What Hardware To Buy (aerosoft's Suggestion)

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

From this month on we'll publish what we call 'the standard system'. This is what we use in the office (or what some people whould like to have in the office, lol), and is always something around 750 euro. It is designed for FSX and will work great even under demanding conditions. You will see I don't really care a lot about brands or specs and that I try to keep things as simple as possible. It's priced in Euro (with tax) and you might need to shop around to get these prices. In US dollar you can use the same numbers but you probably pay a bit less.

Want to hear something extraordinary? When FS2004 launched there was NO WAY you could get acceptable framerates for this money...

CPU (250 / 150 euro)

The brand and sockel is easy. It got to be a Intel chip in a 775 sockel. But after that things depend on what you got to spend and what sim you use. A Core 2 Quad Q9550 has 4 cores running at 2833 Mhz and will make mince meat of even the most demanding modern application. If you got a bit less to spend or only use FS2004 (keep in mind that sim will only use one core) you could go for a Core 2 Duo E8500 that has two cores running at 3166 Mhz and will be great for FS2004. Get the boxed version with the cooler if you just want to fly or get a better cooler if you want to over clock. These chips can handle at least another 300 Mh without any problem.

Graphics card (150 Euro)

It does not happen often but for once it is easy to recommend a graphics card. Anything with a ATI Radeon HD4850 is smashing value for money. There are versions from many vendors but it's all more or less the same card and as long as you get 512 Mb memory you got something hot. Buy anything else at this moment and you are either not paying attention or are looking for the last few fps more and are willing to spend a small fortune for that. For FS2004 even this card to total overkill, anything costing 50 Euro will do and spending more money will not make it any faster. Keep in mind, the CPU determines how many frames, the GPU determines how they look. Ignore people who say they got double the FPS with a new graphics card, they are trying to justify spending a fortune!

Memory (60 Euro)

Stop whining and get 4 Gb (in the form of 2 stick of 2Gb). Even though your 32 bit OS might only use 3.something of that. So you wasted 8 euro ... the additional 1.2 Gb will make your OS happy. And you want the OS happy. DDR-2 800 is most likely what you want, don't waste money on memory with coolers or very high specs... unless you overclock very seriously it doesn't matter one little bit.

Harddisk (2x 70 Euro)

Get two 500 Gb SATA disks, it's cheaper and a bit more secure then getting one Tb disk. If you feel like a bit of tweaking set them up in RAID configuration, otherwise just dont bother, use one for your OS and applications and one for your games. Defrag often, before and after installing big stuff. The brand doesn't matter a lot, having a backup does.

Mainboard (100 euro)

Get one with onboard sound and G-lan (though it will be hard to find something without). There are loads of brands and in speed they are all roughly the same but some offer more connections etc. I like my 70 Euro Asus P5N. Does all I want but I would take an Asrock or Abit just as well.

OS (100 euro)

Officially you don't have an option anymore as Windows XP is not sold any more. But you can still get it and if FS is REAL important it should be your choice. Vista is fine though (with 4 Gb of mem) but under conditions you could have some problems. Vista 64 bits, sure why not, you get more usable memory. Forget about using scanners from 1996 though. Vista Home/Business/Ultimate? Most of the time you won't even care. The Home edition is fine.

Box/PSU (75 euro)

Though you might have one, your old box and Power Supply Unit might be old and tired. If you get new goodies get them a nice new box. Try to stick to a brand and get a 350 watt PSU, not less. Forget about those small cases, they are nice if you never have to open them.

Optical Burner (25 euro)

I suggest getting a SATA one so you don;t have to mess with those flat cables anymore. Brand and speed... whatever, how long you normally wait for a DVD to be done? You care?

Monitors (2 x 170 Euro)

Getting two 19 inch monitors will give you 2880x1024 pixels, that's a lot of room to put panels on. Get models with thin edges and don't stare too long at the specs, go to a shop where they got a lot and see what screen you like, then check if it is roughly on middle settings (not full contrast etc). Get two of the same series.

Now this will come to something just over 1000 Euro. But it assumes you start from nothing and most people will have monitors, cases, Windows versions they can use. So for most users it will costs something like 700 to 800 Euro's. For this you get a box that will run FSX great, with framerates over 20 fps in even the most demanding locations. For FS2004 it will be overkill but as there is almost no progress in single core CPU speed you will waste at least half the CPU no matter what you do.

