Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Flight sim computer requirements
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Just Plane Noise
May 24, 2012, 9:03:12 PM5/24/12
to
I asked this once several years ago, but I need to ask it again. What
are the absolute mimimum and the preferred hardware requirements to
run the latest Flight Simulator well. Graphics card, CPU, RAM, etc?
And would the experiece be any better with a two monitor setup?
Oshkosh Gerry
are the absolute mimimum and the preferred hardware requirements to
run the latest Flight Simulator well. Graphics card, CPU, RAM, etc?
And would the experiece be any better with a two monitor setup?
Oshkosh Gerry
Slap
May 24, 2012, 11:05:11 PM5/24/12
to
A couple of years ago had you asked what was the best you would still be
in pretty good shape.
FSX isn't too bad on slower machines. Mine must be 6 or older. Slow
dual core. Works.
--
mdavis
May 25, 2012, 7:53:58 AM5/25/12
to
CPU speed is the key. Dual core or better, but speed is more important
than number of cores.
Graphics card works best with 1GB of RAM but 512MB is passable.
Win7 64-bit is better than Vista or XP. I wouldn't run Win7 with less
than 4GB of RAM. I run 8GB which is more than enough.
I run a big 24" monitor at 1920x1200 for the main display and a second
1024x768 CRT for my moving map and anything else I want handy like charts.
than number of cores.
Graphics card works best with 1GB of RAM but 512MB is passable.
Win7 64-bit is better than Vista or XP. I wouldn't run Win7 with less
than 4GB of RAM. I run 8GB which is more than enough.
I run a big 24" monitor at 1920x1200 for the main display and a second
1024x768 CRT for my moving map and anything else I want handy like charts.
Just Plane Noise
May 25, 2012, 10:41:14 AM5/25/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 06:53:58 -0500, mdavis <mlda...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>CPU speed is the key. Dual core or better, but speed is more important
>than number of cores.
What's a good number for speed?
wrote:
>CPU speed is the key. Dual core or better, but speed is more important
>than number of cores.
>
>Graphics card works best with 1GB of RAM but 512MB is passable.
>
>Win7 64-bit is better than Vista or XP. I wouldn't run Win7 with less
>than 4GB of RAM. I run 8GB which is more than enough.
>
>I run a big 24" monitor at 1920x1200 for the main display and a second
>1024x768 CRT for my moving map and anything else I want handy like charts.
Thanks! All of that shows how badly outdated my Dell XPS 4 is.
>Graphics card works best with 1GB of RAM but 512MB is passable.
>
>Win7 64-bit is better than Vista or XP. I wouldn't run Win7 with less
>than 4GB of RAM. I run 8GB which is more than enough.
>
>I run a big 24" monitor at 1920x1200 for the main display and a second
>1024x768 CRT for my moving map and anything else I want handy like charts.
mdavis
May 25, 2012, 10:48:07 AM5/25/12
to
3.0GHz is a good middle of the road speed. 2.5GHz is OK and will work
if you sacrifice some slider candy.
Most out of the box machines are somewhat deficient in graphics
capability unless you pay for one of the high-end $5,000 rigs. You can
buy a decent box today for $1,500 or build you own killer rig for the
same amount that will run circles around it.
if you sacrifice some slider candy.
Most out of the box machines are somewhat deficient in graphics
capability unless you pay for one of the high-end $5,000 rigs. You can
buy a decent box today for $1,500 or build you own killer rig for the
same amount that will run circles around it.
NM5K
May 25, 2012, 7:19:16 PM5/25/12
to
Almost any modern box will run it fairly well as far as default, and
not a bunch of add ons.. Heck, I started out on FSX with a single core
P4 at about 3.0 ghz. That was using a Prescott 2.4 ghz CPU and over-
clocking it..
Right now I'm using a fairly cheap rig money wise..
It's a Phenom 2 555, that I unlocked from a dual core, to
a quad core, and also overclock it a bit.
It's not bad at all, and I'm just using the cheap onboard video,
which is a ATI HD-4200 with 768 MB video ram.
I only paid $115+tax for that motherboard and CPU. I'm using
4 GB of DDR3. "I'm using a AM3 MB".. Ram is much cheaper now,
than when I bought that, so I'd probably go 8 GB, even though XP
can't take advantage of it.. It would help if I switched to Win 7.
Anyway, it's quite usable for a cheap rig, and I usually run the
737 NGX, which is pretty demanding on the CPU.
It would be better if I got a better video card.
If I were to buy a box right now, it would most likely be a
i5 2500k, and I'd hot rod the snot out of it.
It would be noticeably better than the Phenom 2x4 I think..
But a bit more $$$. About $265+ for a MB and chip, more if a
higher end MB.. But hot rodded, and a good video card, that
rig can kick some FSX butt without breaking the bank.
Course, I'm talking building it oneself.. I build all my boxes..
The only one I ever bought turnkey was my first 386/33 DX I got
in 1992. That was my first "real" puter.. I had a IBM 8088 rig,
but it was useless for most stuff.. Pretty primitive..
You couldn't run FS4 on it, that's fer sure.. :/
sambodidley
May 25, 2012, 9:50:57 PM5/25/12
to
"NM5K" <no...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> Course, I'm talking building it oneself.. I build all my boxes..
> The only one I ever bought turnkey was my first 386/33 DX I got
> in 1992. That was my first "real" puter..
Gee, you had a scorcher, there. My first was a 386/16 SX with 2 megs
> The only one I ever bought turnkey was my first 386/33 DX I got
> in 1992. That was my first "real" puter..
RAM and 80 meg HDD. It had Windows 3.0 on top of DOS 5. I seldom ran in
Windows. I bought it to run Cakewalk Pro 4 for dos. It didn't even have a
sound card. I was working with midi using a Roland Sound Canvas.
Sam
0 new messages