flight simulators with a wide range of view and all of my controls. If you want proof of my video card and frame rate claims look in the november 2006 issue of pc pilot. It just compares two video cards one ATI and one nvidia and shows what it can do with four monitors. check it out if you don't believe me but what I am saying is completely legit (aslong as the magasine was legit)

Over the last few days I realise I was alittle ambitious with a tight budget but I am in highschool and can't afford the quad core mothership computer for 5000.
June 27, 2007 1:37:29 PM

Hi I'm new here but a regular of UBI iL2 forums...

If you're into flight sims the single most important piece of hardware is your CPU as these "games" are VERY CPU intensive. At the prsent I would go with a Core Duo E6600 and upgrade later to the newer 1333 FSB processor when the come out.

Buy a Motherboard that is a bit futur proof... Intel P-35 or NVidia 680i (or 650i) as these board will accept the future intel CPU. I just bought the ASUS P5N32-E SLI... depending on reviews some say its on par with the Striker Extreme in term of performance some say its inferior.. guess I'll find out for myself soon... There is also the P5N32 SLI Plus which uses a modified 650i chipset (2x PCIe x16) that is about the same $$$ as the P5N32-E SLI... I would advise againt the Striker Extreme as you are paying for options that you may not need... (i.e. on/off onboard button, CMOS clear button, back light panel, LCD display)

Depending on the fligh sim you are looking to buy (FSX or other) only FSX is DX10. So if you are looking at another flight (combat) sim 8) you could save some $$$ and buy an X1950XT or 7900GTX. Both these card will run these sims with all eye candy on... even iL2 1946 and LOMAC.

Get 2 gigs of RAM as it is anoying to get freezes caused by hard drive access during play.

Last will be a good sound card... I'm personnaly going for a SB X-FI Platinum Fatal1ty Champion edition which is the latest SB card (it just came out... not to be mistaken for the X-Fi Fatal1ty FPS). It is suppose to fixe a lot of the issues with the last generation of X-Fi... and its cheaper to :D 

Get a good CPU cooler and overclock your E6600 to 3.2... it should be quit easy and this will yeild the most performace increase...

Look up NCIX.com they have good prices... such a setup could cost you

ASUS P5N32 SLI Plus - $182
Core Duo E6600 - $230

Other flight simming essentials

Saitek HOTAS --- X-52 or CH HOTAS depending on $$$$$$

http://www.saitekusa.com/usa/prod/x52.htm

http://www.chproducts.com/retail/joysticks.html
http://www.chproducts.com/retail/throttles.html

I would advise against the X-52 Pro as it is alot more $$$ and supposably not better than the X-52... it is black though thus less "space looking". I personnally have the X-52 and love it...

Saitek rudder peddals or CH rudder pedals

http://www.saitekusa.com/usa/prod/proflight.htm

http://www.chproducts.com/retail/pedals.html

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF HARDWARE ---- TRACK IR

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/

Track IR is a must for all serious flight simmers... AND IT WILL NOCK THE SOX OFF A TRIPLE HEAD SETUP... cheaper to... but if you like you can use the two of them (Track IR and Triple Head to go together :twisted: )

Also instead of buying 4 (lets say 22") monitors... you can buy 1 large (lets say 30") one and benefit for a larger view... see Track IR demos... and you will see what I mean....

And finally although FSX is nice if you like flying a bus... they are a lot of flight sims out there that are also very good... one combat sim I fly a lot is iL2 1946... all WWII fighter/bombers/topedo planes/atc... great online community also...

AND there are 2 new fight sims due to come out soon KOTS (Knights of the skies ... WWI flight sim) and BoB-SoW (Battle of Britain - Storm of War). The latter is suppose to be awsone... with better FM (fligh models) and atmosphirics than FSX... all this in a combat sim.... what could be better...

Well hope this helped...


Regards,

P.S. sorry for the english I'm French... :mrgreen:
June 27, 2007 1:58:19 PM

Quote:

P.S. sorry for the english I'm French... :mrgreen:

You speak better English than most people who speak it as a first language. Trust me... no reason to apologize.
June 27, 2007 2:05:42 PM

Quote:

P.S. sorry for the english I'm French... :mrgreen:

You speak better English than most people who speak it as a first language. Trust me... no reason to apologize.

