Flight Sims, which one?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davy07
Wrong, I run it on a dual core m/c, XP SP2, ATI 1950 graphics 256 & 1 Gb mem. No probs with sliders up high. As to 500Gb H/D, where do you get that from?
My dual core laptop runs it on vista with 120Gb H/D, 2Gb mem and ATI graphics chip. Please do not put people off with scare stories, they are just that, scare stories.
OP asked a reasonable question, s/he deserves a reasonable reply.
Every software package purchased staes the absolute minimum to run it, anyone with all the orifices required for a human knows that it will limp on that spec, FSX is no different.
Regarding hard drives, if you are serious about running anything it is not capacity that counts but the speed (pus a few other bits), FSX will run off a Raptor 10000 rpm lots quicker than a chugging 500Gb slower drive.
Plaese make informed posts.
PS If Vista will run OK so will FSX.
My dual core laptop runs it on vista with 120Gb H/D, 2Gb mem and ATI graphics chip. Please do not put people off with scare stories, they are just that, scare stories.
OP asked a reasonable question, s/he deserves a reasonable reply.
Every software package purchased staes the absolute minimum to run it, anyone with all the orifices required for a human knows that it will limp on that spec, FSX is no different.
Regarding hard drives, if you are serious about running anything it is not capacity that counts but the speed (pus a few other bits), FSX will run off a Raptor 10000 rpm lots quicker than a chugging 500Gb slower drive.
Plaese make informed posts.
PS If Vista will run OK so will FSX.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Devon UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with Al446 here. FSX was not written to take full advantage of the latest multi-core processors.
I use a P4 with 2 GB ram and 256mb AGP Geforce card. An old machine, but it runs FSX with no problems.
As with any other graphic intensive program, I tune the in-game options to get the result I want (an FPS count in the mid 30's). I do not insist on having "all sliders to the right" - just the important ones.
Just checked my install and it stands at 13GB on the HD. I also have some UK VFR scenery which has a size of 8 GB. Hard drive space is useful with FSX. I would not want to run it with much less than (say) 5 - 10 GB free space on the drive.
There is a lot of history / myth / folklore around the MSFS series. Many users have stayed with FS9 and not bothered with FSX, due to their financial investment in FS9 addons.
Now Davy07 can scoff and blow me into the weeds with his super-rig!
I use a P4 with 2 GB ram and 256mb AGP Geforce card. An old machine, but it runs FSX with no problems.
As with any other graphic intensive program, I tune the in-game options to get the result I want (an FPS count in the mid 30's). I do not insist on having "all sliders to the right" - just the important ones.
Just checked my install and it stands at 13GB on the HD. I also have some UK VFR scenery which has a size of 8 GB. Hard drive space is useful with FSX. I would not want to run it with much less than (say) 5 - 10 GB free space on the drive.
There is a lot of history / myth / folklore around the MSFS series. Many users have stayed with FS9 and not bothered with FSX, due to their financial investment in FS9 addons.
Now Davy07 can scoff and blow me into the weeds with his super-rig!
AL446
I should of made my post a bit more informed indeed (Apoligies).
What frames you getting from your system with full sliders? Also have you installed any addon aircraft or do you just fly the default microsoft AC?
Reason i ask is because my last machine had the same specs and i couldn't run fsx for more than 30mins without getting the dreaded '' Your computer is out of available memory message''
I run it on a dual core m/c, XP SP2, ATI 1950 graphics 256 & 1 Gb mem. No probs with sliders up high. As to 500Gb H/D, where do you get that from?
Reason i ask is because my last machine had the same specs and i couldn't run fsx for more than 30mins without getting the dreaded '' Your computer is out of available memory message''
Last edited by 206Fan; 12th Apr 2009 at 19:32.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davy07
I haven't checked frame rates, I read where to do it once but feels OK to me, could maybe do with more mem as I get glitches when it reads from the H/D but otherwise OK.
I have one add-on, an A380, but I tend to stick to smaller more GA a/c as I want more to learn how to navigate etc rather than imagine I am landing a big jet although that can be a fun distraction. Got the A380 just to find out what the FMC is about. Also got some scenery but default is not improved.
As I posted earlier, if a m/c will run Vista it should run FSX. For Vitesse, as far as I am aware, before m/s disbanded the development team they wrote into one of the SPs the optimisation to use multi core properly, I dont mind being corrected on that.
The OP asked which flight sim? No m/c or spec was mentioned. I have only put forward my experience with FSX to assist him/her. I apologise if my posts sometimes seem scathing, they are meant to be with those who have an all singing, all dancing m/c and insist it is the least that can be used.
To the OP, there is also Flight.org that provides a (huge) download for free. I tried it but have not had the time or inclination to get my head round it.
As a final thought. Perhaps, rather than spend the best part of £90 on the prog (£30+), a joystick (£30), add-ons (£arm + leg) and mem upgrade, just go to your nearest flying school and take a trial lesson, this may inform you which aspects of a f/s you want to concentrate on. I am ex-RAF so have not needed to do so. I have seen published photos of rigs that have cost almost as much a share in a small a/c, unless there is a medical reason you can't fly what is the point?
