FSX Specs

[Leon]

What type of specs does your computer need to run FSX well

[chickenman]

http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsi...rx.aspx#sysreqs

Minimum specs from Microsoft:

Microsoft® Windows® XP SP2 / Vista
PC with 1 GHz equivalent or higher processor
256 MB of system RAM for Windows XP SP2 / 512 MB Vista
14 GB available hard disk space
DVD-ROM drive
32 MB DirectX 9 compatible video card required
Sound card, speakers or headphones required for audio
Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
56.6 Kbps or better modem for online play

I don't even think that the specs from MS shown are suitable minimum specs for FS2002 OR FS9

I don't have it myself but IF I was getting it my minimum specs would be:
Windows XP SP2
2 Ghz dual core CPU
2GB RAM
512 MB Graphics card
Probably Spend $2500 on this sort of rig.

I would prefer to have:
Vista SP1
>2.5Ghz Quad core
4GB DDR3 Ram
1024MB Graphics Card
I'd spend about $5000 on this sort of system.

Jamie

[bluebird79]

I have my FSX running on an older spec computer and with a few changes and tweeks, etc it runs well (16-20 FPS).

Celeron 2.7 Ghz
1 Gig Memory
256 Meg Geforce FX5500 Video Card

Cheers
Ian

[Anthony]

I'm not sure that you need as higher specs as Jamie has, but thats a very good FSX computer.
Actual minimums (ie what is really the bare minimum, not what Microsoft says is the minimum) in my opinion would be:
2 GHz Dual Core processor
2 gigs RAM
8800GT or equivalent ATI graphics - 512MB
That should run $1200- $1700 or so.

Preferably, you'd want better specs.
Quad core processor (or >3GHz dual core)
2 - 4 gigs RAM (32bit Windows can only use around 3.5 gigs)
8800 or equivalent ATI graphics - 512MB+ VRAM. A higher specced card (GTX?) would be better.
$2000+

I wouldn't bother with Crossfire or SLI myself. I think you'd be better off spending the same on a better CPU and single graphics card.
FS X seems to like NVIDIA cards more than ATI ones from what I've seen, although the HD4850 and 4870 are two pretty nice pieces of kit.
You could obviously get an AMD CPU over an Intel processor, but Intel > AMD in almost every way.

[creator2003]

I have a old P4 3.0ghz ht cpu 2gig ram with a 8600gts 256mb Asus motherboard 430watt the secret to FSx i think "opinion " is the cpu if i was to get a dual core id get nothing lower than 3.0ghz both sides as if you where to run a dual or >2.5Ghz Quad core all you able to run is 2.5ghz "just one of them "and im running 3.0 ghz the only one i have ...

2gig of ram is good for me and i run more cr@p than most people with rendering and stuff i could do with more but im happy at the mo

8600gts could be better but it works just fine with ddr3 and 256mb

so in all respect i have no bottle necks like most with there dual cores and i run mostly 25 flp only the odd addon brings it down to 10 but 10 in FSX means about 17flp in fs9
i guess there is some things money cant buy and only knowledge can ...
hope this helps
mike

ps i brought this system for about $1400 nearly 3years ago with only a upgrade to card and ram

[Charl]

See Dell is supporting a downgrade option from Vista to XP, on all gaming systems until next year.
Food for thought...

[Ian Warren]

Intel Core2CPU
6600 @ 2.40GHz
2.45 GHz, 3.00 of RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX 768mb DDR3 G/card
XP - OS

[Peppermint]

From what I've heard, most games need a good graphics card over a CPU, but it seems FSX (or any FS for that matter) needs a good CPU over a graphics card.

Ian manages to get some great shots of FSX when he uses it, his specs would be nice to have. I'm aiming for overkill with my next pc, just need to wait and see if the bank will approve of a personal loan.


