text: fsx /vista/ xp pro [Archive] - MyCockpit.org
  MyCockpit.org > MyCockpit Builders Forum > Computer Hardware Setup > fsx /vista/ xp pro
  View Full Version : fsx /vista/ xp pro
  i have two copies of fsx all brand new in the box, bought one and won the other.
  my last set up i had six coms networked toghether thru wide view, using fs9 and made several copies to run on my other coms.
  do to a license with fsx i will have to go out and buy 1 more copy maybe two more copies , no problem. (gotta do what you gotta do)
  im sold on wideview and seen what and how it works, its amazing how it looks.
  anyway will fsx work just as good with xp pro or is fsx made for vista or will it work better with vista.
  i like vista for my home com and laptop, but i dont really care about the looks on my sim.
  my plan is to use tripleh2go for the front and wideview for the extreme side views.
  Robert, You will more than likely get many proponents of both OS's. The choice is really up to you. The thing with FSX is that it is CPU intensive so all three of your computers should be at the same or relatively close CPU/RAM/Video build. If you have a couple that you want to try the side views on, and they are not what I stated, who knows it may work for you. But remember WideView is using resources too to try and sync the views. You might touch base with Jon Boe over at the FDS forum. I think he is doing this with projectors+TH2Go+WideView. There are posts here on taming FSX, and some over at FDS too. Builders have spent considerable time in documenting the good and bad. But in the end, it's all about what suits you. Hang onto your seat, the opinions/views are coming your way.
  I don't normally jump on this bandwagon but let me say that Vista is absolute tripe. In fact the whole Vista - FSX thing is one of the biggest f-ing scams of the century. No other company other than some appalling faceless geeky company could make such promises about what they can deliver, then completely fail to do so, and claim their 'shots from the game' are in fact artist impressions.
  While I type I'm installing FSX for the n-th time. Unlike a mature garden, the longer I've had Vista the more unsettled things have become. It's a pointless platform for Flight Simulator, as I believe FSX runs much better on XP Pro, which of course everyone hated when it came out. Oh well
  Hi Paul, I keep hearing the same story over and over again. Although I'm not completely sold on FSX, but...... I had a neighbor, a AAAAAAAAAA+ computer geek and an online gamer. Had the best, fastest computer with VISTA. Showed me some programs with fantastic scenery, taking loads of computer power. I gave him my copy of FSX and asked him to test it for me.
  I asked him to turn on all the bells and whistles. I went over his house the next night, he had it installed, running all the bars all the way over, getting about 30 FPS and the most beautiful scenery I've seen on FS.
  He said the major problem with people setting up Vista Machines, is incompatible hardware. So take it from there.
  But I must tell you with my current FS computer (Windows XP), FSX doesn't fly worth a hoot. Even with low settings. When I use it with FS9, I get a steady 22 FPS.
  FSX is something between XP and Vista. It run better in XP but also run well in Vista only in DX10 mode.
  DX10 is complicated. FSX can run with a lot of problems mainly visuals. What a mean. If you have a scenery or aircraft that made with dx9 then you will not see it or you will see a white screen.
  So, if you want 100% compatibility, you go with XP.
  Some tips for FSX.
  FSX is a CPU requirement program and not a GPU. It is all about rendering and rendering is coming out of the cpu. The gpu just display to the screen all the images.
  If you have a good CPU then you can fly FSX. If not, stay at fs9.
  The only cpu that is running fsx as fs9 is the new qx9770 overclocked at 3,84Ghz.
  The only motherboard that can run the qx9970 fully compitable at 3,84Ghz is Asus rampage extreme.
  If you have those two compenents then you need a fast ram. DDR3 1600 Mhz and more.
  The pre-last think is the hard drive. Velicraptor or solid state disc.
  And the last that counts is the gpu. For one screen an gtx280 or ati4870x2 will be more than ok. For 3 screens you need tri-sli gtx280 or crossfire 2 x 4870x2.
  Result. Unbeliavable frames.
  And a link with a hardware similar to this but more older.
  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zGEOhgLJfSg
  Excellent information. Regarding the video, exactly what I experienced at my neighbors computer.
  As many of you demonstrate here is that "the jury" is still out on XP versus VISTA!
  Indeed there are well argued reasons and points well made from all sides!
  What has to be remembered is that DX10 which supports next generation graphics is a complete rewrite of MICROSOFT graphics support and works only with VISTA.
  DX10 is where the future is and "futureproofing" should be a consideration when making significant investment.
  It is also worthwhile looking at Ken Salters ALACRITY PC to help with framerate performance improvement on both XP and VISTA!
  Achilles, what do you think the kind of performance I'll get with the above hardware and and using a Q6700 it's a 2.66Ghz and I don't know how much I can overclock it.
