SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 10-12-11, 05:24 PM

I'm a lucky dog, I assume. I found reasons to cautiously assume that maybe - maybe - my system would be able to run FSX with carefully set options and addons at acceptable frames. What I found was more and more reason for optimism, and finally daring to go for it all.

To the horror of my wallet, I have accelerated the buildup of my FSX installation. Not only did I install all the addons for airport sceneries that I already had for FS9 - the DVD contained the FSX versions as well - but today I spend the whole day long installing three dozen GB of data from FS Global 2010 (mesh), Ultimate Terrain X Europe (landclasses), Ground Environment X Europe (textures), and REX 2.0 (weather and environment). Then I used the Realair Marchetti to test it in heavy weather in the Alps. And couldn'T believe the frames I still was getting: still easily going to 30, and if deactiviating the external limiter, even up to almost 50. Which did not change when going to night flight and lights all on. Wowh!

It is hereby officially decided: at least for VFR flying, I will completely move from FS9 to FSX. My system is such that it is absolutely safe to do so.

Just at German Airports and Mega Airports scenery I get frames during taxi that are in the range of 12-25. I also use nio traffic addon, and the default traffic at only 40%. The world feels a bit emptier than in FS9, where I use Traffic 2005 at maximum settings, almost, and have a very crowded planet.

I am confident that regular flight operations with high complexity airliners like the PMDG planes is possible over here. How it is to have them at the gate at MegaAirports, remains to be seen though, maybe I will set up two configs, one for VFR, and one for IFR high complexity airliners. Taxing at 12 frames can be tolerated - clicking in a virtual cockpit at that frames starts to become problematic. But at least for VFR, FSX is a safe option to use.

I am glad for the CPU and RAM (8GB) that I have chosen in Spring this year, when I bought a new system. I had read that the - back then - new i5 2400 would do an unbelievable job at bringing almost as much performance like the much more expensive new i7 at higher GHz, and since then I have seen this to be true again and again - it has not failed me on anything I have tried, not even graphic killer applications like Crysis maxed out (with a GTX 460 with 1 GB).

I am also happy to see that the FSX does a much better job at using all four cores, although I read that it is not optimised for it. Maybe some of the tweaks I attached also help in that.

It's the dawning of a new FS era over here.

Maybe I get the Cheyenne again, and maybe even the PMDG 747, in wait for the 737NGX.

Boy, this has been a very expensive month over here. Maybe no more new planes for the moment. Yes, I think its better.

10-12-11, 05:24 PM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,636 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	I'm a lucky dog, I assume. I found reasons to cautiously assume that maybe - maybe - my system would be able to run FSX with carefully set options and addons at acceptable frames. What I found was more and more reason for optimism, and finally daring to go for it all. To the horror of my wallet, I have accelerated the buildup of my FSX installation. Not only did I install all the addons for airport sceneries that I already had for FS9 - the DVD contained the FSX versions as well - but today I spend the whole day long installing three dozen GB of data from FS Global 2010 (mesh), Ultimate Terrain X Europe (landclasses), Ground Environment X Europe (textures), and REX 2.0 (weather and environment). Then I used the Realair Marchetti to test it in heavy weather in the Alps. And couldn'T believe the frames I still was getting: still easily going to 30, and if deactiviating the external limiter, even up to almost 50. Which did not change when going to night flight and lights all on. Wowh! It is hereby officially decided: at least for VFR flying, I will completely move from FS9 to FSX. My system is such that it is absolutely safe to do so. Just at German Airports and Mega Airports scenery I get frames during taxi that are in the range of 12-25. I also use nio traffic addon, and the default traffic at only 40%. The world feels a bit emptier than in FS9, where I use Traffic 2005 at maximum settings, almost, and have a very crowded planet. I am confident that regular flight operations with high complexity airliners like the PMDG planes is possible over here. How it is to have them at the gate at MegaAirports, remains to be seen though, maybe I will set up two configs, one for VFR, and one for IFR high complexity airliners. Taxing at 12 frames can be tolerated - clicking in a virtual cockpit at that frames starts to become problematic. But at least for VFR, FSX is a safe option to use. I am glad for the CPU and RAM (8GB) that I have chosen in Spring this year, when I bought a new system. I had read that the - back then - new i5 2400 would do an unbelievable job at bringing almost as much performance like the much more expensive new i7 at higher GHz, and since then I have seen this to be true again and again - it has not failed me on anything I have tried, not even graphic killer applications like Crysis maxed out (with a GTX 460 with 1 GB). I am also happy to see that the FSX does a much better job at using all four cores, although I read that it is not optimised for it. Maybe some of the tweaks I attached also help in that. It's the dawning of a new FS era over here. Maybe I get the Cheyenne again, and maybe even the PMDG 747, in wait for the 737NGX. Boy, this has been a very expensive month over here. Maybe no more new planes for the moment. Yes, I think its better. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.