Want to know what a new PC can offer you in FSX?

[StormVR6]

Hello all,

 

If you're not wanting to spend the next five months reading the laborious posts from Nick N and his peers, or realise you're one of the large majority who don't even understand what he's actually talking about, then this may help you decide........

 

I've been using an aged i7 (930 Bloomfield @ 4.2GHz) rig for some time now with FSX. And yes, like many flight sim pilots running older hardware, I didn't think the significant outlay for new hardware would be worthwhile. And while that sentiment holds true, it's relative; if you're still happy with FS2002 then, of course, a cutting-edge PC, built purely for said program, would be money down the drain. However, for those of you who want to run FSX with FTX, REX, high resolution meshes and aircraft, etc, and are wondering if that £1000 is worth spending on new hardware - rather than a new handbag, purse and shoes for your wife.......yes, I know, a £500 handbag is ridiculous, but you can't tell 'em......especially whilst eyeing up that shiny new 780Ti - then read on. If not, then off you go.....go on.....and please, close the door......it's bloody drafty around here.

 

Right! Firstly: the hardware that matters, yes, the processor. I've managed to clock my i7 4770K to a healthy 4.6GHz using 1.35v. With the excellent Corsair H110 I'm seeing temps max at 75c during a stress test. Perfect. At this speed, my Haswell is keeping up with my brothers 2600K Sandy, running at 5.1GHz. I would have had to clock my old Bloomfield to around 5.4Ghz to see the same performance gain. OK, I'll not lie, if it wasn't for the H110 liquid cooler, I'd not be keeping up with the less heated Sandy for long; at 4.6GHz and onward, the Haswell want's to burn your house down! But, with the right cooler (and a bit of luck in which CPU is delivered to you) the Haswell is the processor to have at this time for flight sims. Don't start getting too excited, though. Even if Mr Postie delivers a golden Haswell chip to you, and you hit 5GHz+ (you'll need to put your PC in a freezer!) you're still going to see a drop in frames during a Heathrow approach in the NGX. Let's all be sensible here: a fully modded FSX is never going to hit a rock solid 30fps around the likes of Heathrow until we see 7GHz+.

 

Anyway, the 4770K, worthwhile? Yes, if you can OC to 4.6GHz or more you'll be flying at 30fps solid, until you approach the likes of KSEA.

 

Secondly: yes, that new RAM is definitely worthwhile. I've tried OCing the 4770K with older (ironically enough, more expensive) memory sticks and nope, couldn't get past 4.4GHz. If you buy a new CPU and board, buy the new RAM, too. And before you decide to return the sticks as faulty, try OCing without XMP profiles, they can cause problems.

 

Thirdly: the mobo! Don't buy cheap, spend as much as you can afford. Although the £400 boards are pointless, unless you require every latest gimmick and a tea making service.

 

Lastly: the shiny big GPU. My favourite piece of rig hardware. Yes, the 780Ti is overkill for FSX........BUT, if you're flying at 2560x1440 or higher, have TML @ 4096, and like to run 4xSGSSAA to ensure an almost perfect image, then it's not. My GTX680 could not give me what I wanted at 2560x1440. People who state they're running 8xSGSSAA on a 560 must either be talking utter crap or running FSX @ 800x600 resolution. If you want the best possible IQ at higher resolutions, then at least a 780 is recommended. The 780Ti is just the icing on the cake for me and offers almost 100% increase over my GTX680 in many applications. In my opinion, the best graphics card since the amazing 8800GTX. 

 

SSD/HDD: I've got little to say on the matter; if you want to pay up to 10x the price of a good HDD just to see Windows boot up slightly quicker once a day then so be it. If your life is so busy, and having to wait a few more seconds for FSX to load a flight is causing you pain, then by all means, buy a SSD. I've got one, and yes, Windows boots up slightly quicker. Wow!  