[Waleed 29]

DearMathjis,

great idea, especially given the fact that a lot of people, including me tend to ask questions regarding new systems.

My system is as follows:

Quad core q6600 at 2.4.

4gb ocz ram @800mhz.

9800 gtx bfg 512mhz.

320gb hard drive.

My weakness I think from all you mention is the hard drive.

I use fs9 at full settings minus airplane shadows. Numerous payware, and free airports.

Aes offcourse, Airbus vol.1, and 2, and next month A380, and RJ.

FSBuild, Activesky, and fsglobalx, and will install ground environment, MAF,madrid, KJFK, LFPG as they come out(boxed mainly.). VFR Paris, London, Insbruck.

I just uninstalled fsx for two reasons:

1-would like to get one more hard drive, and install to it to get better speed.

2- Save a bit of money.(Switz. pro, F-16, and Madeira for starters.) By waiting a while, I reckon it would be easier on my wallet.

I am strategically buying stuff for fsx/fs9, or fsx only, and will use it more often once I have more add-ons.

My question here is, are the 2x320gb hd"s enough, or should I just go for something in the region of 500gb?

Keep in mind that prices in Dubai are more expensive than most places. ( I got my ram and graphics card from the U.S. for really cheap.)

Also, do they need to be from the same manufacturer, or just the same size?

I ask because I already have an extra 320gb hd I use as external for backups, and could purchase something different to replace it and free it up to be used in RAID0 config if I can figure that out.

Once again, and as usual, thanks.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

DearMathjis,

great idea, especially given the fact that a lot of people, including me tend to ask questions regarding new systems.

My system is as follows:

Quad core q6600 at 2.4.

4gb ocz ram @800mhz.

9800 gtx bfg 512mhz.

320gb hard drive.

Nice hardware! Just hope you did not buy it for FS2004 as you are wasting 75% of your CPU and at least the same in your GPU in that sim.

Buying harddisks is not complex, the bigger they get the less you pay per megabyte of strorage. They also don't get a lot faster as generations go by (unlike CPU's GPU's etc) so it's not a bad thing to invest in. You'll be using it probably longer then any other part of your system. So I would go for the biggest you can get, and get two the same, you need that if you run them in RAID. Keep in mind that a better hard drive will make you files load faster and not make the sim run any better. Personally I don't really care a lot for fast drives, they are expensive and when you got Vista and 4 Gb you mostly don't see a lot of difference as Vista caches data pretty well.

There is one argument against this idea of buying them for the long run. Harddisks get slower as they age and the more you use them the slower they get. This is caused by the less precise movement of the heads and that means more often data has to be read more then once. I noticed this on two harddisks that were identical. One was used as my C drive for a year and the other was an unused backup. When the disk failed I copied my backup to the new disk and was surprised all went so much faster. I now use a harddisk no longer as one year as my main drive before sending it to less important data storage tasks.

[Waleed 29]

Mathjis, I actually bought it with both in mind, with the reality of fsx dominating in the not too distant future in mind.

I guess the best thing to do is go with perhaps a 500gb size.

The speed on my system is good enough for my taste.

Thanks as usual.

[Tripple7 0]

In this topic there will be a lot of discusions about the best hardware for your flightsim computer but there is one more thing that is even much more important.

If you have the money to buy this computer only for FSX then you are already halfway towards many happy hours of flying.

What I mean is this.

Never use this computer for other things then FSX!!

Don't go surfing on the net with this computer! Do not put useless programs on this computer!

If you do not need Microsoft Office, Acrobat Reader, Messenger, Microsoft Outlook and many more of those programs then skip them.

Only download the newest drivers, newest updates from Aerosoft and all your other programs and keep your Windows updated!

Buy an old computer or like me a laptop and do the surfing and more on this computer but not on your FSX machine because every time when you go on the net it will be slower and slower.

Have fun with our fantastic hobby.

Nico

the Netherlands

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

In this topic there will be a lot of discusions about the best hardware for your flightsim computer but there is one more thing that is even much more important.

If you have the money to buy this computer only for FSX then you are already halfway towards many happy hours of flying.

What I mean is this.

Never use this computer for other things then FSX!!

Don't go surfing on the net with this computer! Do not put useless programs on this computer!