Thanks....
June 27, 2007 2:36:48 PM

you speak very good English.

Thankyou very much fo all the information, I knew about the fast processor and was aiming for 2.4-3 ghz, whatever is in my budget at the time. I was just since you seem to know alot about flight sims is there really an advantage getting the latest and greatest video card or is a third tier(based on toms hardware charts) video card fine.

I am thinking about now after seeing the track ir earlier today running two monitors (one off each DVI port) and then using the track ir It would proabably be just as good as multiple monitors.

I was unaware that track Ir was compatible with il2 1946 but I am going to be getting that sim anyways. Also the battle of BI oB-SoW looks unbelievable.

I am going to be using the ch products yoke and rudder pedals, which I already have for FS2004

I am also looking at using my projector in my living room which I completely overlooked in the planning of this computer.

Thankyou for all of the input.
June 27, 2007 4:18:38 PM

Well for iL2 anything above a 7900GT or GTX or 1950Pro (or XT) is overkill... FSX is another story its pretty much is unplayable on even the most high ends of GPU now... with eye candy cranked up...

Better save on the GPU and spend more on your CPU.

iL2 1946 is not uptimized for Dual Core CPU. What you can do though is set the game to run on one core and the rest (Track IR, Teamspeak, Hypperlobby, etc.) on the other core. This will help getting some extra FPS.

With a X1950XT your FPS should never drop below 30 even down low over large cities... with tracers and flak everywhere. This is were there is the most stress on the GPU... Up high even low end video cards can cope... Just to show my old PC had a P4 3.2 (overcloked at 3.5) and a stock Saphire X850XT and was averaging about 55-60 FPS...

CH products are really good... you sound like a bomber pilot to me (you use a yoke)... Them a CH throttle quadrant could add a nice touch to your setup.

The X-52 is a nice HOTAS if you want to dogfight... less expenseve than a CH HOTAS... It is to be noted that some poeple find the X-52 to "soft". I fixed mine by inserting a plastic disk between the base of the stick and the spring... makes it a lot stiffer...

I would advice against a 2 monitor setup... because you will end up having your gunsight at the center junction of the 2 monitors... better get one large LCD monitor... with a high contrast ratio and low response time.

What you can do in iL2 is have a second PC running "device link" and have all your instruments on a second screen... driven by another PC...

Good sites for sim related info...

http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air.html

http://airwarfare.com/simnetwork/index.php

And info on video card setup for il2 1946...

http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/coastie0/IL2setup.html

A flight sim is really meant to be experienced online... so you should download "Hypperlobby". This utility will show you most of the active server for many different flight sim.

If you decide on iL2 hope to see you on Warclouds... were only the best fly... :wink:

Regards,

[SAF]Zoom
June 27, 2007 4:54:20 PM

At the risk of repeating what has already been said, may I offer some thoughts based on my own experience as a user of Microsoft's flight simulators since about 1995 (and earlier, if memory serves)?

First, the game now makes much better use of multi-core processors. In my case installing SP1 more than doubled the achievable framerate (against Microsoft's prediction of an average 20% performance increase). Admittedly I run it on a dual Xeon 5160 set-up (ie, four Core 2 cores running at 3GHz) so this might be a little above average; but others have also reported major improvements. This suggests that MS has finally broken (or, at least, weakened) the link between performance and fast clock speeds. So you might be better off with a moderately-paced quad core processor, than a faster dual-core processor.

Secondly, the game now makes better use of modern graphics cards. With previous versions of this game, I have always been disappointed by the limited advantages achieved by adding a better card. But this time, the improvement has been remarkable. I went from a 7900GT-based card to a BFG 8800 GTS OC2 320MB. I'd say that the improvement was of the order of another 70% or so after a little adjustment of the settings in the Nvidia control panel. I would be interested to see Tom's VGA Charts updated to show the framerates achieved under SP1: my strong suspicion is that the "bottlenecking" which previously occurred (8800GTX performing much the same as far older and slower cards) is a thing of the past. I think you should expect that performance will relate much more closely to the quality of the card than was the case in the past.