 

I used to hit 30fps often with my old I7, and as solid as it seemed to be, it wasn't close to that of the Haswell. I've not seen FSX running on Ivy, but the older Sandy did an admirable job, but no matter how high you clock the Sandy it never flies as smoothly as the Haswell does. The Haswell may not be the super processor many were hoping for, but it's bloody good. And the 780Ti is not cheap, but if you want the very best IQ then it's the card to get. If, like me, you play games as well, then the 780Ti is money well spent.

 

So yeah, if you're still sitting on the fence - as I was for months and months - wondering if the cost is worth it, then the only question you need to answer is this.......do you want a smoother, more detailed flight experience? 

 

Yes? Grab the 4770K and the 780Ti, they make a wonderful couple. 

 

 

 

    

[Bruce Hamilton]

Something is wrong with your system, if 30 FPS is your best.  I've got a 2600K Sandy running with NO overclock, and a five year old 8800 GTX graphics card getting a solid 30 FPS in PNW outside of Seattle.

[StormVR6]

There's is nothing wrong with my PC. I've been building top end gaming rigs for years, I know how to balance hardware and settings to achieve optimal performance without going to extremes. My rig was built and then vigorously tested before any software was installed. Excuse the pun, but my new build flies! 

 

If you're happy with your performance, then great. I have to presume that you are running certain settings at the lower end of the scale to achieve a solid 30fps around Seattle.

 

I choose to lock my frame rate at 30fps to ensure the smoothest possible experience, any stutter/lag/pause instantly kills immersion for me.  

[Spirit Flyer]

In answer to every complex question there is usually a simple answer, that is most often wrong.

[StormVR6]

In answer to every complex question there is usually a simple answer, that is most often wrong.

 

No idea what relevance that has to this thread, but thank you for your input. 

[Culley44]

are you using dx9 or 10, i am using dx10 and can lock mine at 50fps exact same hardware and no stutters either,i have also been building my own pc's since windows 98.

[StormVR6]

DX10. Yes, you have similar hardware, so if you can achieve a solid 50fps in any FTX region then well done. I can't. But I'm very happy with what I have achieved. Which is FSX (including masses of top quality add-ons) running with max settings (apart from MyTrafficX @ 20% and no ground shadows) at 2560x1440, with 4xSGSSAA. I can get well over 100fps in many areas, but I prefer to cap my frame rate to 30fps, allowing me to enter a vastly populated area without lag/stutter.

 

If you're getting 50fps solid, whilst flying something like the RealAir Legacy over London, then I'm left wondering how. 

[Ripcord]

post deleted.

Didn't have anything nice to say.

[Culley44]

DX10. Yes, you have similar hardware, so if you can achieve a solid 50fps in any FTX region then well done. I can't. But I'm very happy with what I have achieved. Which is FSX (including masses of top quality add-ons) running with max settings (apart from MyTrafficX @ 20% and no ground shadows) at 2560x1440, with 4xSGSSAA. I can get well over 100fps in many areas, but I prefer to cap my frame rate to 30fps, allowing me to enter a vastly populated area without lag/stutter.

 

If you're getting 50fps solid, whilst flying something like the RealAir Legacy over London, then I'm left wondering how. 

thats why my frames are higher, i was talking no ai traffic on my end, with frames set to unlimited it bounces between 50-90, now if i had traffic installed i would probably be bogged at 40fps, thanks for the article, what you said is true about the haswell and 780, looking forward to the haswell refresh in may or just, its suppose to have the tim problem fixed to get higher overclocks, i for one have a bad overclocker, i cant go over 4.4 without overheating.

[Adam Howarth]

Thanks for sharing your observations

If you like it in fsx I'd say you'd love it in p3d which is more able to take advantage of a modern computing platform

[Culley44]

i am gonna give p3d v2 another shot when 2.2 is released, but now i am enjoying the airbus x extended and its not p3d compatible lol

[spirit_66]

What's the benefit of this thread? Is it worth reading?

Spirit

[MichaelMoe]

+1 , I have simular setup comming from a I7-950@4.2 and now running I7-4770K@4,7GHZ (1.255v max peak 80c in fsx no issues) on a H70 with EVGA GTX780SC@1110 MHZ and like you its a hole new simulator. Increased performance about 50%.

