Flight Simulator X

Just to add to my previous spec:

There are many choices for a motherboard and whether to get an i5 2500K or i7 3770K, I suppose that it all comes down to how much you want to future proof your build and if you have any other uses for the system than FSX.

You can fit nicely in the £2000 budget if you get the Asrock Z77 Extreme4 board, that fits nicely in the white and black scheme I chose for you, and downgrade from the GTX 680 (that is IMO a huge overkill) to a GTX 580, like this EVGA.

Cutting down on the monitors is also an option but I highly recommend some quality IPS panels, as big as you can get. If 3x24" are too large for your needs, get one 27" or 30", preferably Dell, HP or Hazro, and a smaller monitor for additional control panels.

Controller and additional accessories can cost a lot of money so set a budget for that too.

If I run say the PMDG 747-400 at UK2000 London Heathrow with REX, Active Sky and 100% AI traffic (add-on like Ultimate Traffic), what sort of CPU GHz and graphics card capabilities would I need?
 
Last edited:
Payware airports can be a crippler. Even with a 4.8ghz chip, you still may struggle to break the 25fps barrier without dropping settings.
 
That's my biggest requirements basically. I want to be able to hit 30fps at UK2000 airports with max payware AI traffic and payware aircraft.
 
I'll do a test tomorrow daytime for you if you like. I don't have UK2000 Heathrow, I use Aerosoft, but I do have UK2000 Gatwick. I'll bump the traffic and settings up and taxi the 737NGX out from a central gate and take off. You may be able to work from my FPS results.
 
That's my biggest requirements basically. I want to be able to hit 30fps at UK2000 airports with max payware AI traffic and payware aircraft.

With reference to the HUGE other fsx thread, a lot is already answered in there. So take an hour off work today to read.. :)

Don't hold a frame rate to ransom. If it look good, doesn't jitter and is playable, you should be happy. Sometimes my frame rate hovers around 10 FPS, but I've spent far too long in the past worrying. For my modest setup, I have different styled configs for different flights. Mainly an intensive plane flying at 30,000 ft doesn't need to see the registration of a car or the lines of a road down below.

When you're flying online, trying to get your ATC correct and hoping your FMC doesn't balls up the SID, the last thing I'm thinking is eeeeking another 4fps out of my system.

For example, a plane taking off out of Heathrow shouldn't really need to see ferries and boats, so turn that setting down. AI is intesive, do you need this setting way up?

Soya is spot on and FSX-ers will have multiple apps running alongside FSX including REX, Plan-G, an EFB, web browers, teamspeak, decent third party planes, FSInn etc, so a multi core, high speed setup is essential.
 
I did that quick test. Here's the youtube vid. I have copied the description as well.

In case you cant read the FPS on the top left, I was averaging around 18-25fps, occasionally dropping to 12-15.


Short test of ground based FPS using PDMG 737NGX, REX 2.0 (OD), UTX, UK2000 Gatwick and FS2 Crew.

Yes, I know the aircraft control is rubbish, but it was a just a test for a fellow forumite.

Specs:

i5 [email protected]
AS Rock Extreme 4 Gen 3 Mobo
8GB RAM
Nvidia 560Ti 2GB
 
1 more important fact worth noting, I mentioned this in the official FSX thread already:

For anyone interested in investing both money & time into flight sim, then also look at Prepar3D as well as FSX. Basically, Prepar3d IS the FSX code/engine but further developed by Lockheed (IIRC). From what I have read, pros) Coding is updated but more in reference towards serious flight sim aspect of it not so much towards steamlining GFX etc, however, although FPS difference between the FSX & Prepar3D is only slightly marginally better (and only in some cases), texture handling is better thus less cause for blurries, many swear that it seems to be smoother flying. Plus another huge pro is that they are constantly working on it, so perhaps in the near future, the gfx might get a big update. cons) although the same code/engine, most of FSX 3rd party addons are not yet fully compatible with Prepare3D, but some recent ones are. So it is not ideal for people who are already heavily invested into FSX addons. For anyone starting, this might be worth a consideration, perhaps even get FSX now but hold off on buying major addons for a while and see where this Prepar3D goes.

So think it is worth keeping a close eye on this, cause it might just be the next step after FSX, especially if nearly all addons become a simple port over.
 
http://forum.avsim.net/topic/354911-intel-core-i7-3930k-48ghz-wfsx-quick-review/

your budget is 3K so go 3930K (I'm running at 4.8 on a 3930K using an H100)

I was going to go with a processor like that, but I don't want some competitive Ivy Bridge processor coming out similar to its Sandy Bridge counterpart.

1 more important fact worth noting, I mentioned this in the official FSX thread already:

For anyone interested in investing both money & time into flight sim, then also look at Prepar3D as well as FSX. Basically, Prepar3d IS the FSX code/engine but further developed by Lockheed (IIRC). From what I have read, pros) Coding is updated but more in reference towards serious flight sim aspect of it not so much towards steamlining GFX etc, however, although FPS difference between the FSX & Prepar3D is only slightly marginally better (and only in some cases), texture handling is better thus less cause for blurries, many swear that it seems to be smoother flying. Plus another huge pro is that they are constantly working on it, so perhaps in the near future, the gfx might get a big update. cons) although the same code/engine, most of FSX 3rd party addons are not yet fully compatible with Prepare3D, but some recent ones are. So it is not ideal for people who are already heavily invested into FSX addons. For anyone starting, this might be worth a consideration, perhaps even get FSX now but hold off on buying major addons for a while and see where this Prepar3D goes.

So think it is worth keeping a close eye on this, cause it might just be the next step after FSX, especially if nearly all addons become a simple port over.

Woah never even heard of this Prepare3D, had a little look at it, bit confused lmao, seems like lots of simulators in one or something.
 
I was going to go with a processor like that, but I don't want some competitive Ivy Bridge processor coming out similar to its Sandy Bridge counterpart.

Apparently they won't be coming out until 2013 but I don't know much about it I'd buy one though regardless if you're planning on buying it this month anyway + other sims out there will make use of it if you happen to play some of the competition.
 
Apparently they won't be coming out until 2013 but I don't know much about it I'd buy one though regardless if you're planning on buying it this month anyway + other sims out there will make use of it if you happen to play some of the competition.

Hmm, tbh mate I think I'm just going to go with the 3770k and overclock it to 4.8GHz, making sure I do it with water cooling.

Must admit these flight sims are tempting...

Peaceful

.

Haha you definitely need to try Flight Simulator X out.
 
The Accusim Spitfire is simply incredible, and a joy to learn. I'm still struggling with the engine management but it's so rewarding. The picture is slightly edited (contrast and clarity).


Accu-Sim Spitfire Mk Ia by danjama, on Flickr

Really need some decent SE England scenery :(

Bonus pic to anyone who can guess the location?
 
<offTopic>
robfosters and soya, how do you record from FSX?
</offTopic>

With regards to Prepar3D, it's touted at FSX with bug fixes, the academic licence is also for home use and FSX bits are supposed to work. BUT ifly is selling an 'upgrade' for the 737NG for Prepar3D. Why is this?
 
Back
Top Bottom