Thirdly, at least one real expert (Phil Taylor, who is one of the developers and who has a blog to which an earlier post provided a link) is uncertain about how DirectX 10 will affect performance. It's too technical for me; but as I understand it, DX10 holds the promise of making some procedures faster; but, on the other hand, in doing so, it may impose a greater memory overhead than DirectX 9. So it might be sensible to buy a cheap-ish DirectX 9 card for the time being, with a view to buying the latest and best DirectX 10 card when Microsoft gets round to delivering the DirectX 10 update for FSX. For example, my 8800GTS (admittedly a DX10-ready card) only has 320MB of RAM. This is fine even for a resolution of 1920x1200; but I have no confidence that the memory will be sufficient under DX10.

Fourthly, do not underestimate the importance of RAM. It is by no means unheard-of for FSX to crash with out-of-memory errors. This is partly to do with the need for un-fragmented memory space. I would not recommend less than 4GB of RAM: this will allow you to set a switch which lets FSX see beyond the 2GB normally allocated to 32-bit applications, which will reduce this problem (or at least, it has for me).

Fifthly, hard drive speed is not a significant factor for this game in my experience. I have run it from slow (7200 RPM) SATA drives, fast (15K RPM) SCSI drives, and even from fast (15K RPM) SCSI RAID 0 drives: trust me, it makes no appreciable difference.

Sixthly, like others who have replied to your post, I would be surprised if you can achieve an average framerate as high as 39 FPS with high settings. It is easy to get high FPS by flying in open sky, even with high settings; but your FPS will rapidly drop as you approach the ground, especially near built-up areas. Do not assume that you will be unaffected by this just because you plan to fly "seriously". A low framerate, or a "spiky" one, can critically affect your ability to control the plane on landing and take off. May I suggest that a more realistic target, even for a really good setup, is 20-25 FPS in built-up areas with maximum scenery complexity and autogen density. This is perfectly adequate for smooth flight. You can of course scrape together a higher framerate by reducing the levels of detail but, believe me, you will not want to do so once you have seen the thing running properly.

Seventhly, may I suggest that you should think again about a multi-monitor setup, at least until you've seen how well the game performs with a single display? I don't know what they're running in your shop in Toronto, but my experience tells me that it must be a pretty outstanding machine if it can really run multiple displays at high settings with a sustainable framerate that even approaches 39FPS.

Sorry for the rather rambling character of this post.
June 27, 2007 5:10:33 PM

yeah this shop in toronto is not running at high resolutions and wow Thanks for the info. Zoom I will proabably see you on that server thanks for the name. I will normally be playing FSX but will be playing all sorts of simulations and proabably other games. I won't be playing at high resolutions either but just so I can see the panel clearly.

Again thanks for all the info.
June 27, 2007 5:45:39 PM

Quote:
yeah this shop in toronto is not running at high resolutions and wow Thanks for the info. Zoom I will proabably see you on that server thanks for the name. I will normally be playing FSX but will be playing all sorts of simulations and proabably other games. I won't be playing at high resolutions either but just so I can see the panel clearly.

Again thanks for all the info.


If you want something similar to real-life flying, drop FS2004/FSX like a lead balloon and get X-Plane. I fly both, and they are as different as night and day.

The same X-Plane software you get for home use is the same used in flight training simulators in which you get FAA authorized flight training hours. Just make sure you have good equipment.

Best part is it's only $49.
June 27, 2007 6:53:30 PM

cool I will look into that. I know I was about to buy it for my mac cause that is the computer I use the most but I decided just to get a pc. I will definately look at x-plane though.
June 28, 2007 2:10:49 PM

STOP WASTING YOUR TIME AND BUY A PLANE hahah jokes
June 28, 2007 2:58:57 PM

plus if ur running Vista you need over 2gigs...
Am running dual boot vista+XP with FSX in vista..
after playing about an hour FSX crashed saying my system had run out of available memory..had to stick in another 2 gigs..
System specs were Quad 6700 + 8800GTX running at 1680x1050.
All settings bar density maxed.
!