 

Like you i am at conservative 25% UTII and manage to stay in the areas with Regions and EGLL at  25-30fps locked (unlocked is also aanother case here) but i am using windowed mode with undocked FMC ,PFD, ND.

 

I have less performance in Fullscreen flying the Lancair for instance vs windowmode (DX10, 1/2 refreshrate in NI). Can you test this as well ? WHQL 335.23

 

I prefer flying unlocked as it is smoother on my system

 

Michael

[StormVR6]

What's the benefit of this thread? Is it worth reading?

Spirit

 

That's for you to decide. Some will find it interesting, some won't. That's life.

+1 , I have simular setup comming from a I7-950@4.2 and now running I7-4770K@4,7GHZ (1.255v max peak 80c in fsx no issues) on a H70 with EVGA GTX780SC@1110 MHZ and like you its a hole new simulator. Increased performance about 50%.

 

Like you i am at conservative 25% UTII and manage to stay in the areas with Regions and EGLL at  25-30fps locked (unlocked is also aanother case here) but i am using windowed mode with undocked FMC ,PFD, ND.

 

I have less performance in Fullscreen flying the Lancair for instance vs windowmode (DX10, 1/2 refreshrate in NI). Can you test this as well ? WHQL 335.23

 

I prefer flying unlocked as it is smoother on my system

 

Michael

 

Yep, it really is great when new hardware makes such a significant improvement. The amount of times I've spent vast amounts of cash on upgrading, only to see a 10-20% increase in performance, is far too many. This new build will go down as one of my favourites.

 

I'll take a look at windowed/fullscreen performance and also try unlocked. I've always had FSX capped at 30fps internally and used NI to keep things tear free using the 1/2 refresh rate VSync option.  

[Christopher Low]

I really don't understand why people throw framerate figures around without providing exact details of what they are running to get them. StormVR6 is probably running everything at close to maximum detail levels (including AI), which is why he is very happy with a solid 30fps in extremely dense scenery areas (and he should be). If you are using a payware plane at a detailed airport in a very dense scenery area with lots of autogen and AI planes active, you are not going to get anywhere near 50fps at maximum detail levels.

 

As Einstein discovered, everything is relative.

[StormVR6]

I agree with what you're saying, Christopher, and yes, you're right, I'm pretty much maxed out, with only the FSX engine itself being stock, everything else is hi-def, 3rd party add-on.

 

Frame rate is the be all and end all for some, and it's understandable, each to their own. Being a PC gamer/builder for many years, I've always strived for a minimum 60fps in any game, allowing Vsync/TB to give me the smoothest experience possible (GSync is the new smooth and could greatly improve FSX/TrackIR performance, but let's not discuss that here). Of course, expecting 60fps solid in FSX/P3D with highly detailed scenery and aircraft would be ludicrous, so the next best figure is 30fps. If you're running VSync (I will not run such extravagant hardware and not use VSync, I leave that to the consoles...) then any drop in frame rate causing lag/stutter as the GPU drops to the lower syncing frame rate (60/30/15/etc) is immediately apparent. Triple buffering can help, but even a drop from 60>45 would be very noticeable during a smooth flight. If you don't mind screen tear (I abhor it) then such dramatic lag/stutter/pause isn't seen when not using VSync. This is why some cap their frame rate at 40/50fps, and often get it.

 

For me frame rate isn't king, consistency is. I'd much rather have a 99% consistent 30fps than a jumpy, all over the place, screen tearing 40-60fps. Nvidia's GSync should put an end to all of this - especially the problems attributed to VSync itself - but I won't be spending £400+ on a tiny 1080p monitor to find out. When I can buy a 2560x1440+ 30" GSync monitor for less than the cost of a family holiday, I'll let you know if it's money well spent!

 

The new consoles are in the same boat as us FSX pilots. They are capable of running games at 40fps+ but most gamers prefer a solid 30fps over an attempt of 60fps that often drops to 30 and anywhere in between. And I agree with that decision.

[StormVR6]

As a picture says a thousand words, and there seem sto be some confusion over why I'm capped (or why I choose to cap) at 30fps, I thought I'd post some pictures at my native resolution to show you where I'm at with my FSX.

