NZFF

Hi all.

I'm going to be upgrading/getting a new computer some time soon (I hope), and have a few questions regarding FSX, Vista and hardware. Anyway I'll get to it.
I'm hoping to have something around these specs:

Intel quad core 2.8-3hz
4gb ram
8800GTX
500gb or more HD space
Vista or XP (Totally unsure)
Soundblaster X-fi
Unsure of the motherboard, any suggestions?
My budget is about $3300.

FSX Q's:

I remember reading somewhere that you can 'copy' over Virtual Cockpits to addon aircraft, since FSX has been released I haven't heard about it again. Is it true?

When the weather is set to overcast in FSX, does everything underneath the clouds darken, like in real life? Also, does the sun get blocked out? Unlike FS9 where you could still see strong lens flare.

Now the question/debate about Vista vs XP.

The 2 main things that draw me into Vista, is the new visuals, and the DX10.
Now the problems I've read about Vista. I heard there's no drivers for the 8800 cards for Vista yet. I heard that Vista doesn't support EAX sound or something, so a decent soundcard is pointless. And the other main turn away for me, is I know Vista doesn't run all old applications very well.

I've used XP since I can remember, and from what I have read, it doesn't support 4gb of ram, it will show something like 3.25gb. Will the full 4gb be used? Or will it only use up to how much it recognises? I may upgrade to Vista in a couple of months or so when drivers are out, and it's much better than it is now.

So basically, I would prefer XP untill Vista has drivers and is better than it is now. What would you suggest?

Thanks! Happy flying

Oh yea, almost forgot. I know not all aircraft and scenery from FS9 are compatible with FSX, but are things like sounds? There's some really nice sound packages for FS9, that I couldn't see myself without. Can all sounds from FS9 be used in FSX? Or is it the same story as planes and scenery?

I can only help with the XP RAM question. XP won't see 4GB of RAM, needless to say, any apps won't get the full benefit of it either.

Vista is a new technology on the way in. XP is an old technology on the way out. All I'd say is, consider that before spending any money. I know I'd be thinking longer term than just what is available now.

So, you'd be agreeing with me, that I should get the full 4gb of ram, and get Vista later on in the future?

TBH, I would go 4gb of RAM, and Vista. Vista really isnt as bad as its made out to be, and the drivers are pretty sorted now. Sp1 should be due out soon also. I just think XP would be a step in the wrong direction, especially with a DX10 machine.
If you go with XP, go 4GB anyway. Even if it doesnt use it all, (I am pretty sure it wont), you will still have an extra GB for when you upgrade to either Vista, or an x64 OS.
I havnt come accross many (if any) things that will absolutely NOT work with Vista even after some very minor tweaks, or maybe updates.

For a mobo, I would suggest
http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components...asp?partid=4133
Havnt heard anything bad about this thing.

If you really want to future proof yourself (I dont see the need to at this point), you could go 780i, which will set you back $470, but will allow DDR2-1200 compatibility.

Hope this helps somehow

DX10 is a bit of a have TBH... they didnt really put it into FSX (only the preview thingy which adds VC shadowing etc) and as FSX development has finished it wont be coming.

Unless you're playing other stuff that uses DX10, then it is really a non-event.

As for the RAM... it is not a XP/Vista thing... its a 32bit/64bit thing. MS have confused the issue a little with Vista SP1, by changing it to report the physical RAM installed (ie. 4GB)... However, this does not mean that all 4GB's is available to the OS.

Basically, in a 32bit OS, you have a maximum of 4GB's of address space. Due to memory-mapped devices (video memory, Harddrives + optical drives in DMA mode etc.) taking up some of that address space, it usually leaves somewhere between 3 and 4GB's of address space for working with RAM.

MS tried to workaround this in XP SP1 using some clever trickery that fudged having extra address space (ie. above the 4GB limit), but some poorly written device drivers would have a fit when they were loaded above 4GB and that would make XP really unstable. So they disabled it in SP2 as people were blaming XP.

However, in a 64bit OS, i think the theoretical maximum is something ludicrous like 17,179,869,184 GB's of address space...

Bottomline: if you want to use all 4GB's of RAM then you either need XP64 or Vista 64 (I would probably go Vista in this instance as XP64 can be a little patchy on driver support)


As far as the XP vs. Vista debate... well I am happy with XP. Granted no DX10 but then again there is not really a lot of DX10 out there anyway. Vista is shaping up to be the WindowsME for the current generation and given some of the recent developments/announcements around 'Windows 7' aka Vienna, it would appear that MS are starting to realise this too.

Yeah, I think I'll stick with XP in the mean time.