BilgeRat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 232 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9616 times:
SP1 improved things a lot in terms of performance, but FSX is still a lame duck on contemporary hardware.
I have FSX on a dual core system with 2GB RAM and a 256MB graphics card. If I spend time tweaking and messing about with the settings in FSX I can get pretty good performance with the default aircraft and scenery, but when I tried throwing a complex aircraft in (the FeelThere Legacy) it sucked my framerate down to well below 10fps. It seems if you run FSX on current hardware there's not too much headroom for advanced aircraft or scenery addons. This might end up biting the likes of PMDG and Level D on the backside as they have abandoned FS9 in favour of FSX for their future products. I really can't see many people wanting to pay even higher prices (check out PMDG's 35% price increase) for an aircraft that runs at 10fps on current hardware.
I've read reports from people running absolute top of the line systems, and even they say their FSX performance is't too great. Maybe in a year or two we will have the hardware to run FSX and have the horsepower left over to throw in a sophisticated airliner addon or detailed airport sceneries, but that's not the case at the moment.
If you like to fly relatively simple GA aircraft, then assuming you have a dual core system, 2GB RAM and a decent graphics card, FSX will probably do the trick. If you have a slower system, or you like to fly the more advanced airliner addons you are better of staying with FS9.
Then of course there some of us who think that FSX looks a little "cartoonish" at the moment, and FS9 loaded up with addons like Ground Environment and Flight Environment actually looks better and more convincing.
YEGspotter From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9572 times:
Quoting Ag92 (Reply 4): Wasnt there an article where some people tried to use 2 Nvidia 8800gtx and were still unable to play at high settings with a decent framerate
FSX was not programmed to take advantage of dual video cards (SLI or Crossfire). So, there is little to no advantage to using 2 video cards with FSX.
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 3): If you want to run FSX with any decent frame rates, you're looking at a computer with:
Dual Core processor
Minimum 2GB or ram
512MB graphics card
I agree with this post. Buy a rig with these spec's (minimum), and you should get decent framerates. Since SP1 was released for FSX, performance on multi-core systems has been greatly enhanced. Yes, there is still room for more improvement, but that will come in time (the DirectX 10 patch should be released sometime before the end of the year.)