PS Davy07 On your last m/c did you have vitual memory enabled? If you didn't, that is your reason for an out of memory message, if you did then you had a h/d problem.
I have one add-on, an A380, but I tend to stick to smaller more GA a/c as I want more to learn how to navigate etc rather than imagine I am landing a big jet although that can be a fun distraction. Got the A380 just to find out what the FMC is about. Also got some scenery but default is not improved.
As I posted earlier, if a m/c will run Vista it should run FSX. For Vitesse, as far as I am aware, before m/s disbanded the development team they wrote into one of the SPs the optimisation to use multi core properly, I dont mind being corrected on that.
The OP asked which flight sim? No m/c or spec was mentioned. I have only put forward my experience with FSX to assist him/her. I apologise if my posts sometimes seem scathing, they are meant to be with those who have an all singing, all dancing m/c and insist it is the least that can be used.
To the OP, there is also Flight.org that provides a (huge) download for free. I tried it but have not had the time or inclination to get my head round it.
As a final thought. Perhaps, rather than spend the best part of £90 on the prog (£30+), a joystick (£30), add-ons (£arm + leg) and mem upgrade, just go to your nearest flying school and take a trial lesson, this may inform you which aspects of a f/s you want to concentrate on. I am ex-RAF so have not needed to do so. I have seen published photos of rigs that have cost almost as much a share in a small a/c, unless there is a medical reason you can't fly what is the point?
PS Davy07 On your last m/c did you have vitual memory enabled? If you didn't, that is your reason for an out of memory message, if you did then you had a h/d problem.
Last edited by al446; 12th Apr 2009 at 19:49.
Untitled
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major objection to PC sims for those who are going to fly for real is that they teach you to fly "head in the cockpit". Lookout goes for the chop. That is, in my view, the major danger with using one.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blade
I was not trying to make any judgments on FSX, I was asking about whether it was worth it as a tool rather than enterainment.
Cheers
I'm not a 'gamer' by any stretch of the imagination but I do enjoy a bit of relaxation time occasionally plodding around in Flight Sim X you make of it what you want
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jofm5
I was not trying to make any judgments on FSX, I was asking about whether it was worth it as a tool rather than enterainment.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Devon UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al446 -
I've looked for info on FSX's use of processor cores, and didn't come up with anything definite regarding the Service Packs.
I did find reference to FSX not being optimized, but only in user forums.
I've looked for info on FSX's use of processor cores, and didn't come up with anything definite regarding the Service Packs.
I did find reference to FSX not being optimized, but only in user forums.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vitesse (I like the name, used to drive old Triumphs, had several Vitesses, all Mks)-
As I said, I stood to be corrected. I was under the impression that SP2 gave dual core usage, read that on one of the f/s related sites, but if it is not officially listed by m/s then it may be wrong, will look again.
PS Just checked, SP1 does it, Google microsoft SFX, go to site and look at SP1, 2nd bullet point.
As I said, I stood to be corrected. I was under the impression that SP2 gave dual core usage, read that on one of the f/s related sites, but if it is not officially listed by m/s then it may be wrong, will look again.
PS Just checked, SP1 does it, Google microsoft SFX, go to site and look at SP1, 2nd bullet point.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Devon UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good find! You obviously looked harder than me...
So it's multicore optimised from SP1 onwards? From what I read, quad core did not seem to be much help - users getting on better with dual core.
My general experience with graphic intensive games is that even when unoptimised, newer (ie faster) dual core will run better than single, even if only by a little.
Triumphs I have owned - Herald, Vitesse, 2000's, 2500, Stag. Is there any other make of car?
So it's multicore optimised from SP1 onwards? From what I read, quad core did not seem to be much help - users getting on better with dual core.
My general experience with graphic intensive games is that even when unoptimised, newer (ie faster) dual core will run better than single, even if only by a little.
Triumphs I have owned - Herald, Vitesse, 2000's, 2500, Stag. Is there any other make of car?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You forgot the TR6, never had one but would love to. Amongst those others I never owned are the Daimler Dart, Healey 3000 or Sunbeam Tiger. I now drive a Skoda Octavia L&K, another classic for future.
I don't have a quad core so can't comment.
I don't have a quad core so can't comment.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There used to be a very nice 747-400 cockpit sim. Welcome to Aerowinx!
Surprisingly a new edition for 2010 has been announced recently.
Otherwise check x-plane.com and x-plane.org
Best freeware would be flightgear
Surprisingly a new edition for 2010 has been announced recently.
Otherwise check x-plane.com and x-plane.org
Best freeware would be flightgear
FSX ran ok on my laptop (2GHz, Core 2 Duo with and Nvidia Quadro graphics - bog standard Dell Latitude D630), but the sliders were way way left and the traffic settings were low too.
Got an ok performance but graphic detail was pants.
Over this last weekend I've built a new desktop with a 3GHz E8400 processor, 4Gb RAM and Asus 9600GT 512Mb graphics and FSX runs sweet as
you like. The most impressive difference is in the ground detail and weather. The Africa relief mission is a good benchmark - Lapdog had no ground detail, no weather effects and good visi. New system had trees, appalling visibility and a real cloud ceiling. What was an OK mission is now quite a bit more challenging.
It is addictive (especially when you've got too much time on your hands) and some of the add ons (I use Just Flight - JF Google it) are fun. The Traffic add on is good and Air Hauler, despite having a few logical holes is good for giving you a purpose to using FSX, as I got bored with just flying around after a while.
Still prefer the real thing mind..
Got an ok performance but graphic detail was pants.
Over this last weekend I've built a new desktop with a 3GHz E8400 processor, 4Gb RAM and Asus 9600GT 512Mb graphics and FSX runs sweet as
you like. The most impressive difference is in the ground detail and weather. The Africa relief mission is a good benchmark - Lapdog had no ground detail, no weather effects and good visi. New system had trees, appalling visibility and a real cloud ceiling. What was an OK mission is now quite a bit more challenging.
It is addictive (especially when you've got too much time on your hands) and some of the add ons (I use Just Flight - JF Google it) are fun. The Traffic add on is good and Air Hauler, despite having a few logical holes is good for giving you a purpose to using FSX, as I got bored with just flying around after a while.
Still prefer the real thing mind..
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Thinking about it, give me a minute.
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so at the moment I have way too much time on my hands and I've been engrossed in FSX so much so that I've even joined an FSX forum!
I've just loaded up the aerosoft LuklaX and Twin Otter add ons and they are absolutely f
g brilliant. The pdf. manual which comes with the Twotter runs to 115 pages!
My system runs FSX + the acceleration pack and any of my add ons without a hitch I have all the variables set at max and it runs just fine, brilliant scenery, reasonable traffic levels and the real time weather option seems to match actuals pretty closely.
I'm off to have another run at Lukla
I've just loaded up the aerosoft LuklaX and Twin Otter add ons and they are absolutely f
g brilliant. The pdf. manual which comes with the Twotter runs to 115 pages! My system runs FSX + the acceleration pack and any of my add ons without a hitch I have all the variables set at max and it runs just fine, brilliant scenery, reasonable traffic levels and the real time weather option seems to match actuals pretty closely.
I'm off to have another run at Lukla
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Thinking about it, give me a minute.
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightSim.com but I bought the Lukla and Twotter direct from the Aerosoft site and I went for the discs not the downloads, I like to get my hands on the real goods!
Had a wee jaunt with the Twotter EDI-INV-WIC-KOI-LWK t'other day as I had a wee bit of time on my hands. It was a route Loganair used to do with the aircraft many years ago and I'd travelled it a few times. Used the real weather 15min updates option which was real fun it got a bit choppy after INV.
Had a wee jaunt with the Twotter EDI-INV-WIC-KOI-LWK t'other day as I had a wee bit of time on my hands. It was a route Loganair used to do with the aircraft many years ago and I'd travelled it a few times. Used the real weather 15min updates option which was real fun it got a bit choppy after INV.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Milton Keynes
Age: 62
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microsoft are alright if you want to become an old man overnight and stink of urine. But I would honestly recommend Pacific fighters or Forgotten Battles, these are the last flight sims released from ubisoft and are part of the IL2 series of flight sims.
If you like flying WWII aircraft these sims are about as realistic as they come, with an absolute passion for trying to recreate the original cockpits, engines and flight physics of the WWII aircraft. Even to the point of allowing you to stick your head out to the side of the cockpit to see you finals when landing on a carrier.
The most fun I ever had online was in this sim, when 12 of us online took on 12 online Russian pilots in a dogfight, my heart was pounding for hours afterwards. I did not get shot down, I do not think I shot anyone else down, but everyone said I was great in the dogfight. All too fast and furious but one hell of a rush.
If you like flying WWII aircraft these sims are about as realistic as they come, with an absolute passion for trying to recreate the original cockpits, engines and flight physics of the WWII aircraft. Even to the point of allowing you to stick your head out to the side of the cockpit to see you finals when landing on a carrier.
The most fun I ever had online was in this sim, when 12 of us online took on 12 online Russian pilots in a dogfight, my heart was pounding for hours afterwards. I did not get shot down, I do not think I shot anyone else down, but everyone said I was great in the dogfight. All too fast and furious but one hell of a rush.
To add to Blackace's comments, the IL2 series are quite something (Pacific Fighters and Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe being the most recent - I think if you buy the latter you get all of the previous stuff as well).
Rumours are out there that there is a Battle of Britain version on the stocks ready for launch around July time that is even better than the IL2 series - same people (Oleg Maddox and Ubisoft) as well.
Rumours are out there that there is a Battle of Britain version on the stocks ready for launch around July time that is even better than the IL2 series - same people (Oleg Maddox and Ubisoft) as well.
