Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Kezmo said:
AAAAARRRRGGHHHH!!!!

My traffic x killed FSX :eek: .. halfed my fps.
Airports look ace now with all the airliners but its just unplayable at 10 fps , its also reset the key mappings on my x52.

Gonna have to uninstall it till i get a better system :(
Click to expand...
I'm running MyTrafficX with exactly the same CPU, RAM, VGA and OS as you without any problems at all. Perhaps it needs finer tuning. The default settings may be too much for it.
 
Kezmo said:
AAAAARRRRGGHHHH!!!!

My traffic x killed FSX :eek: .. halfed my fps.
Airports look ace now with all the airliners but its just unplayable at 10 fps , its also reset the key mappings on my x52.

Gonna have to uninstall it till i get a better system :(
Click to expand...

Install this instead.
 
Kezmo said:
My traffic x killed FSX :eek: .. halfed my fps.
Airports look ace now with all the airliners but its just unplayable at 10 fps , its also reset the key mappings on my x52.

Gonna have to uninstall it till i get a better system :(
Click to expand...
If your using MyTraffic, make sure your AI aircraft is set to a maximum of 20% to start with. Tweak from there to find the best performance ratio.

I think MyTraffic is great, and the support is second to none, but I am eagerly awaiting TrafficX.

I had too many problems with both PAI and WOAI, and although they are FSX compatible, they still use the FS9 models, which can create gate problems at some airports (at leasts it did for me). Still, they are both excellent for free software.

Nice thread though Bes. I'll stick the links for PA up there. Probably the best A320 model I've seen, paid or free, if I overlook the lack of wingflex :p
 
any ideas guys how I get FSX to use more memory ?

I have Vista 32 bit with 4 gig RAM (only 3 gig is usable) - but max memory I can get it to use is about 500-600MB ... which is hardly anything - wheras I read of people seeing FSX using almost 2 gig ?!

I am running at high res - 1900x1200

ideas please ?

thanks, Mark.
 
E2160 or E6750 or E6850 for FSX?

I was about to build a new rig with a 8800GTX and an E6750 which I was hoping to overclock to, say, 3.4 Ghz. Cost is about £130.

Some bright spark on the general hardware forum has suggested getting an E2160, which you can clock supremely to c 3.0-3.2 Ghz for only £56.

It seems like a no brainer doesn't it. My main game is FSX, so has anyone gone the E2160 route? What do you think the impact of the 1Mb cache against the 4 Mb cache would be?

As a final thought. I do have the money, so I could afford an E6850 and aim to oc to 3.8-4.0 Ghz - but for £180, it just seems excessive compared to the E2160.

Thoughts?
 
Kirth Gersen said:
I was about to build a new rig with a 8800GTX and an E6750 which I was hoping to overclock to, say, 3.4 Ghz. Cost is about £130.

Some bright spark on the general hardware forum has suggested getting an E2160, which you can clock supremely to c 3.0-3.2 Ghz for only £56.

It seems like a no brainer doesn't it. My main game is FSX, so has anyone gone the E2160 route? What do you think the impact of the 1Mb cache against the 4 Mb cache would be?

As a final thought. I do have the money, so I could afford an E6850 and aim to oc to 3.8-4.0 Ghz - but for £180, it just seems excessive compared to the E2160.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

My 2140 is at 3.2GHz totally stable and was an absolute steal, I'm delighted with it and have shelved my plans for a faster C2D/C2Q until Penryn etc are with us. IMO it would be a waste to pay for a faster C2D as, if you think about it, these games were designed to run on these fast C2D CPUs at stock so a 2140/60 @ 3.2 GHz should be much faster than a 2.4GHz chip even taking the extra cache into account.

So, imo, I'd go for a cheap chip until quad core CPUs are worth it.
 
Robbie G said:
My 2140 is at 3.2GHz totally stable and was an absolute steal, I'm delighted with it and have shelved my plans for a faster C2D/C2Q until Penryn etc are with us. IMO it would be a waste to pay for a faster C2D as, if you think about it, these games were designed to run on these fast C2D CPUs at stock so a 2140/60 @ 3.2 GHz should be much faster than a 2.4GHz chip even taking the extra cache into account.

So, imo, I'd go for a cheap chip until quad core CPUs are worth it.
Click to expand...

Cheers Robbie G. What sort of FPS are you getting in FSX? I'm planning on getting your Mobo too. What heatsink are you using?
 
Kirth Gersen said:
Cheers Robbie G. What sort of FPS are you getting in FSX? I'm planning on getting your Mobo too. What heatsink are you using?
Click to expand...

I'm using the stock heatsink which seems fine to me. Didn't want to spend £30 on a rip-off cooler if I didn't have to :p. My FPS is ok on normal settings but my video card is old so I'm not sure how useful this is to you.
 
FrannoBaz said:
its the worst programmed game this decade
Click to expand...
This is a common misconception. It was originally coded for high MHz single cores but the CPU industry went dual which meant it wasn't optimised for the hardware. SP1 has somewhat addressed this issue and the sim runs great on my machine once I've optimised settings.

Take a game like Bioshock. That looks great on many machines, some of them aren't that fast and it still looks great. This is a good example of a well written game. The difference with FSX is that there is a horizon that literally is a horizon, a curse Bioshock doesn't have to cope with. Also in FSX there are many, many animations and AI along with rich textures and far denser scenery complexities than previous versions of the sim. I believe the game was designed to 'run' on current hardware but look fantastic on future hardware. This gives the game several years of longevity which in turn gives the 3rd party add-on community a stronger base with which to develop on.

I think they've got it right, in the long term anyhow. Admittedly it should have operated like SP1 out of the box and that's certainly done some damage as people were less reluctant to move on from FS2004 but my FS2004 was 'bayed a long time ago and I have to say that FSX, once optimised, is by a mile the best flight sim out there.
 
Robbie G said:
I'm using the stock heatsink which seems fine to me. Didn't want to spend £30 on a rip-off cooler if I didn't have to :p. My FPS is ok on normal settings but my video card is old so I'm not sure how useful this is to you.
Click to expand...

3.2 Ghz on a stock cooler is very good. As I am planning on using that mobo, I am interested in the specifics. Any chance of letting me know what voltages, temps etc you are getting?

I am planning on tying this up with an 8800 GTX. Not too sure what added value this will bring, but presumably better than yours. Are you hitting >20FPS in most areas?
 
just a couple of general q's

1. Wheres the nearest airport to Everest?
2. whats the point of bent up wingtips? Is it better manouverability?
 
NumptyUK said:
just a couple of general q's

1. Wheres the nearest airport to Everest?
2. whats the point of bent up wingtips? Is it better manouverability?
Click to expand...
  1. For Mount Everest, head for Lukla (VNLK) in Nepal.
  2. Maneuverability and stability but I'm sure an aerodynamicist can explain more.
 
Winglets?

I believe they prevent 'wash' across the wings (Air flowing across the length of the wing due to its low friction surface), which improves fuel economy and stability.
 
Cpu cache mainly helps with repepitive tasks like video encoding or winrar, if you are ok with taking a 5% hit on your 50% overclock then dont worry too much about it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom