Stay with fsx?

[16wiebeke 0]

Alrigh,t so I bought x plane 10 (not here yet) So i'm fiddling around with the demo. I can run the demo perfectly, and I prefer the default scenery. But I've watched a few fsx videos with some addons and it looks amazing. I can run default fsx OKAY so if I get a bunch of airport sceneries, airbus x extended, ai traffic and an atc addon will my computer be able to handle this?

 

If so when x plane gets here I shall return it. 

 

my computer specs are...

 

intel core i5

8g ram

Hd 7790 1 gb

 thats all I remember...

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

Probably not - at least not without overclocking the CPU..

[lodestar 186]

I'm staying with FSX definitely for now... It's really impressive with all tweaks and addons i have. I'll probably try P3D when they fix VAS and other problems(i fly big and complex airliners mostly). 

 - I have Xplane demo installed and i'm testing all updates, but IMHO - this is not our next flightsim platform. It's difficult to make a complex aircraft with fine flight dynamics becouse X-plane will never be finished... Developers are probably be forced to make service packs almost every time x-plane is updated. Just my opinion. Beside that, I don't want to pay to be beta tester. I don't want to offend anyone, just my 2 cents and my opinion. Honestly, I'd love to be proved wrong.

 

Any new flightsim would be awesome, and there are some promising platforms, but for now - FSX and Condor are my best flightsims

[CFIJose 5,485]

I'm staying with FSX definitely for now... It's really impressive with all tweaks and addons i have. I'll probably try P3D when they fix VAS and other problems(i fly big and complex airliners mostly).

- I have Xplane demo installed and i'm testing all updates, but IMHO - this is not our next flightsim platform. It's difficult to make a complex aircraft with fine flight dynamics becouse X-plane will never be finished... Developers are probably be forced to make service packs almost every time x-plane is updated. Just my opinion. Beside that, I don't want to pay to be beta tester. I don't want to offend anyone, just my 2 cents and my opinion. Honestly, I'd love to be proved wrong.

 

Any new flightsim would be awesome, and there are some promising platforms, but for now - FSX and Condor are my best flightsims

That sounds like what is happening with P3D V2.

 

I'm finally able to enjoy FSX and the great addons that make FSX the best and most complete sim.

 

I'm ecstatic about FSX and it's current state.

 

Thanks to all the devs that make FSX great!

 

Jose

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

+1

 

I'm 100% committed to FSX in it's present state..

 

But the OP wanted to know if he could load up his default FSX with all the goodies

and keep his performance - and we all know the answer that question..

 

... not without solid hardware - and even then, with careful selection of the goodies..

[CFIJose 5,485]

I agree 100%. You need the right hardware if you want to add plenty of great addons and still get excellent performance.

[Pugilist2 878]

He better install FS2004 then!  Good luck with FSX.

[SierraHotel 982]

FSX, it's all I'll ever need....

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4jeI4RI-SoE

 

We all discover eventually that with FSX less is more.

 

Running on an AMD Phenom 6 core 3.2, 8 gig ram and an NVidia GTX650. Add ons GEX, UTX, REX4 and ASN.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

Also worth noting in terms of the OP's question:  While it's worth pointing out that it's difficult to load up FSX with a bunch of addons and have it all run smoothly, my brief time spent with Xplane has given me the impression that when you try to load it up with a lot of eye candy (or turn the visuals up really high) you still see a requirement for a powerful computer.

 

Neither one is likely to satisfy the OP with their current hardware unless careful choices are made about addons as well as settings.

[Jim Padgett 11]

I can never get past x-plane where you are the only one flying in the world.. I have to say without AI traffic I feel too distanced from the simulation and loose interest rather quickly.

[shadow_boxer 7]

In the last few weeks I've tried P3D V2.3, FSX DX9 and DX10 all with a wide range of add-on both scenery, heavies, light aircraft and weather. All have their advantages and disadvantages to be honest.

 

For anyone who is on the fence about what sim is the best I would say if you can (and most importantly have the time and patience to do multiple reinstalls) is try them all with YOUR addons and see for yourself.

 

There is no holy grail for flight sim right now which is a clear winner.

 

P3D V2 is the most immersive and pretty but performance is awful in cloud coverage and using detailed addons. DX9 is the smoothest for me but OOM errors are most prone. DX10 offers the best balance. Can fly with clouds using ASN at reasonable settings and fps even when flying out of UK2000 Heathrow and ORBX England in the NGX (22-28fps) and not OOM errors either but performance does suffer in thick cloud coverage (although not as much as Prepar3D). Don't believe the rubbish people spout that this sim or that sim is the outright winner because in my experience we don't have such a thing yet.

 

I'm testing on an i7-4770K @4.6GHz and a GTX780.

[Wobbie 938]

I've tested on a i5 4GB Windows7 64bit laptop.

I have obviously dumped FSX in favour of P3D.

I decided that it was time to move on from a 6 year old program where there has been no support for ages.

 

What is right/better? You decide..

Moving from FSX to P3D is like moving from FS9 to FSX.... Not everything is gonna work. In any case, you cannot really expect it to.. when moving from a 'game' to a 'training' simulator. (well, it is, seeing we are not surposed to be entertained by it)

[Jimmy RFR 406]

 

 

Don't believe the rubbish people spout that this sim or that sim is the outright winner because in my experience we don't have such a thing yet.

 

No-one can ever claim that one sim is the outright winner over another for anyone/everyone else, but yes, they can safely claim that for themselves and share their experience with others.  My simulation experience falls completely within my expectations; based upon the aircraft I use, the scenery I use, and the level of performance I get with the hardware I own, FSX is an outright winner for me.

 

I'm not going to touch on P3Dv2 since it was never mentioned by the OP...

[Anderscn 0]

Same here, I´ll stay with FSX for a while, as quite a few still claim AA issues with P3D v2.x. And I don´t have a Haswell-E plus Titan-Z to handle those clouds in this LM sim..

 

To the OP; no I don´t believe you will be able to run all those addon with this rig. However, if you still want splendid Image Quality, yet care less about Photo realistic airport and scenery spread out over 3 screens, you don´t need a super high end rig.

 

I´m still on an OC´ed Phenom II X6 1100T CPU, 4 GB 1600/cl7 RAM and a GTX570, and I´m surprised how well it handles FSX/DX10 with FTX Global/Vector/Open LC and FSGlobal 2010 and REX E. I think some of the secret is in a thoroughly tweaked Windows 7 according to Nick N, avoid higher than 1024 textures (especially clouds), 5 cores to handle all the texture loading and reasonably fast RAM.

 

 

So, one cheap option could be to buy a secondhand GTX 570/580 or a new 760 and reduce ambitions with fancy airports. After all, this is a flight simulator, so why care about accuracy of airport buildings?

 

BR,

Anders

 

 

[pilotngb 5]

My scenery became corrupt in FSX last week. Decided on a clean install. At the same time I installed P3D v2.3 and was disappointed with the performance with/without add-ons. I'm not ready to switch to P3D. Going back to FSX. I believe P3D has a future but I won't look at it for another year or so.

 

Running i7-4770k, 8GB RAM, GTX 645 and 2 HDD's. With DX10 preview enabled and FSPS accelerator (and without) I get really good performance out of FSX. Was suffering badly with OOM's but since switching to DX10 shaders, I've not had one issue.

 

My only issue is that I can't stop spending money on add-ons for FSX!!