NZFF

Hey guys
I'm thinking about taking the plunge and heading toward FSX. My system runs the demo 'OK'. It's quite flyable with a reasonable amount of detail turned on. Granted, this was with clear skies, but the real reason I'd be going for FSX is more as a development tool so I can start writing add-ons for it. I'd still be flying in FS9 primarily for a while but having 'X there for my coding.

Question is, how much of a resource hog is the scenery in the demo compared with the NZ default scenery?

My system is a P4 2.4GHz, 768MB with GeForce fx5200 128MB card. It sounds minimal, but like I say, it runs the demo quite nicely in 1024x768.

Thanks
Richard

I don't think that it is really possible to judge performance based on the demo. Being limited to a small island more than makes up for the extra detail. I suspect that the RTM FSX would not perform at all well on your system, so don't even try it until you have SP1 installed.
However your specs are lower than mine, and I don't consider my system ready for FSX. Don't expect miracles. I had dreadful problems keeping FSX stable with only 1GB RAM, and had to go to 2GB to keep it running. I would dearly love to replace my FX5900 card, but it isn't really worth it until I get a whole new system.

greaneyr wrote:

QUOTE (greaneyr @ Jan 3 2008, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey guys
I'm thinking about taking the plunge and heading toward FSX. My system runs the demo 'OK'. It's quite flyable with a reasonable amount of detail turned on. Granted, this was with clear skies, but the real reason I'd be going for FSX is more as a development tool so I can start writing add-ons for it. I'd still be flying in FS9 primarily for a while but having 'X there for my coding.

Question is, how much of a resource hog is the scenery in the demo compared with the NZ default scenery?

My system is a P4 2.4GHz, 768MB with GeForce fx5200 128MB card. It sounds minimal, but like I say, it runs the demo quite nicely in 1024x768.

Thanks
Richard

I think, you don´t afraid with the fsx and your sytem.
I have

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
2GB DDR2
GForce 8500GT 512MB

FSX is running bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think I must have considerable luck with my system running FSX, cos I've only got an Athlon 3000 processor, 512mb of ddr400 RAM and a Radeon 9600XT, and I get 20fps on medium (or maybe medium-low?) settings with little fuss.

ZK-Brock wrote:

QUOTE (ZK-Brock @ Jan 4 2008, 10:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I must have considerable luck with my system running FSX, cos I've only got an Athlon 3000 processor, 512mb of ddr400 RAM and a Radeon 9600XT, and I get 20fps on medium (or maybe medium-low?) settings with little fuss.

I wonder if it's the video card that's done it? My system used to run FS9 pretty 'average' at best when I was using an old GeForce 2 MX200 (32MB RAM and not directx 9 compatible). Now I've stuck in an FX 5200, I'm not only seeing things like reflective water textures, but I'm managing it with Autogen turned onto full, in 1280x1024, and at 25-30fps. Before i put that card in, I wouldn't have even considered FSX but after seeing how it goes with FS9 I'm rethinking.

I do think processor and RAM might be my stumbling block, since on the demo I do get poorer frame rates in the CRJ due to the extra processing that has to go on in such a complex aircraft.

I think my system would be pretty low spec compared to my mates ones but it keeps up nicely so far and at pretty good settings ,3.0ghz ht 2gig ram 8600gts XP ,
the card someone said would be the difference maker here in this config..

I recently installed FSX and also SP1 and despite a high end laptop, FSX still strains the system. Sometimes frame rates are as low as 8fps but I am currently doing a lot of tweaking. It strikes me that if a high end laptop has problems running FSX then most 'average' set-ups will struggle with FSX.

Turning down things like road traffic does seem to help with the frame rates, and also reducing the texture/mesh settings, but that seems to defeat some of the advantages of FSX.

I am running FSX on a Dual Core 2.2Hz system, 4GB RAM and also a Nvidia 8600GT graphics card. Still occasionally seeing scenery popping into focus, so a lot more adjustments needed.

smooth landings!!

(posting a few screenshots under the 'Screenshots' section now).

happytraveller wrote:

QUOTE (happytraveller @ Jan 4 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Turning down things like road traffic does seem to help with the frame rates, and also reducing the texture/mesh settings, but that seems to defeat some of the advantages of FSX.

I guess it all depends on what you consider 'advantages'. For me, it would be the level of accuracy in default scenery (you don't have to try hard to beat FS9 there) and also awareness of the added functionality provided by FSX vs FS9. There's only so many questions I can ask the FSX users on here, and still not get anything like an idea of what kind of stuff FSX lacks that could make a good add-on.

greaneyr wrote:

QUOTE (greaneyr @ Jan 4 2008, 10:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder if it's the video card that's done it? My system used to run FS9 pretty 'average' at best when I was using an old GeForce 2 MX200 (32MB RAM and not directx 9 compatible). Now I've stuck in an FX 5200, I'm not only seeing things like reflective water textures, but I'm managing it with Autogen turned onto full, in 1280x1024, and at 25-30fps. Before i put that card in, I wouldn't have even considered FSX but after seeing how it goes with FS9 I'm rethinking.

I do think processor and RAM might be my stumbling block, since on the demo I do get poorer frame rates in the CRJ due to the extra processing that has to go on in such a complex aircraft.

Tip for Geforce Users: Look at the nhancer program at the www! Fantastic !

Here the Link