Flight Sim X Graphics

KwackerJack

I have the Flight Sim X Gold edition and below are the ' required specs. But as you may know you can turn up the graphics, traffic, realism etc.

So what would I need to upgrade to enable me to have a fast, good looking smooth game??

I see on some YouTube videos that the graphics are almost like looking at the real thing? Is this a modded version or a super gaming computer?

Specs Flight Sim :

Required Processor
2 GHz equivalent or faster processor
Required Operating System
Windows 8, Windows 7, Vista, or XP SP2
Required Memory
1 GB
Required Hard Disk Space
32 GB for installation, 15 GB thereafter; Acceleration requires 12 GB for installation, 6 GB thereafter

Recommended Input Device
Joystick or yoke
Required Input Device
Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
Required Platform
PC
Required Sound Card
Sound card, speakers, or headphones required for audio
Required Video Card
DirectX 9 or higher compatible video card; 128 MB video RAM or higher, Shader Model 1.1 or higher

I have : Along with a ASUS EAH 6670 graphics card

OS Name Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Ultimate
Version 6.0.6002 Service Pack 2 Build 6002
Other OS Description Not Available
OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation
System Name USER-PC
System Manufacturer To Be Filled By O.E.M.
System Model To Be Filled By O.E.M.
System Type X86-based PC
Processor Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU E5400 @ 2.70GHz, 2693 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s)
BIOS Version/Date American Megatrends Inc. P1.80, 08/07/2009
SMBIOS Version 2.4
Windows Directory C:\Windows
System Directory C:\Windows\system32
Boot Device \Device\HarddiskVolume1
Locale Ireland
Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "6.0.6002.18005"
User Name User-PC\mick25
Time Zone GMT Daylight Time
Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB
Total Physical Memory 3.19 GB
Available Physical Memory 1.74 GB
Total Virtual Memory 6.61 GB
Available Virtual Memory 5.05 GB
Page File Space 3.48 GB
Page File C:\pagefile.sys

Mr Benevolent

We'd need to know which addon you'd be using. Yes the detail is fantastic when you've bought PDMG 737NGX. With the bog-standard 737 any PC could run it, but it'd still be a bit crap.

It really depends what you want to use the game for. For reference, I have a slightly better spec than yours overclocked to 3,2Ghz and the best I'd get out of 737 NGX is 30 frames per second, whereas with the bog standard 737 I'd get 60 fps no problems.

KwackerJack

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

We'd need to know which addon you'd be using. Yes the detail is fantastic when you've bought PDMG 737NGX. With the bog-standard 737 any PC could run it, but it'd still be a bit crap.

It really depends what you want to use the game for. For reference, I have a slightly better spec than yours overclocked to 3,2Ghz and the best I'd get out of 737 NGX is 30 frames per second, whereas with the bog standard 737 I'd get 60 fps no problems.

Overclocking is like a black-art to me, I haven't a notion

I am currently training for my PPL and I am using a C172 for instrument familiarisation. I know its not real but I keeps me in-check when I am not in the air piloting a real C172

I just want the best performance and graphics from a training perspective

CrinkElite

I've read that the processor is the main factor in fsx.
specifically the core clock speed as with many titles from it's era it doesn't benefit from extra cores.

I certainly notices this when I overclocked (increased the core clock speed) on my q6600.

I never used many addons so it's possible they rely heavily on graphics.

Definitely have a look at overclocking.
It mainly involves switching a few settings in the BIOS any using software to monitor temps.

All of this is well documented over in the computers and technology forum.

If you happen to have the right hardware you could see huge improvements

BeardySi

I'd imagine your machine will struggle with high setting and/or complex addons.

FSX was developed for single core machines and the amount of cores you're running is of far less relevance than their power - a 3.5-4+GHz machine would be best for performance - especially if you're intending to use complicated commercial addon aircraft or sceneries.

Mr Benevolent

If its just instrument training then the default C172 should be fine. Just takeoff from smaller airports. If you're looking for a more realistic experience, this should do the trick.