Flight Simulator X - need hardware advice

J

Jordan1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
1,733
I just replaced a 8800GT 256MB with a GTS 250 512MB for the sole purpose of increasing graphics performance in Flight Simulator X. However, performance appears to not improved whatsoever, without changing the in game settings. Also, it seemed to introduce some graphics glitches within the game. I believe the resolution has been set at 1024 X 768 or close to that within in game (17" CRT monitor). Latest graphics drivers, Acceleration expansion installed.

Rest of the specs:
AM2 X2 4200 @ 2.6GHz
2GB RAM
XP Home

I was expecting at least a noticeable improvement in frame rates where it had bogged down before. Is the RAM or CPU holding this back?
 
You need a new system buddy, seriously. Well, at least a new CPU, RAM and Mobo.
 
It ran like crap on the system in my sig, and that's considerably more powerful then yours.
 
Yeah, I just figured the GTS 250 would help at least some. He was wanting to put a quad in place of the X2 4200 knowing that it is a CPU intensive game. I'll probably just put the 8800GT back in for the time being.
 
FSX is more CPU dependent.

I still get minor lag when landing with it maxed out. (1680x1050)
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
With the system in your sig? Your kidding me? I don't care what anyone says that game is poorly coded. It dosen't even look good, imo.
Click to expand...

.... You have no idea what you are talking about and it shows.

Thanks for playing.
 
I would imagine FS:X to be one of if not the most highly CPU bound game out.
 
Yea, a buddy of mine dual boots his duel Xeon MacPro into Vista to play it. Its almost pegging all 8 physical cores during landings. Its intense.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
Jordan1 said:
Yeah, I just figured the GTS 250 would help at least some. He was wanting to put a quad in place of the X2 4200 knowing that it is a CPU intensive game. I'll probably just put the 8800GT back in for the time being.
Click to expand...

a 8800gt to a gtx 250 isnt that big of a step up. same card different clocks.
 
But it sure does help when you load in the high res models and textures.
 
It makes my system cry mercy. What kills it mostly is the other traffic, water air and land buildings etc. Weather depending on what its set at will cause slow downs as well.

You can tweak things to get it playable, but usually you just have to suck it up and eat the lower FPS for some of the eye candy.

FS is famous for its system usage. I need to get on a quad core with more gusto and a bit more ram.

Great game though.
 
FSX was designed for single cores at high MHz. Unfortunately Intel and AMD shifted form the GHz race to adding more cores and Parallelism. SP1 added some multithreading, but it's still really a cpu hog. Feed it cycles and it gets happy. Seems to me that 4.0 is a pretty sweet spot. However I can't actually BUY a stock 4GHz part. Needs water cooling to get there. I'm not into esoteric cooling solutions. I need to run on air.

Load up the AI traffic and NYC and London Heathrow become sideshows on a slightly OC'd Q6600 (my system). Then add in a complex aircraft addon- PMDG anything.

I think that we are years away from seeing a PC that can run FSX well and fully loaded (well beyond the out of box experience.) OOB, my pc runs it acceptably. take away the third party AI and it runs quite well. I just flew the PMDG MD11 into WSSS (Singapore) with and without Singaporre Airlines traffic. without it was silky 30is fps. With, well, more like 10fps. I love the experience of other air traffic though. Tonight I'll knock things down on the AI traffic. As it is, Atlanta is unflyable just with Delta traffic at 100%.
 
tricky0502 said:
a 8800gt to a gtx 250 isnt that big of a step up. same card different clocks.
Click to expand...

The 8800GT was a 256MB model, the GTS 250 was a 512MB. But the resolution was set rather low so I guess the extra video memory wasn't coming into play, or it was limited to the CPU like most are saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top