 

The first is purely to show how good a 3rd party aircraft can look when you throw every available graphical setting at it. All of these shots are taken straight from the V key during flight and all are at my 24/7 settings, capped at 30fps.

 

 

This next one is what I see on my PC when flying over Seattle. Now this is where a 30fps (with VSync applied) cap makes sense. When I'm approaching Seattle the frame rate is a completely smooth 30fps, when I enter Seattle airspace it may drop a few fps but the transition between the scenic approach and actual flyover is a smooth one. Of course, I could run the surrounding areas at 50+fps, but I don't want a noticeable drop from that figure when entering massively dense areas. Nor do I want to have to lower settings to keep at 50+fps whilst flying around large towns/cities.

 

 

Another one from the Civ Mustang.

 

 

 

And the last one, just a beautiful approach shot coming into KHQM.

 

 

Ultimately, I want to be able to leave my settings as high as possible (i.e. almost all maxed) and never touch them again whilst flying anywhere in the FTX world. All the while I want to experience a consistently smooth, tear-free, jaggy-free, high resolution flight. The OC'd 4770K and 780Ti have virtually given me that experience.

[Christopher Low]

I can live quite happily with 20fps in a flight simulator in extremely dense scenery areas, but it drops lower than that in the most detailed scenery regions that I have installed. Not exactly the best situation to be in, but I am the kind of person that wants everything to look as good as possible. I only draw the line when the framerate drops so low that controlled flight is not possible, but 20fps is perfectly fine.

[StormVR6]

I can live quite happily with 20fps in a flight simulator in extremely dense scenery areas, but it drops lower than that in the most detailed scenery regions that I have installed. Not exactly the best situation to be in, but I am the kind of person that wants everything to look as good as possible. I only draw the line when the framerate drops so low that controlled flight is not possible, but 20fps is perfectly fine.

 

I won't lie, I still see the odd drop to 20 in scenarios like flying past Heathrow into central London. And although not ideal, 20fps is acceptable in the busiest areas. I think many us, who want FSX to look and feel as real as possible, have come to accept that a truly solid frame rate is never likely to happen. When hardware is beefy enough to run FSX fully maxed and modded, we'll all be flying on another piece of software. P3Dv3, maybe.

 

I say v3, because, as it stands, v2 isn't tempting me away from FSX DX10.     

[rsperge]

The old story is your mileage may vary.  Many of us who have been using fsx for years can relate to that thought.  It dose not matter how many frames you get 30, 50, 60, etc, what really matters is how smooth the sim runs.

 

The key is having a decent processor, overclocked to at least 4.2ghz or more, and video card that will match or keep up with that processor.  Plane and simple its a balancing act, their is some give and take in your overall settings..

 

Just had to throw my 2 cents worth......

[MichaelMoe]

OOM is actually my worse case now so Dense settings is my balance (Even in DX10) 

 

EGLL and other great areas and,NGX,PMDG777 and generally long flights is a VAS killer. Some guy tested FSX in a Hold scenarie and FSX was building 1GB of VAS during 5-6 hours in that hold.

 

Michael

[Spirit Flyer]

You are right on Ronnie. Good advice in the countless "King of the Castle" threads over the years.

Perhaps I may have done a few of them myself, once or thrice, and had that pointed out by friends...

[StormVR6]

The old story is your mileage may vary.  Many of us who have been using fsx for years can relate to that thought.  It dose not matter how many frames you get 30, 50, 60, etc, what really matters is how smooth the sim runs.

 

The key is having a decent processor, overclocked to at least 4.2ghz or more, and video card that will match or keep up with that processor.  Plane and simple its a balancing act, their is some give and take in your overall settings..

 

Just had to throw my 2 cents worth......

 

Exactly my sentiment, made clear throughout this thread; a consistently smooth flight is far more important than 60+fps here and there.