This is what is being put in it:
Core2Duo 3.0GHz E8400
750 watt power supply
P35-DS3R Motherboard
4GB DDR2-800 corsair ram
2 500gb HDD's in raid 0 config (Not sure what it means)
9800GTX Video Card
and vista home premium

Overkill...but I want to make sure it will run FSX and other newer games.

[Anthony]

Raid 0, for everyone's information, is when data is 'striped' across multiple drives.
This gives increased speed and capacity, however if an HDD fails then your data is essentially stuffed.

Wikipedia's article on RAID says this and more about the other types of RAID available.

[NZ255]

QUOTE (Peppermint @ Jul 1 2008, 07:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

9800GTX Video Card

[markll]

QUOTE (Anthony @ Jul 1 2008, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Raid 0, for everyone's information, is when data is 'striped' across multiple drives.
This gives increased speed and capacity, however if an HDD fails then your data is essentially stuffed.

No more stuffed than no RAID at all - RAID 0 is actually a funny one, given that it's not really in the spirit of RAID at all. Good for performance, but no benefit over a single disk in terms of data safety.

But hey, thats why we all back our HDDs up right?

Mark

[benwynn]

With the right settings, I run my Pentium 4 HT, with 2GB Ram, and a 256mb GDDR3 ATI Radeon 2600 HD Pro at a good 20 FPS, on max settings for most display settings except Autogen. Its a killer, along with AI I beleive.

I only just started using FSX today. I thoughtd id give it ago as Eventually I will have to, and it worked out really well. Just gotta get some more addons and im sailing!!

If you havnt switched already because you dont think your PC can handle it, I suggest you give it ago- SP1 and SP2 gave me a 10FPS increase aswell

[Anthony]

Perhaps I should clarify the Raid 0 thing:
Because of how the data is spread across multiple drives, if one goes then the data on the rest isn't very usable because the data is split onto the drive that died.
For example, 3 drive RAID array, one third of you data is on one drive, one third on another and one third on another still and thats kind of like one third everything, not just one third of the whole lot.
Like a pie cut up and put onto three plates i guess, but different because I'm not fantastic at analogies.

What's a backup?

[Timmo]

What's a backup?

Its that thing that you say 0.0000001 seconds before your harddrive fails....'Oh....I should have backed that up'

[Charl]

Raid 1 = Accountant's Computer
Raid 0 = Flight Sim Computer
FSX Computer = this one

QUOTE (Timmo @ Jul 2 2008, 09:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's a backup?
Its that thing that you say 0.0000001 seconds before your harddrive fails....'Oh....I should have backed that up'

After, Timmo, AFTER...never before.

[toprob]

QUOTE (Charl @ Jul 2 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FSX Computer = this one

Meh, "a very souped-up Sony PlayStation 3." I'm waiting for the next-gen...

[Timmo]

QUOTE (Charl @ Jul 2 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After, Timmo, AFTER...never before.

haha...well I always 'get that feeling' right before something happens.....but it is so close to 'before' that it may as well be 'after'....I.e. There is 'nout I can do about it

[AlisterC]

I would prefer a 8800, but I run FSX very happily on a 7950GT 512mb gfx card, and they are extremely cheap now days. So depending on your budget, an 8800 would be ideal, but if you want to spend less, the 7950 would handle it. I bought this card on recommendation of John Murchison back in the early days of FSX, and haven't been disappointed.

[NZ255]

What CPU do you have Alister?

I'm jumping between E8400 and Q6600
Because everyone on the FTX forum is saying quad core is better for FSX so get Q6600
So it's a toss up between:
-newer technology, cooler, faster (3GHz), dual core
OR
-older technology, hotter. slower (2.4GHz), quad core

Hmmmm... bout the same price so? Leaning towards E8400......

[AlisterC]

I got my computer a while ago so it's only a 2.14 (i think) ghz core 2 duo chip. But, I get a solid 30fps flying around NZ in the Level D so I'm happy enough for now. Taxiing at JFK airport in spotview is another story... Microsoft airports are really hard on fps.