WestWind Airlines

Well, after pondering over my options from another topic (that being the Worth Getting FS2004 debate); I have decided (along with my parents) to purchase a new PC to replace my rather older PC, which seems to getting slower by the day.

So what I'm thinking of getting, is the Packard Bell iXtreme X6618; of course I understand that Packard Bell are mainly a family PC builder but however I am not a really hardcore gamer (I'm much more interested in letting my Playstation 3 take the strain) but I just want to have FSX running smooth, with at least suitable visuals, with no issues with sound crackling (although I could solve this with a format) and constant performance drops.

Without further delay, these are the specs this PC model has;

Intel® Core 2 Quad Q8200

(2.33GHz, 4MB Cache)

Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium (Looks like I will have to grin and bear this)

4GB DDR2 memory

640GB SATA hard drive (7200rpm)

1GB NVIDIA® GeForce GT120 graphics

Dual Layer DVD Rewriter

8x USB and 1x FireWire port

So I'm just curious to know how well this PC could run FSX at medium to high graphics with minimal stutter (I am open to other options) but these must lie below £700, seeing as my Parents are unwilling to spend any more on just one PC.

Thanks for any assistance.

---

Graeme Paterson - WWA1965
Command Captain - Toronto Hub
No Real-World Experience (But content on learning more about it!)
Flight Simulator X/Flight Simulator 2004
Radar Contact v4.3
Current Aircraft: Dreamwings Bombardier Dash 8-Q200

Hi Graeme,

 

I've just bought an Acer M5201 and am really pleased. at £699 from Comet it comes in just under budget too.

http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/541427/ACER-92.M2F7L.UCP/tab/reviews#reviews

http://www.acer.co.uk/acer/product.do?link=oln85e.redirect&changedAlts=&CRC=600100215#wrAjaxHistory=1

---

Andy K WWA2229
AHM LEMD
Command Captain & RW PPL
FSX + ISG1

Sounds like a really good machine (especially with that superb Ati Card thrown in) but there's only one issue which is the fact they don't include a nice widescreen monitor, which is what the iXtreme offers. Seeing as all I've got at the moment is a 17" (I think) 1280 x 1024 LCD screen, which I guess is fine for my older gaming but to see FSX and other games in full glory then I'd much prefer a new monitor thrown in too. Plus, the IXtreme comes with fingerprint technology, so that'd be one way to protect my PC from a rather 'nosy' brother. lol

However, not to say what you offered is bad, but it has pricked up my ears so to say

Still clueless to what the Nvidia Geforce GT120 is compared to, some sites say a GeForce 9400 gt others a Nvidia 8600 gs, anyone know?

---

Graeme Paterson - WWA1965
Command Captain - Toronto Hub
No Real-World Experience (But content on learning more about it!)
Flight Simulator X/Flight Simulator 2004
Radar Contact v4.3
Current Aircraft: Dreamwings Bombardier Dash 8-Q200

WWA1965:

what the Nvidia Geforce GT120 is compared to, some sites say a GeForce 9400 gt others a Nvidia 8600 gs, anyone know?

 

It's a rebadged 9500GT according to random forum posts on toms hardware:  http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/page-259548_15_0.html

---

WWA2404 - Alexander Worton

PC: Core i7 920 2.66@4.0Ghz, 6GB Ram, SSD, ATI 4870x2
HW: Track IR, CH & Saitek Controls, VRInsight MCP
SW: FSPassengersX, FS Commander, REX, Radar Contact
AC: ATR72, PA28 Arrow IV, E-jets, B1900D, CS 727

Thanks Kesomir, that has had me puzzled for quite a while - don't see what's wrong with keeping it 9500 gt, just makes it seem closer to a GTX 250 I guess, of course not on the same power scale.

So, is the 9400 gt regarded as an upper range card or something slightly lower? Nvidia states it's the best you can get for under $100 so that might allude to a lower end card

Either way, the Geforce GT120 is still much more powerful than the Card I'm using just now (the Ati X1650 pro). Plus with double the video memory; guess I should expect a much more satisfying FSX? 

---

Graeme Paterson - WWA1965
Command Captain - Toronto Hub
No Real-World Experience (But content on learning more about it!)
Flight Simulator X/Flight Simulator 2004
Radar Contact v4.3
Current Aircraft: Dreamwings Bombardier Dash 8-Q200

Just my 2cents, I have a similar home built PC.  I must say it is excellent...but.

 What I have for reference.

Q9400 Intel

EVGA 950 FTW MB

Dual EVGA/NVidia 9500GT 1GBDDR2 configured SLI

8GB PC1600

 Everything else is moot from an FSX standpoint.