  You know, this is not very accurate. Microsoft ONLY says that DX10 is only with VISTA. I tell NO!!!!!!;)
  Take a closer look. DX10 is avaliable for WP at least as a project. So, it is matter of time to have DX10 at Xp officially.
  My current pc is equipped with the qx6700 (2,66Ghz) overclocked at 3,2Ghz with asus striker extreme, 2Gb ram DDR2 800Mhz and a NVIDIA 8800 ULTRA.
  I am not satisfied because the proccecor can not render fast due to cpu and motherboard bus speed.
  If I fly near ground there are a lot of (starts and stops) at the screen. Not a problem of FPS because I have plenty of them. At ground more that 20 at big airports. At the air almost 100. But cpu is not capable to reach the speed that fsx gives for render to the cpu.
  QX6700 has 1066 bus speed and QX9770 has 1600 bus speed. You see the difference? Alomost 60% more faster. That's why you need also ram with 1600 Mhz and more speed.
  So whatever you do, wherever you overclock the qx6700 you will not be satisfied as a cockpit builder. At least, I AM NOT!!!!
  Just to clarify. I DID NOT INSTALL DX10 FOR XP.
  I just gave the information.
  so i guess i will have to make a decision on which to run, six here and a half dozen there.
  it would seem and here is where i dont see it, so talk to me like a ten year old:)
  when fsx came out , we knew that it needed a faster everything, but it has been out for awhile now and it seems that it still needs a faster and faster machine, cpu,vid card , motherboard etc.
  it seems to never stop needing.
  i like to stay up on tech, but it seems that the sim world does not have the benefit , of doing the things it use to do with fs9, there was so much more you could do with fs9.
  fsx forces you to , let me see how can i put this, forces you to a desktop type of running than expanding like i could with fs9.
  and here is a question for you , why was fsx geared for cpu power and not gpu power, what was added to fsx that they decided to do that.
  im just trying to weigh my options , because i need to know if i should go fsx or stay with fs9.
  and one other question what makes fsx better over fs9 other than eye candy , am i missing somthing here.
  and the last question i have is this, i jst got my 8500 cpu and now im hearing that it may not be all that good.
  meaning as soon as i use fsx and i start adding extra software , then im right back wher i started from a bogged down systen that wants to hog everything for it self.
  The tecnhology did not changed from fs9 to fsx. Only the settings that can be more bigger's.
  FS9 is also cpu demand program but you have already a cpu than can cover that demands. Imagine to run windows 3.1 at your current pc.
  Hardware is changing to cover software demands.
  Try give all setting of fsx to the left. It is like flying fs9. No problem. Same frames as fs9. But, all setting of FSX to low, means ultra setting to fs9. You see? You just begin from the other end. EYES EXPANSION. If you need to see better thinks you have to pay. That's life.
  There are two ot three more parameters at flying dynamics between fsx and fs9. Also calculates in different way. Try to fly the same airplane at both fs9 and fsx. For me it seems that I can control it better. It is more smooth. But this is only my opinion. I am a simmer and not a real pilot.
  I know nothing about AMD. Sorry.
  thanks for the reply, i just got my intel duo core 3.16ghz, 6mb l2 cache , 1333 front side bus.
  im not going to be using amd anymore thought i try intel.
  but as to what you wrote, are you saying that fsx is really not that differant as to fs9 , but it offers you more of what fs9 gave you at it max, so with fsx giving you more i need more horse power get it.
  so let me ask you folks using fs9 , are you satisfied or are you using it because you can do more with it, than you can with fsx.
  With all of the scenery & airport add-on's I have it looks and runs great.
  Since buying a new FS9 computer back in November I couldn't be happier. The system is well more than adequate to run FS9 and additional upgrade hardware that used to be high-end stuff in it's day was dirt cheap.
  To the best of my knowledge, SLI & Crossfire make no difference and are not supported in FSX. If you run this setup, you are wasting your money.
  Indeed. If you want a low screen resolution then the sli or crossfire is not useless. If you go to big analisys from example 5940 x 1020 then you need it.
  SLI or crossfire is not game related. It is hardware related that makes two or three cards to work together.
  The GPU card does not know what you play. It just tries to cooperate with the other one (or two) gpu card's in order to display the polygons in more frames.
  So, bigger analisys = More polygons = Need more gpu power
  Not to change the subject, but can someone tell me how to send a new thread topic? I still haven't figured out how, and I just puchased RJ Glass cockpit, how is everyone getting the EICS on the second monitor?
  Oh, this topic will come in handy this xmas, when I upgrade from Pentium 4 to either quad or dual core pc.... Thanx
  Click the forum tab and find the forum for which you would like to start the thread.
  You are of course quite right but the Intellectual Property content of DX10 is owned by Microsoft.
  By the time DX10 is ported legally to and works effectively, efficiently and fully supported on XP, I suspect we will have moved on to the successor of VISTA which is well advanced in the development pipe line.
