What about MS Flight Sim X ?

[peteramd]

I find it strange that most tests on graphic cards or other performance related issues such as use of SSDs never seem to include Microsoft Flight Simulator among the games used for the comparisons. FSX with maxxed settings is quite a difficult customer. It would be interesting to see some reviews about FSX performances with various cards, especially in multi-monitor set-ups. I don't play games but Simulators such as FSX and Dirt3. For Dirt 3 the performance of the config I mention below is very good, but not for FSX.
For example I set up FSX in a PC with the following specs:
MoBo Asus P7P55 LX iP55
PSU OCZ ModXStream Pro 700W
Processor Intel Core i5 760
Memory Kingston 2x4GB, DDR3, PC12800, CL9, HyperX, XMP
Graphic Sapphire PCI-e Radeon HD6950 2GB DDR5 driving 4 Neovo L W24 monitors, 3 in Eyefinity as one 5760x1080 screen and the 4th for the instruments.
Still, in spite of the fact that I put the Bitdefender Internet Security in Game Mode and activate the IOBit Game Booster so all unnecessary services are stopped, use Trixx utility to slightly overclock the card, still the frame rate falls as low as 10 and never goes above 25.
Would be interesting to know if an SSD drive would improve this ?

 

[mikeny]

I was surprised too. I'm thinking the newer generation games are much more intensive than what FSX use to be. I remember what seemed a long time ago, when most video cards were released, at least one of the benchmarks was FSX Seems like FSX fell off the face of the earth. I think a new FSX was suppose to be released but never did; Microsoft Studios was shutdown.

 

[peteramd]

True, but I think there's still a (very) great deal of people out there still using it. There's a lot of fun learning how to fly, navigate, find your way, use all kinds of instruments. And with a multi-screen setup and a powerful card and some photorealistic sceneries it can be quite impressive. Not every user is a dogfight-on-the-web type...

 

[mikeny]

Oh definately. I'm not saying that FSX is dead and not used anymore, I was just saying that it's longer used as a benchmark when you have Crysis etc. I loved it. I still have it on my HDD. It's so much easier to learn/fly when using a flightstick! I loved flying from NY (Kennedy Airport) to Aruba (Beatrix Airport)!!!! My one complain was that I wish it was more realistic ie. More AI planes, voiced instructions from airport towers, lively airports, walk around the airplane and see passengers in them as well as flight attendants, and when you land/takeoff; you could see passengers entering/leaving the planes thru that long arm (the name of it always escapes my mind) that extends from the gate to the plane. Plus it would be nice to see the plane being serviced and watch luggage either being loaded or unloaded and you can walk around the airport (if you're not on a schedule) watching people go to/from, and to the baggage claim. It would also be nice to see the arrivals/departures schedule. It's like having a carrer in FSX. I've been off of FSX for a while, is anything out there that's new or something like my wishlist???? Nope; no dogfights for me.

 

[willk54]

I find it strange that most tests on graphic cards or other performance related issues such as use of SSDs never seem to include Microsoft Flight Simulator among the games used for the comparisons. FSX with maxxed settings is quite a difficult customer. It would be interesting to see some reviews about FSX performances with various cards, especially in multi-monitor set-ups. I don't play games but Simulators such as FSX and Dirt3. For Dirt 3 the performance of the config I mention below is very good, but not for FSX.
For example I set up FSX in a PC with the following specs:
MoBo Asus P7P55 LX iP55
PSU OCZ ModXStream Pro 700W
Processor Intel Core i5 760
Memory Kingston 2x4GB, DDR3, PC12800, CL9, HyperX, XMP
Graphic Sapphire PCI-e Radeon HD6950 2GB DDR5 driving 4 Neovo L W24 monitors, 3 in Eyefinity as one 5760x1080 screen and the 4th for the instruments.
Still, in spite of the fact that I put the Bitdefender Internet Security in Game Mode and activate the IOBit Game Booster so all unnecessary services are stopped, use Trixx utility to slightly overclock the card, still the frame rate falls as low as 10 and never goes above 25.
Would be interesting to know if an SSD drive would improve this ?

Did you install the patch? Makes a huge difference in frame rate. At least it did with my i7 and integrated intel graphics chip. The new version called Microsoft Flight will be out next year.

 

[peteramd]

I have a recent version of FSX Gold edition which includes Acceleration. I'm not aware of any patch and can't find any on the MS site. Of course I'm waiting to see what Flight will really look like and hear reactions and tests, but in the meantime I'm hoping to see a relatively smooth playing on my PC. I'm intending to try to extend my installed memory to 16Gb as that's not too expensive and also installing an SSD drive. If I see real improvement I'll post it on the forum.

 

[willk54]

I have a recent version of FSX Gold edition which includes Acceleration. I'm not aware of any patch and can't find any on the MS site. Of course I'm waiting to see what Flight will really look like and hear reactions and tests, but in the meantime I'm hoping to see a relatively smooth playing on my PC. I'm intending to try to extend my installed memory to 16Gb as that's not too expensive and also installing an SSD drive. If I see real improvement I'll post it on the forum.

Isn't the frame rate locked at 20? I doubt the extra memory would have any effect. I do notice if I am in a more congested area my frame rate will drop pretty low at times. I turned scenery down from ultra high to high and it seems better.

 

[mikeny]

Check what's running in the background. Also, just because you have the internet security in game mode, it could be taking up valuable resources. FSX is still a rescource hog. I have the i7-920 w/ 4890 and it worked great. I had most sliders on max.