 

This is sufficient for FSX at almost full graphics settings on DX9 (DX10 is not compatible with most WWA aircraft models), DX10 works well.  However at major airports such as my hub of JFK, it tends to lag big time, 4.8 FPS.  12-20FPS in the air.  With the graphics turned down just a touch, I get 14FPS at JFK and 20FPS in the air or medium sized airports.

 In my opinion, it is my graphics cards holding me back, even though in reality I am running 4 GPU's with 2GB's of ram on them.  I am considering (probably this weekend) getting rid of the 2 9500GT's and going to 2 GTS or GTX in SLI.  I would not get that computer with a GPU compared to my current one, unless you can upgrade it (not onboard), otherwise dependant on price it is a great deal.

 On a side note, I will soon have 2 EVGA 9500GT cards availible for sale.  I got them in late February.  Excellent high end cards (just they can't keep up with my very high end computer or taste)  EVGA is an awesome emerging company with ENGLISH SPEAKING TECH SUPPORT, and native accents  to an immediate live person who actually cares about you and remembers you personally if you get the same person twice.  I got a superb deal on them and I will extend that to you.  2 for the price I paid for 1, plus shipping. (thats $70ish total).  The current price is still the same and you don't have to wait for a rebate.  Still have the origenal boxes.

Don't go and change your graphics cards just yet ... change your processor first! FSX is VERY cpu intensive, 9 out of 10 the cpu is holding you back. This is very different from almost all games out there, but it holds true for FSX. Your Q9400 may sound good to you, but it's peanuts for FSX. If you're gonna spend money on your pc, make sure you got the biggest and baddest CPU you can afford before you go changing your graphics cards. There's plenty of stuff on the internet to confirm this, just google "fsx performance upgrade"!

---

Paul Haubourdin
WSSS HM
Command Captain
W7/FSX/ASA/LVLD/PMDG/CS/...
+800hrs VATSIM
Mil ATC & CPL-H

A runway is nothing but a waste of good parking space ... Real pilots only need an H to land on!

WWA2230:

Your Q9400 may sound good to you, but it's peanuts for FSX

Hey! Anything better than an ailing Pentium 4 3.06ghz Processor sounds good to me, even if it only allows medium to high settings. Playable is the only word I'd like to describe my newer FSX experience.

The suggestions are great everyone so I'm going to stick with the iXtreme seeing as it is most likely to offer me a great PC to ensure I have a more modern gaming experience.

When I'm ready for FSX at ultra-high, it'll probably be somewhere in the distant future; where PCs are pretty much running homes.... but until then, I'll enjoy FSX at medium high in 30 fps constant as much as possible.

Thanks everyone.

---

Graeme Paterson - WWA1965
Command Captain - Toronto Hub
No Real-World Experience (But content on learning more about it!)
Flight Simulator X/Flight Simulator 2004
Radar Contact v4.3
Current Aircraft: Dreamwings Bombardier Dash 8-Q200

I'm running a core i7 at 4GHz and I can't run max settings - nature of the beast.

 Wasn't a huge performance jump from my core2duo at 3.6GHz for reference.

---

WWA2404 - Alexander Worton

PC: Core i7 920 2.66@4.0Ghz, 6GB Ram, SSD, ATI 4870x2
HW: Track IR, CH & Saitek Controls, VRInsight MCP
SW: FSPassengersX, FS Commander, REX, Radar Contact
AC: ATR72, PA28 Arrow IV, E-jets, B1900D, CS 727

Update on my PC:

 I was in microcenter (you might call it Mecca, Jerusalem or Rome for us tech nerds) in search of a simple can of air to do a routine cleaning of my computer.  Well, I walked out with a EVGA GTX275 w. 17xxMB VRAM.

 Anyway, now I have my graphics settings all the way to the top, most importantly I have the cloud draw distance maxed.  I am pulling 19-25fps (versus my 4-9)  All in all I consider that a smashing success.  Tomorrow I am going to reinstall one of the old 9500GT to handle physics processing to see if that helps even more.  When the GTX300 series is released I will purchase a second 275 to configure SLI, when its much cheaper.

 Perhaps one day I'll get a QX series processor to totally max this thing out.

 But back to the point of this thread (I don't want to hijack it), don't go with the 9500GT or anything compared to it for FSX.

WWA2230:

Don't go and change your graphics cards just yet ... change your processor first! FSX is VERY cpu intensive, 9 out of 10 the cpu is holding you back. This is very different from almost all games out there, but it holds true for FSX. Your Q9400 may sound good to you, but it's peanuts for FSX. If you're gonna spend money on your pc, make sure you got the biggest and baddest CPU you can afford before you go changing your graphics cards. There's plenty of stuff on the internet to confirm this, just google "fsx performance upgrade"!

 I agree 100%. I have a relatively new rig and my limiting factor is the processor. Quad core but not blazingly fast. I run very high resolution, lots of scenery etc. and it looks great. Turn up the weather and AI traffic and it gets hit hard...that's a function of processing power.

---

Matt Smith, WWA2218, CAT IV
Rio de Janeiro (SBGL) Hub
FSX Acceleration/Vista64

Update2 - I added the second (old) video card to use as a physics processor and the computer is rocketing.  So lets re cap:

 

Origenal FSX Computer:

Laptop Dell 1505

Intel T7200 (2ghz), 2GB Ram, ATI x1400 128/256mb

Good for 15-20 fps at mediumish graphic settings

 

2nd FSX Computer

Intel Q9400 (2.4ghz), 8GB Ram, SLIx2 nVidia 9500GT 1GB

Good for 15-20 fps at "ultra high" graphics preset

 

"3rd" FSX Computer

Intel Q9400, 8GB Ram, nvidia GTX275 1.75GB

Good for 15-20 fps on ground, 40+ fps in air on maxed out graphics (traffic slightly downplayed)

 

"4th" FSX Computer

Intel Q9400, 8GB Ram, nvidia GTC275 1.75GB, nvidia 9500GT 1GB PhysX processor

Good for 40+ FPS on maxed out graphics w. traffic slightly downplayed.

 

In summary, from information gathered here and from the guy at microcenter.

FPS is strictly a processor dependant animal.

Cloud draw rate is dependant on graphics ram (DDR3 a must)

A better graphics card will help FPS because cloud graphics can slow down the overall operation...the weakest link so to speak.

A second graphics card will help FPS directly if used to take the physics processing load off of the processor.

 

For the pilot looking to get a new computer I recommend:

A Quad processor, a GPU with DDR3 and at least 800mb.  4GB ram minimum

Thank you for giving me an excuse to spend 300 and upgrade my computer.  I was looking for a reason to do so :)

Here's another reason to spend £300

 

---

WWA2404 - Alexander Worton

PC: Core i7 920 2.66@4.0Ghz, 6GB Ram, SSD, ATI 4870x2
HW: Track IR, CH & Saitek Controls, VRInsight MCP
SW: FSPassengersX, FS Commander, REX, Radar Contact
AC: ATR72, PA28 Arrow IV, E-jets, B1900D, CS 727

Right, I have just one more query to make about the GTS 120;

On Nvidia's Website, it states that the GTS 120 has:

500 Mhz Core Clock

1400 Mhz Memory Clock

1gb Onboard Memory

The card I have currently is an Ati X1650 pro; which has (for some reason has quite low clock numbers - probably what the Control Centre has chosen as defaults; unless there's some other way of changing the clock values - something which I am clueless about)

Set to 594 Mhz Core Clock (Stated on one site to be 600 Mhz max)

Set to 396 Mhz Memory Clock (Stated on the same site to be 1400 Mhz max)

512mb Onboard Memory

 

So, which card is technically more suited to FSX, the Nvidia GTS 120 or the Ati X1650 pro?

I have read that FSX seems to produce better results with Nvidia cards than Ati Cards (this is an assumption because I'm sure there are a few Ati Cards that could trump some upper end Nvidias.)

---

Graeme Paterson - WWA1965
Command Captain - Toronto Hub
No Real-World Experience (But content on learning more about it!)
Flight Simulator X/Flight Simulator 2004
Radar Contact v4.3
Current Aircraft: Dreamwings Bombardier Dash 8-Q200

NY Drew:

A second graphics card will help FPS directly if used to take the physics processing load off of the processor.

As far as anyone has reported; FSX is *not* PHYSX or CUDA enabled. http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_faq.html

Nvidia does do some amazing things with their graphics drivers and may have found a way to force some processing to the second card designated as the PHYSX card. I am not doubting your results as I had FS9 running on multiple cores using some fancy footwork with nVidia drivers. However, I do not think that what you are seeing is true PHYSX rendering of the FSX environment. True PHYSX would include dust circling around the rotor system lifted by air currents as opposed to being graphical sprites or wakes off of the Goose reacting with the currents in the water. It might even include subtle effects such as sailing a seaplane. None of which can be done in FSX. Not to mention that I do not believe that ACES ever bought into the licensing agreement with nVidia for using the PHYSX API.

PHYSX is a gaming environmental reaction between objects, and not per say real world physics simulation of aerodynamics. You should relaize that FSX does not do real time aerodynamic calculations but uses lookup tables to provide aerodynamics properties for the aircraft. Aircraft "fly" in MSFS based on the tables that establish the environment. Bruce Artwick developed this idea of simulating flight in the late 70s and while it has undergone 10 major overhauls over the years it is still "table based lookup simulation." Xplane uses the other major PCBased "flight" simulation which is blade theory. Blade theory simulates air reacting with surfaces aka blades. However, instead of simulating billions of molecules of air per second Xplane reduces this number to something more manageable for microprocessors.

---

-KenG
A358 (Retired)