  Thank you Achilles. Important info here as I realize that my video card is probably not the issue. However at times I get a load of vertical lines appear on screen which does suggest that there is a problem, perhaps it's defective, over-heating or simply crashes.
  There are things about my rig that could be factors in terms of performance. Well they are:
  1. I'm running 3 screens (LCDs), originally at native resolutions but now somewhat downgraded, expecting this to bump up frame rates
  2. I only have a 320Mb Nvidia 8800 GTS. This was because at the time it appeared that's all that one needed and it was meant to be a smidgen faster than the 640mb
  3. I haven't bothered overclocking anything
  4. I have an Intel E6600 dual core processor running at 2.4 (stock)
  5. I have Ultimate Terrain, X-Graphics AND My Traffic all running although with low settings
  However, I defragment the hard drive frequently using Ultimate Defrag. Graphically it looks like its doing good and I DO experience faster disk access, especially during loading of the sim, and less blurries.
  I just reinstalled FSX and it now runs beautifully again. Perhaps I should reconsider which add-ons I want to add. I'm going to get a snapshot of the install as it is. FSX with SP2 installed but nothing else. Then instead of a mammoth uninstall and reinstall every couple of months, I can just restore base and re-install the add-ons
  For some reason I get blurred textures which seem to degrade over time, almost like they're being damaged by use of an add-on that eventually makes me thing that it's time for another re-install. Thankfully FSX hasn't yet complained about being installed millions of times although I think this is ok on the same machine.
  Would upgrading the processor be the best bang for buck (or frame rate increase for buck)? Overclocking is clearly an option but not sure how much mileage I'd get out of this. I have an EVGA 680 SLI board not running SLI.
  I am now convinced this would have been the way to go. When FSX came out and for a real long time afterwards, there was little in terms of add-ons. Then FSX drivers took a while so it's only now that we can run FSX like FS9.
  The benefit I guess is that, without any add-on, FSX can run like FS9 would with a ton of add-ons, albeit, like a dog. The same PC that runs FS9 maxed with everything added, runs FSX adequately. It's like there is an FS version in between FS9 and FSX in terms of performance leaps.
  I have toyed with going back to FS9 and still have it installed. I just don't see FS9 as having many more years. It won't be long before a machine that can run FSX really well will be affordable. And now, finally software producers are starting to produce FSX only versions of their software.
  Probably just about the time FSIX is released.:D
  Definitely. Upgrading the processor = the best bang for buck
  Overclocking is also a good bet since you can easily get between 10-20% more speed with simple overclocking on most Intel CPUs. And by simple overclocking, I mean just increasing the clock speed without changing any voltages or adding extra cooling.
  I went from 3.0 GHz to 3.6 GHz on an Intel 6850 and from 2.66 GHz to 3.4 GHz on an Intel Q9400 without any stability issues at all and with standard cooling. So overclocking is certainly worth a try before upgrading the CPU.
  Producers started to build fsx add-ons because today's extremelly pc's can run them. So, they can sell the products.
  When today's extremelly pc's are affortable tommorow, we will see the one add-on behind the other and no conversation will take place about fs9 anymore. The story showed this and the story is repeating again.
  Reading the many technically content rich comments and advice we have seen recently it might be of interest to many who are involved in the "Right OS and its Fitness for Purpose in running FSX and its successor", perhaps consideration of the following might be worthwhile before making a significant cash outlay on ones FSX Hardware and Software!
  The successor to VISTA is not very far away:
  http://news.cnet.com/Next-version-of-Windows-Call-it-7/2100-1016_3-6197943.html?tag=mncol;txt
  The future support of Windows XP has been stated:
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9910253-56.html?tag=mncol;txt
  This does not say that XP will be abandoned but there are questions that need to be answered regarding future MULTICORE support.
  They didn't realize how popular XP was until they tried to pull the plug on it prematurely. I'm glad they will be supporting it until 2014.
  Not all XP Home or XP Pro computers are the low-end bargain basement systems. Even Dell is offering XP computers. So is Acer and E-Machines. Probably others I haven't heard of as well.
  If Vista is supposed to be the end-all for Windows operating systems, why is MS keeping it supported for another five plus years?
  I don't know Achilles if I say that is totally true about the story repeating itself.
  Fsx was so far advanced from fs9 you could not reasonably upgrade.
  You had to make some serious decisions on upgrading at that time, and even now you just got a machine that will run it the way you want it too.
  I went from 2000, 2002, 2004 fairly easy without all of the super changes that FSX is putting us through.
  Yes I had to upgrade, get a better card, and get a faster chip. But at least there was a CPU out that could handle it.
  what I believe is happening is that we are caught in the middle of new and better technology on faster computers , and the old technology is going away.
  So all I can do is wait, and I will bet you anything, that when FS11or FS12 comes out, that is when you will have a sim that you will not even believe is real, because now you will have computers that will use the new technology to handle the software.