Microsoft Flight Simulator X ate my PC... :(

Its sad to see a grown man cry, really, but I couldn't help it seeing FSX running at 10fps on my PC.  Yup, 10.  I cranked EVERYTHING high and this thing chugged like a 486SX (see who remembers THAT).  This game is ridiculous.  :?

Anyways, any Microsoft FSX users (actual users please) that care to share what settings work best for you, and on what hardware are you running it?    Please include:

Resolution?
Filtering option?
Anti-aliasing?
Graphics level global?

Turning auto-gen completely off seems to have the best impact on improving performance, but I want to compare my settings.  At 2560x1600x32, AA on, filtering bilinear, HDR off, auto gen off, I do about

120-140fps in minimal
90-100 fps in very low
50-60fps in low
40-45 fps in medium low
25-35 fps in medium high
15-20 fps in high
10-13 fps in ultra-high

Lowering the resolution doesn't help things much, and SLI is pretty much useless.  It runs the same with or without it, so this does not seem to be a graphics bottleneck.  Any ideas will be appreciated!

There are two problems with flight simulator X. One is that all the autogen objects put a huge burden on the CPU. Once the DirectX 10 patch comes out, all of that work will be put on the GPU giving it a huge boost in performance. The second problem is that, for some reason, Flight Simulator X doesn't know how to utilize multi-core processors. I know for me when I'm running the game, one processor is completely bogged down, while the other is idling at around 2%. I don't know if the developers know that but hopefully it will be fixed. Nvidia did release list of tech tips that show what you should put each in-game setting on which was very helpful in finding the sweet spot. It gave me fairly decent performance and it should hold me down until they release a DirectX 10 patch.

Here's the page:  http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_fsx_techtips.html

------------------------

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ @ 2.41GHz

4GB PC3200 RAM

300GB Maxtor SATA HDD

BFG Tech 8800GTX 768MB

Windows Vista Home Premium Build 6000

i had a 386 that came from a hospital and had all some drug referencing software, the monitor wasn't color and wasnt a standard vga plug, the ram was a card. also i had a 486 DX4 i think it ran like 266 mhz(or maybe 166) which was the best thing i'd had to that point. its was like my quad core 486. also had a few 486 66mhz. and ibm's and mac's....... i grew up around a very large flea market. i used to get caviar hdd's about 550mb for 5$. me and a friend would just get em goin and play with networking. just troubleshooting for fun.

more on the subject i been tryin to set up a good pc for flight sim mosltly within my budget witch aint huge. i have a 610i,celeron D3.46 800mhz, 8800gt, 3GB 5300mhz. i wasn't too impressed untill i downloaded sp1 and 2 and it ran way smoother. im getting between 18 and 25fps at 1920x1080 with gen on normal i belive(whatever is above sparse) I'm thinking about getting a core 2 quad. would it make a big difference?

It's called bad optimisation.-CheeseEater-

I wouldn't say that. Trying to render real world geography, architecture, weather, traffic, avionics, lighting, and sounds requires alot of computer power, don't ya think? With all the bells and whistles turned up, there's much more to render than say something like Crysis or HL2. I have a core 2 duo, 8800gtx, 2gb ram machine and it generally runs smoothly even with most everything turned up at 1680 resolution. But some areas with alot of traffic like large cities or large busy airports will bring mine to it's knees. Once in the air, it's always smooth flying.

Its sad to see a grown man cry, really, but I couldn't help it seeing FSX running at 10fps on my PC. Yup, 10. I cranked EVERYTHING high and this thing chugged like a 486SX (see who remembers THAT). This game is ridiculous. :?

ZBoater

Sucker! My PC runs it like a 486DX.

There are like 2 threads that have been brought back from the dead.....Hells_rebelion

link me the second one pls

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]There are like 2 threads that have been brought back from the dead.....shakmaster13

link me the second one pls

[QUOTE="shakmaster13"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]There are like 2 threads that have been brought back from the dead.....Hells_rebelion

link me the second one pls

/ty

i marked it

[QUOTE="-CheeseEater-"]It's called bad optimisation.Qixote

I wouldn't say that. Trying to render real world geography, architecture, weather, traffic, avionics, lighting, and sounds requires alot of computer power, don't ya think? With all the bells and whistles turned up, there's much more to render than say something like Crysis or HL2. I have a core 2 duo, 8800gtx, 2gb ram machine and it generally runs smoothly even with most everything turned up at 1680 resolution. But some areas with alot of traffic like large cities or large busy airports will bring mine to it's knees. Once in the air, it's always smooth flying.

Honestly, Flight Simulator X was released yonks ago, and still, with today's hardware, it's able to bring hardware to it's knee's.

In a nutshell, Flight SImulator X is litterally crying out that the game has had terrible optimisation, without a question rushed out the door to meet the "DX10" hype. Thus, your left to the point where your going to be putting 3 GTX 280's in your system to actually have it run with the bells and whistles. Pathetic. That's what I call it. :|

It's games like this, that a casual might pick up, fail miserably to meet the System Reqs and never return to PC gaming again...

Thus, Spore is the sizzlenittyodiddle. Dont' ask me what that means. Tis all.