If you do not need Microsoft Office, Acrobat Reader, Messenger, Microsoft Outlook and many more of those programs then skip them.

Only download the newest drivers, newest updates from Aerosoft and all your other programs and keep your Windows updated!

Buy an old computer or like me a laptop and do the surfing and more on this computer but not on your FSX machine because every time when you go on the net it will be slower and slower.

Have fun with our fantastic hobby.

Nico

the Netherlands

Yes, that's often said. But I never seen any proof for it. Right now I got the following list of programs open:

• Office Word 2007, 4 documents, one of them almost 500Mb
• Office Note 2007
• Office Outlook 2007, with a massive pst file, certainly over a gig.
• Photoshop CS3, think 12 small files in there opened
• Firefox (how else could I read this?), 11 tabs open
• FSX
• FileZilla, uploading a new Beta of something
• In the background there are scanners, over 25 non standard services, sidebars etc.

It's a messy system, I don't clean it out very well and it has not been reset is a few days. But yet I get 36 fps (average) in the current position where I am now in FSX. Now I will reboot into as clean profile and use AlacratyPC to start FSX. That will stop a load of processes and clean out memory. Be right back...

Okay, clean reboot, far less stuff running in the background and only FSX and Firefox as running applications. Same position, same settings in FSX and I get 36 fps average. Now I am not surprised as I know how XP and Vista is able to move apps to disk and give resources to the most demanding application. But many people go to great length to optimize their systems to run FS with almost no result. The whole list of applications used less then 2% of one CPU (so 0.5% of my total CPU power) and used 290 Mb of internal memory the moment FSX was running. All the applications were dormant and almost all memory was spooled to disk.

So I see no reason what so ever to keep a clean and separate machine for FS. Trust your OS to take care of all that stuff. Now I do not say you should not keep your machine clean and remove the stupid stuff some companies dump in your taskbar and startup folder and there are a few things that REALLY help (kill MS defender and your virus scanner if you don't know how to teach them to leave FS alone) but really... check out FSX with and without all your apps running. You'll see. Also check out this: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=19309

[harpsi 0]

Hi

There is one importante thing you didn´t mention, besides the fact that you think XP is better for FSX and not vista. FSX was maybe concepted to be used with vista, so I am surprised why XP is the right option. The other issue is DX. Should we use DX9c or DX10?

And another question: with your system, can you run for example FSX, EGLL from aerosoft, 80 or 100 AIs on the ground and some more at the landing phase like it always happens in Heathrow, and at least level D 767 or digital aviation fokker 100 with at least 20 frames? I don´t ask PMDG 747 because it seems impossible according to what you said. If the answer is yes, I believe that I can get 30 frames with all other sceneries and if so, I will buy a new system in some days to run FSX properly.

harpsi

[Tripple7 0]

On this clean machine that I was talking about, my OS is Vista 64 bit with 4 GB memory (Vista 32 bit doesn't support 4 GB).

My average Fps is 40 with peaks of 76 Pfs!

So let all people talk about FSX and Vista but I am very pleased with it.

Never had any problems with this machine and it is running already for almost one year.

Regards, Nico

[Waleed 29]

Well, I personally have had no real "slowness" of my system yet, even though I am filling up the 320gb hd pretty fast.

I was at first trying to get as powerfull a system as I can get, so that I can use both fs9, and fsx, but will eventually be migrating to fsx.

I am not too concerned with more than a maximum of perhaps 30fps. I luckily do not use the queen of the skies.

I think I will try to get say a 500gb hd, and use one partition for fs9, and one for fsx even though they do not conflict, or perhaps just leave them both on there in one single partition.

My main question here is wether I can leave the 320gb hd for the os, and my wife's stuff?

Would having the 500gb hd for fs, and using the 320gb for all the rest be a good idea?

Thanks.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi

There is one importante thing you didn´t mention, besides the fact that you think XP is better for FSX and not vista. FSX was maybe concepted to be used with vista, so I am surprised why XP is the right option. The other issue is DX. Should we use DX9c or DX10?

And another question: with your system, can you run for example FSX, EGLL from aerosoft, 80 or 100 AIs on the ground and some more at the landing phase like it always happens in Heathrow, and at least level D 767 or digital aviation fokker 100 with at least 20 frames? I don´t ask PMDG 747 because it seems impossible according to what you said. If the answer is yes, I believe that I can get 30 frames with all other sceneries and if so, I will buy a new system in some days to run FSX properly.

harpsi

Well, the Vista/XP issue us a tricky one. We got products that certainly do better on XP and you will see we advise XP in the requirements list in those cases. We are not sure why this is, but we do know that 2048 sized bitmaps don't work well on Vista. I personally use Vista as I think it is the best OS right now, but would prefer XP if it was only for FS. And the DX10 is just a preview, far to many things don't work. So it's nice to experiment with but not for serious use.

I can't comment on your example as I don't have any of these aircraft loaded. But with that many AI aircraft it will certainly be pushing it. In both sims of course, I most likely struggle get 20 fps under those conditions in FS2004 (though that could be because of my setup that is really tweaked for FSX). But clearly it will be a worst case scenario.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Well, I personally have had no real "slowness" of my system yet, even though I am filling up the 320gb hd pretty fast.

I was at first trying to get as powerfull a system as I can get, so that I can use both fs9, and fsx, but will eventually be migrating to fsx.

I am not too concerned with more than a maximum of perhaps 30fps. I luckily do not use the queen of the skies.

I think I will try to get say a 500gb hd, and use one partition for fs9, and one for fsx even though they do not conflict, or perhaps just leave them both on there in one single partition.

My main question here is wether I can leave the 320gb hd for the os, and my wife's stuff?

Would having the 500gb hd for fs, and using the 320gb for all the rest be a good idea?

Thanks.

Current wisdom would say to use the biggest and fastest disk for the OS, but that's really not so important. Don't fill the disks to much though, anything over 80% and even after a defrag the OS will still got to look for files

[Waleed 29]

Current wisdom would say to use the biggest and fastest disk for the OS, but that's really not so important. Don't fill the disks to much though, anything over 80% and even after a defrag the OS will still got to look for files

So less than 80% is o.k.?

I doubt for now I have more than 60%, but still will get a bigger hd to fit all the new fsx sceneries that are coming out, including the heavy hitters(10gb or more.)

For now at least, I still want to keep fs9 going, as I love aes services, and do not want to overload the hd with both fsx, and fs9.

One other silly question on the side if you do not mind,

When using fs9, I keep all airports active, even though I am only flying in between 2.

On my old(slow) computer, I used to only activate the two I needed, and wanted to know if I should do this currently?

I do not see much of a slowdown currently, only at initial load.

Thanks.

[PIC2310 9]

Hello People!

I wirte this Post in German!

Sooo, at first my system:

AMD 64 X2 3800+

MSI SLI Platinium

2x Geforce 7600GT

2 GB RAM

320 GB Harddisk

Hallo Leute, ich habe auch den FSX, und das von anfang an, ich habe ihn auch getestet mit SP1/SP2 usw., aber der FSX ist leider zu schlecht geworden. Meine Tests waren auf 3 PC bezogen die noch um klassen besser sind als mein System das ich oben angeführt habe.

Der FSX hat aber sachen die einfach toll sind, zB das Wasser, aber das ist einen PC Piloten mit der Zeit mehr oder weniger egal.

Was ist wichtig, ich spreche nur für mich und meine VA (VA ohne FSX Support) , Gute Flugzeuge, gute Airports und eine gute Darstellung. Im FSX kann man nie alles auf 100% fahren im FS9 schon, zusätlich ist der FS9 so gut mit Addons abgedeckt, das ich nichts neues haben will.

In meiner Signatur könnt ihr ja sehen was ich so an Payware Addons besitze, und dann könnt ihr auch verstehen das keiner so schnell umsteigen will oder kann.

Auserdem finde ich es wirklich lustig wenn ein Addon Hersteller und Vertreiber einen Beitrag im Forum eröffnet mit Infos und Preisen zu der Hardware.

Das leben ist schon teuer genug , es kann ich zB nicht jeder einen neues PC leisten, und wenn doch was hat er davon eine FSX der nicht auf 100% betrieben werden kann.

Ich bin auch noch fest der überzeugung das Aerosoft seine Produkte strickt trennen sollte, zwischen FS9 und FSX dann kann man ja sehen wo die 70% der User sind die FSX fliegen.

Ich kenne auf 100 Leute in der VA Zene nur 3 die den FSX noch auf der Platte haben, alle anderen haben ihn nicht mal mehr drauf.

Schöne Grüße aus Graz

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

So less than 80% is o.k.?

I doubt for now I have more than 60%, but still will get a bigger hd to fit all the new fsx sceneries that are coming out, including the heavy hitters(10gb or more.)

For now at least, I still want to keep fs9 going, as I love aes services, and do not want to overload the hd with both fsx, and fs9.

One other silly question on the side if you do not mind,

When using fs9, I keep all airports active, even though I am only flying in between 2.

On my old(slow) computer, I used to only activate the two I needed, and wanted to know if I should do this currently?

I do not see much of a slowdown currently, only at initial load.

Thanks.

Yes 80% should be enough for modern OS's. And I see no reason to disable parts of scenery other then saving a few Kb of memory.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hello People!

I wirte this Post in German!

Sooo, at first my system:

AMD 64 X2 3800+

MSI SLI Platinium

2x Geforce 7600GT

2 GB RAM

320 GB Harddisk

Hallo Leute, ich habe auch den FSX, und das von anfang an, ich habe ihn auch getestet mit SP1/SP2 usw., aber der FSX ist leider zu schlecht geworden. Meine Tests waren auf 3 PC bezogen die noch um klassen besser sind als mein System das ich oben angeführt habe.

Der FSX hat aber sachen die einfach toll sind, zB das Wasser, aber das ist einen PC Piloten mit der Zeit mehr oder weniger egal.

Was ist wichtig, ich spreche nur für mich und meine VA (VA ohne FSX Support) , Gute Flugzeuge, gute Airports und eine gute Darstellung. Im FSX kann man nie alles auf 100% fahren im FS9 schon, zusätlich ist der FS9 so gut mit Addons abgedeckt, das ich nichts neues haben will.

In meiner Signatur könnt ihr ja sehen was ich so an Payware Addons besitze, und dann könnt ihr auch verstehen das keiner so schnell umsteigen will oder kann.

Auserdem finde ich es wirklich lustig wenn ein Addon Hersteller und Vertreiber einen Beitrag im Forum eröffnet mit Infos und Preisen zu der Hardware.

Das leben ist schon teuer genug , es kann ich zB nicht jeder einen neues PC leisten, und wenn doch was hat er davon eine FSX der nicht auf 100% betrieben werden kann.

Ich bin auch noch fest der überzeugung das Aerosoft seine Produkte strickt trennen sollte, zwischen FS9 und FSX dann kann man ja sehen wo die 70% der User sind die FSX fliegen.

Ich kenne auf 100 Leute in der VA Zene nur 3 die den FSX noch auf der Platte haben, alle anderen haben ihn nicht mal mehr drauf.

Schöne Grüße aus Graz

I am not sure why you post this here as the topic here is not if FSX is good or bad, but about whats good value for money regarding hardware. Think this thread would be more suitable... http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=19472. There we discuss why we do what we do. But I am glad you are happy with FS2004, your hardware is very suited for it (apart from the very serious GPU overkill of course). With your CPU you will most likely never be happy with FSX. It's a big shame, but AMD is simply not able to keep up with multi core processing at this moment.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

No sooner did I write that single core processing power is a dead end and that you most likely never find a faster CPU for FS2004 then what's on sale right now or Intelproved me wrong. If you are really into FS2004 and want to stay there you might have an option to get out of this dead end with the new Core i7, read below. Of course if you have a quad core i7 you might as well run FSX, lol.

____

IDF: Core i7 Will Self Overclock

7:30 PM - August 19, 2008 by Steve Seguin, Tuan Nguyen

Source: Tom's Hardware – Category : CPU

19 comments

Intel’s upcoming Core i7 processors will feature a turbo mode, as announced on Day 1 of IDF. Although not quite like the retro turbo mode button found on computers of the late 1980’s, the turbo mode on Core i7 will still result in increased single threaded performance. The technology is based on the idea of dynamically increasing the frequency of the CPU when not all the cores are in use, archiving higher single threaded performance when that is all that is required.

ZoomThe technology is aided by the improved power management features found on Nehalem also announced at IDF. The Integrated Power Gate technology will shut off idle cores, reducing their voltage to zero, rather than just lowering the power provided to them. Not having as many cores on using power and producing heat, will allow other cores to use more power, increasing the performance of those cores, while still not exceeding the maximum TDP of the processor.

In the following scenario for example, if you are using a Core i7 with 4 cores, and the game you are using uses only a single core, the other three cores will turn off, reducing the heat produced by your processor, allowing the only running core to be automatically overclocked for higher performance. This new technology may be a compelling reason for many to no longer choose the faster clocked dual core processor over the slower quad core, as the quad core could offer now equal single threaded performance at the same price

[Barnesy2006 0]

Could someone please help me out then as i have:-

AMD Phenom X4 Quad-Core Processor GP9600 2.3Ghz

4GB of OCZ Ram 1333MHz DDR3 (2x 2GB)

2X Sapphire ATI 3870 Graphic Cards

Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-DQ6 AMD 790FX (Socket AM2) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard

And all the running on Windows Visat Ultimate edition.

The problem is that i don't seem to be able to run FSX with good framerates. Even with sliders near the middle at St Maarten in the default Cessna i

only get between 8-15 FPS. Surely i'm doing someting wrong but i am yet to find it? So for the mean time i'm having to stick with FS9 which gives me

great FPS with everything maxed out.

[newmanix 61]

Hey Mathijs,

Here is my current rig. I purchased the nVidia 9800GTX but it was too big!!!!! It didn't fit the CPU slot!!!! And it is currently on sale for USD$220.00. I was so mad!!!!! This is my last time bying a Sony desktop. As a result, I had to settle for the ATI Radeon HD4850. I am happy with it as I no longer have any major framerate issues. All MSFS graphics are maxed! Only issue I have is landing at FSDT LSZH in heavy thunderstorm using Captain Sim 757. The framerate slows right before touchdown due to loading senery.

Here are 2 videos on my youtube page PRIOR to the memory upgrade. I no longer have those framerate issues. Although unlike you, the only other programs running on my computer while using FS9 is FDC and Active Sky. Be sure to watch in HIGH quality.

Overland 777 @ FlyTampa VHHX.

Overland 737 @ Flightzone 01 Portland. This video features AES at the end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Kdw8o12jzw

Here is what I am currently running:

Sony Vaio Desktop VGC-RC210G

Windows XP Home Media Center Edition

Processor Family: Intel 9 Series (Pentium D) Dual Core

RAM: 2 GB

Speed : 3GHz1

Storage Capacity: 320GB (Added 500GB external Western Digital hard drive)

RAID: Yes

Previous Graphics Card: ATI Radeon X300 (removed)

Current Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD4850 $USD180.00 at FRY's Electronics

Primary Optical Drive: Dual-Layer DVD+/-RW

Secondary Optical Drive: DVD-ROM

Interface : TV-Out, VGA Out, Dual DVI-D Out, x16 PCI Express

Format(s) Supported : Giga Pocket® MPEG2 Realtime Encoder board with TV Tuner

Monitor: Dell UltraSharp 3007WFP-HC 30-inch WideScreen Flat Panel Monitor Max Resolution: 2560 x 1600 / 60 Hz

Image Contrast Ratio: 1000:1

Response Time: 8 ms

Flight Control System: SAITEK X52

What do you think Mathijs? So does anyone recommend any other upgrades for my current system?

For FSX I am planning to purchase this mid next year:

http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529...4.php#techspecs

Cheers guys!

[Kevin Glover 7]

Bless you for getting the 4850, Mathijs

I was fretting over whether to get the '70, but if it's good enough for Aerosoft, I'm getting the '50!

My new specs hopefully coming soon-

Q6600

P23Neo2

WD 640GB 3 GB/s

ATI 4850

Corsair Dominator 2x1GB (up to 6GB later)

Vista Home Premium 64bit

Tsunami Dream

Hiper Type R 520 watt

Can't wait!!!

[FSXaddict 18]

I agree with you in almost every aspect other than brands (I prefer Nvidia over ATI). The only major argument I may bring is when you said "Ignore people who say they got double the FPS with a new graphics card, they are trying to justify spending a fortune!" I have the same processor now that I did when I purchased my computer, an AMD 64 X2 2.66. I started with an Nvidia Geforce 8500 GT graphics card and I got around 5-10 fps on average, worse over cities. I upgraded to an 8800 GT OC, and now get 30 fps on average anywhere. I still have the exact same processor. If your saying is true, where did I get these extra frames? Not meaning to argue, just thought the statement was a little off. Otherwise, great thread.

[newmanix 61]

Bless you for getting the 4850, Mathijs

I was fretting over whether to get the '70, but if it's good enough for Aerosoft, I'm getting the '50!

My new specs hopefully coming soon-

Q6600

P23Neo2

WD 640GB 3 GB/s

ATI 4850

Corsair Dominator 2x1GB (up to 6GB later)

Vista Home Premium 64bit

Tsunami Dream

Hiper Type R 520 watt

Can't wait!!!

Dude get the HD4850. I had doubts about it but when the nVidia (my prefrence) did not fit, I was recommended to go with the ATI HD4850. I am glad I did. I can attest to Mathijs and say that it is a great video card at a great price. Mine came with a $50 mail in rebate. Your framerates will improve substantialy. At least it did for me. And watching movies couldn't be better.

my $00.02

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Could someone please help me out then as i have:-

AMD Phenom X4 Quad-Core Processor GP9600 2.3Ghz

4GB of OCZ Ram 1333MHz DDR3 (2x 2GB)

2X Sapphire ATI 3870 Graphic Cards

Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-DQ6 AMD 790FX (Socket AM2) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard

And all the running on Windows Visat Ultimate edition.

The problem is that i don't seem to be able to run FSX with good framerates. Even with sliders near the middle at St Maarten in the default Cessna i

only get between 8-15 FPS. Surely i'm doing someting wrong but i am yet to find it? So for the mean time i'm having to stick with FS9 which gives me

great FPS with everything maxed out.

Sounds indeed like something is not working out. I suggest deleting the FSX.cfg first of all (a new one will be made by FS). You see all cores working when FSX runs? The CPU is not brilliant for FSX but you should get better results.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I agree with you in almost every aspect other than brands (I prefer Nvidia over ATI). The only major argument I may bring is when you said "Ignore people who say they got double the FPS with a new graphics card, they are trying to justify spending a fortune!" I have the same processor now that I did when I purchased my computer, an AMD 64 X2 2.66. I started with an Nvidia Geforce 8500 GT graphics card and I got around 5-10 fps on average, worse over cities. I upgraded to an 8800 GT OC, and now get 30 fps on average anywhere. I still have the exact same processor. If your saying is true, where did I get these extra frames? Not meaning to argue, just thought the statement was a little off. Otherwise, great thread.

Clearly there was a problem with the previous card (or driver). If you use tools to see the load on the GPU you'll see that it is not at all running hard. FSX still does a lot of things on the CPU that other games let the GPU do. But it's a strange jump in performance!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Dude get the HD4850. I had doubts about it but when the nVidia (my prefrence) did not fit, I was recommended to go with the ATI HD4850. I am glad I did. I can attest to Mathijs and say that it is a great video card at a great price. Mine came with a $50 mail in rebate. Your framerates will improve substantialy. At least it did for me. And watching movies couldn't be better.

my $00.02

It is truly amazing value for money. If this would be a 'normal' market without all the hypes it would wipe out the competition in weeks.

[kitte 3]

I'd like to add one thing which is not entirely hardware related but still worth considering. Every so often my FS9 will start acting up for different reasons. It might be the AFCAD of a newly installed scenery that causes havoc or installation of a new driver that is not working well and is hard to totally clean out. If I can't locate the culprit I'm stuck with a badly functioning FS9 or face 4-5 days of re-installing everything.

Instead, I create an image of the partition at different stages and store the image on the second partition of my 1 TB hard disk. I have created one when Windows XP is installed with all the patches and drivers ("winxp"). Then one image ("basic-fs9") when FS9 is onboard with add-ons that I always use and that I know won't cause any problem. After that I made an image ("full-fs9") when I had almost everything installed but still add-ons that I at least have no reason to believe will cause any problem. And finally I continued installing anything my hear desires just to check it out and made an image after that.

I also have av excel sheet where I write down the add-ons as I go along and install them, so that I know what is actually installed (and also with which patches etc). It's certainly a bit tedious work but once I have these images I feel in full control of my system. Say that I have been exploring the world and have added lots of freeware add-ons that somehow may slow down my computer and I then want to fly on VATSIM. I simply reload the "basic-fs9" image and in about 15 minutes I have a very clean FS9-installation.

Personally I use Acronis True images for creating and loading these images but there are other alternatives on the market (Ghost from Symantec being perhaps the most famous one).

/Krister