 

With every add-on (i.e. scenery, clouds, aircraft, traffic, etc) installed, 4.2GHz is very conservative, though. Of course, many still fly an almost stock FSX, in which case 4.2Ghz would be fine. The plain and simple truth is this: if you want smoother, either upgrade the hardware or lower the settings in the software.    

[Benny]

I personally had it... buying new rig for FSX. It's been like that since 1995. Like somewhat stated it's not only FPS that matter but smoothness.

I have learned to live with that. It's not FSX fault lately as most of us are running FPS hungry plane and scenery.

 

When I bought my actual rig it cost me a fortune as the 590 just came out, same goes for the I7 2600K.

 

the difference with my older 2 core cpu was not that significant to justify the cost (For FSX), at that time I was playing a bit more high end game like Crysis and wow the new rig made a big difference with those.

 

I fly where FPS and smoothness are good, anything under 20-25 FPS and I'm out

 

Ben

[jerdoo]

If you were sitting on that fence for months the hardware became cheaper.

[PeterSuranyi86]

Storm, I cannot agree more! I have very similar hardware, and I drew the same conclusions. Altough I don't dare to cross the 1.3v line when overclocking (I'm running at 4.4Ghz). For me the new PC finally enabled to fly the NGX with a constant 20+ fps, which, considering the software and the addon I'm running, makes me happy.

[Mac_Maddog88]

Storm, I cannot agree more! I have very similar hardware, and I drew the same conclusions. Altough I don't dare to cross the 1.3v line when overclocking (I'm running at 4.4Ghz). For me the new PC finally enabled to fly the NGX with a constant 20+ fps, which, considering the software and the addon I'm running, makes me happy.

Hey Peter, what kind of CPU temps are you seeing at max load? We've got the same processor and cooler it looks like.

 

I'm contemplating whether or not to overclock to 4.2 or just play it safe and use the 3.9 Turboboost. 

[PeterSuranyi86]

Hey Peter, what kind of CPU temps are you seeing at max load? We've got the same processor and cooler it looks like.

 

I'm contemplating whether or not to overclock to 4.2 or just play it safe and use the 3.9 Turboboost. 

I overclocked with AI suite 3 (which you also have), and it gave 4.6 GHz, but slightly undervolted, so it's unstable. I've scaled it back manually to 4.4Ghz, with a max of 1.3V OC voltage. I use this software for temperature readings

http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/

and I usually max out around 75 degrees celsius, when rendering in 3ds max. When gaming, however, you will be utilising less of your CPU power, even with FSX, so I would say go for it!

[cvearl]

Nothing wrong with capping fps at 30. It's still best practice for most people. Every thing the OP posted is valid in general and glad he likes his new hardware (although a 780 would have been just as good as a 780Ti). As for the mildly defensive or otherwise negative replies? A bunch of pompous sausage wagging. The OP's post is neither boastful nor arrogant and certainly not aimed at belittling anyone elses "knowledge of sim builds or budget".

 

I feel good for people that are happy with their new toys. I too look forward to eventually upgrading to a similar setup.  

 

Charles.

[StormVR6]

Nothing wrong with capping fps at 30. It's still best practice for most people. Every thing the OP posted is valid in general and glad he likes his new hardware (although a 780 would have been just as good as a 780Ti). As for the mildly defensive or otherwise negative replies? A bunch of pompous sausage wagging. The OP's post is neither boastful nor arrogant and certainly not aimed at belittling anyone elses "knowledge of sim builds or budget".

 

I feel good for people that are happy with their new toys. I too look forward to eventually upgrading to a similar setup.  

 

Charles.

 

Thank you, Charles. 

[Hommet]

I really don't understand why people throw framerate figures around without providing exact details of what they are running to get them. StormVR6 is probably running everything at close to maximum detail levels (including AI), which is why he is very happy with a solid 30fps in extremely dense scenery areas (and he should be). If you are using a payware plane at a detailed airport in a very dense scenery area with lots of autogen and AI planes active, you are not going to get anywhere near 50fps at maximum detail levels.

 

Exactly my thoughts!

[AnkH]

 

Like you i am at conservative 25% UTII and manage to stay in the areas with Regions and EGLL at  25-30fps locked (unlocked is also aanother case here) but i am using windowed mode with undocked FMC ,PFD, ND.

 

Michael

 

Simple question: are the big airports still ok with 25% setting in UT2? I am down to 50% now, but I could still need some extra FPS on heavy airports as I am still dropping below 20FPS from time to time for example on LFPG (maybe due to the bad FSX scenery design of AS?). I wonder, if 25% would still give me a reasonable amount of AI traffic or not (I know, I could test myself ).

 

BTW: I am one of the users who combines the GTX-780 not with an i7 but an i5, in my case an i5-3570K running at 4.5GHz. Although I am generally happy with my performance, I always realize that for going the last few steps to the ultimate FSX experience, the i5 should be replaced with an i7. Sounds silly, but that's what I think.

 

I also use DX10 only for now, but with DX10 on my i5, using unlimited FPS in FSX is for sure better, I instead lock my FPS via the Framelimiter option in nVidia Inspector. Somehow, the setting unlimited within FSX gives me another almost 20% FPS in every scenario and especially on the heavy airports, where I have only about 15-17FPS, I really take the 20% FPS boost eagerly.

[Christopher Low]

Personally speaking, I would hate to set AI airliner traffic in UT2 to anything less than 100%. The thought that I might be missing something is just too painful to endure

[Smurf]

With all the hype around P3DV2.2 it's very tempting to either give it a go or at least upgrade to newer hardware. I always said that by the time I jump ship, it'll be high time for new hardware but it just seems like upgrading from what I've got (Ivy 3570k I think and a GTX670) it just seems like yesterday that I installed them.

Might stick with what I've got and give P3D a try.

 

I'd have more money but I'm always buying boxes of cigars, another very expensive hobby

[VAL067]

Ok im confused im running 2× 760 gtx in SLI with a Sandy I7 with auto OC set through the extreme program supplied and getting anywhere between 200 -75 Fps depending on weather, veiw and of course location. . Though I notice some tearing rarely now that I have FTX REX and D10 running with everything pretty much maxed out except Auotogen.. Tried to Vsync it but it felt wrong.. I dont know if its my days of gaming in first person shooters or RTS games that makes me like that but I find the more fps the better everything reacts .. question am I doing an injustice to my machine by doing this and will settling the fps down to 30 give me longevity.. My CPU temp never goes above 80 and usually sits at 75 on average with stock cooling.This is a genuine question as sometimes the fps i get just freaks me out even though the temps and indicated figures are telling me its all good.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[VAL067]

Ok so after reading and posting on this topic i went back set my whole system up for a fixed frame rate of 30FPS.... what a disapointment it felt very unresponsive compared to how i have been flying ... Maybe if i flew like this for hours i would get used to it but give me screen tear any day then restricting the fps. I dont know if my system copes better with fluctuating FPS in SLI config but i know that both the CPU and GPU are setup to be adaptive so it keeps everything smooth wether i go from 150fps down to 40fps in a few sec... unless i have the fps meter on i dont notice. As for taking screen shots to prove a locked frame rate is superior well i dont know about that. I have been pc gaming for 25 years now and been flight simming on and of since FS95 on a 486 P2 and i can tell you the FPS issue has been a debatetable topic since then. I have only recently got back into FSX after many years away to find great products and a stronger community. i built this Rig mainly for BF4 and EVE online where FPS count so maybe i come from a different angle. But one thing that has definatley got me flying again is that im not forced or restricted to flying at 25 -30fps which has been liberating.. so to answer my own question.. why have a Stallion if ya gonna drive it like a Lada.. 

[stefbuik]

For as long as I can remember, it has been better to set FPS to "unlimited" for NVidia cards. Limiting FPS has always led to annoying stuttering for me (always used nVidia cards) since the first release of FSX. External frame-limiters fare a bit better, but if the sim is smooth for You, despite fluctuations in the FPS (and the FSX/P3d frame-counter isn't all thát reliable) then why bother?

The effects seem to be less when using Ati/Amd cards, though. Probably some quirk of the nVidia architecture.