PDA

View Full Version : Flight Sim



alcra
09-06-2007, 05:00 PM
Guys -- I am confused -- I have had a PC made for me with all the expensive bits to run FS X -- I have a dual core 64 bit processor--2 gig Ram etc--I want to install Vista on a drive of its own to get the full benefit of the Flight Sim-- however it seems that the cheaper Vistas are 32 bit & there is some blah about buying a disc to allow 64 bit-- if I install Vista (alongside XP) -will the Flight Sim know & just run at 64 bit automatically? chrs

alcra
09-06-2007, 08:09 PM
I was not tired so went to sleep with my eyes open --- however when I woke up I found my eyes were shut ---- The Goons 1969

pctek
09-06-2007, 09:42 PM
if I install Vista (alongside XP) -will the Flight Sim know & just run at 64 bit automatically?

No.

motorbyclist
10-06-2007, 02:17 AM
lol, if only

JJJJJ
10-06-2007, 08:19 AM
Guys -- I am confused -- I have had a PC made for me with all the expensive bits to run FS X -- I have a dual core 64 bit processor--2 gig Ram etc--I want to install Vista on a drive of its own to get the full benefit of the Flight Sim-- however it seems that the cheaper Vistas are 32 bit & there is some blah about buying a disc to allow 64 bit-- if I install Vista (alongside XP) -will the Flight Sim know & just run at 64 bit automatically? chrs

Suggest you forget about Vista and FSX.

FS9 with XP is the way to go.

Vista is a dog.
FS X will be OK in a couple of years

The_End_Of_Reality
10-06-2007, 09:41 AM
Jack, he wants to be able to utilize the DX10 part of FSX... and VISTA is not bad... it is the DRIVERS that lead to poor GFX performance. Why do you ALWAYS try to turn people away from what they want to do? clearly he wants DX10 GFX... Why not let him?

FSX is only a 32-bit program IIRC so it should still run on 64-bit Vista, but it will not run in 64-bit

alcra
10-06-2007, 10:00 AM
Thanks TEOR -- wasting my time then --save some money--

Jack I been years on FS 9 -- FX is far superior -- loaded down SP 1 and it has speed up considerably-- great scenerey--

The_End_Of_Reality
10-06-2007, 10:19 AM
TBH I would go for the 32-bit version of Vista... 64-bit drivers are still not really up to scratch and you loose the ability to run 16-bit programs I would look at going 64-bit maybe when Windows Vienna comes out in 2009...

What CPU and GFX card have you got?

And there have been a new set of nVidia drivers released no too long ago which should improve FPS so they are working on it.

Trev
10-06-2007, 10:48 AM
Suggest you forget about Vista and FSX.

FS9 with XP is the way to go.

Vista is a dog.
FS X will be OK in a couple of years

Nothing wrong with FSX. I love it.

http://users.actrix.co.nz/trevw/TomCat.JPG
Trevor :)

JJJJJ
10-06-2007, 01:58 PM
Nothing wrong with FSX. I love it.

http://users.actrix.co.nz/trevw/TomCat.JPG
Trevor :)

I agree fsx has it's good points. My grizzle with it is it takes far,far to long to load. And it requires such a high spec computer.
Just as a comparrison. I have an X6800 cpu , 2 gigs ram and an 8800 vid card. FSX struggles to hold 25 fps with graphics set anywhere near maximum.
FS9 flies like a dream at over 70fps and every slider full right. And AA on 12.
And I love all the addon scenery available for fs9. In fsx you are stuck,for the present, with Msoft's idea of what things look like. eg. Milford sound..
I have tried fsx with Vista and IMO it's evern slower.

I have both fs's loaded, but hardly ever bother with fsx

Big John
10-06-2007, 08:02 PM
Suggest you forget about Vista and FSX.

FS9 with XP is the way to go.

Vista is a dog.
FS X will be OK in a couple of years

FSX Rules and so does Vista. You just need a machine that is good enough to handle it. I have FSX with everything at full sliders to the right except for Water 2.x which is low and ground/ship traffic which is around 7% and still get 40FPS out of it. Reduces to 18-20 around KLAX and the like but still perfectly flyable and graphics way better.
BTW I have a C2D 6700 with 2GB and 8800GTX card and get these out of it.
64 bit is a waste at present as most programs are only done for 32 bit anyway and get run that way wasting the 64 bit advantage.

alcra
12-06-2007, 06:26 PM
Thanks TEOR---- Tauranga Computers gave me advise last Nov for using FX and built me the following ----AMD 64 3800 Dual Core processor --2 gig DDR2---Geforce 7600GT graphics -- yes even with SP1 onboard I only get 24 fps -- action & scenary is very good -- but although I had NZ add on scenary with my FS 9 -- it was horrible-- FX is far better--- who wants 60fps when the view below you is rubbish-----you are correct -- I know FX is designed to be driven off DX10 -- this is the only way I will get it---Trev WILL go this way -- eventually ----

mejobloggs
12-06-2007, 07:17 PM
Installed FSX SP1 Jack?

JJJJJ
12-06-2007, 08:05 PM
Installed FSX SP1 Jack?


YES

Trev
13-06-2007, 12:22 AM
Thanks TEOR---- Tauranga Computers gave me advise last Nov for using FX and built me the following ----AMD 64 3800 Dual Core processor --2 gig DDR2---Geforce 7600GT graphics -- yes even with SP1 onboard I only get 24 fps -- action & scenary is very good -- but although I had NZ add on scenary with my FS 9 -- it was horrible-- FX is far better--- who wants 60fps when the view below you is rubbish-----you are correct -- I know FX is designed to be driven off DX10 -- this is the only way I will get it---Trev WILL go this way -- eventually ----

Saving up for a Intel Dual Core machine. Should have it in a couple of months.
Trevor :)

JJJJJ
13-06-2007, 06:33 AM
Read this before installing FSx


http://vistaoz.org/smf/index.php?topic=5197.0

Neil McC
13-06-2007, 07:45 AM
Read this before installing FSx


http://vistaoz.org/smf/index.php?topic=5197.0


Only registered members are allowed to access this section.

Big John
13-06-2007, 08:20 AM
Read this before installing FSx


http://vistaoz.org/smf/index.php?topic=5197.0

Can't read it because you need to be a member. Not trying to Spam are you?

Anyway don't need to read it as I have it installed already and would never go back to FS2004 just by sheer graphics alone. FSX looks so much better.

JJJJJ
13-06-2007, 08:51 AM
Only registered members are allowed to access this section.

Sorry about that. It's worth registering to read the article if you are serious about flight sim.
It's written by the chap responsable for VOZ.

Trev
13-06-2007, 09:51 AM
The default scenery in FSX is far superior to the default scenery in FS9. In FSX I can pick out all the local hills where I live with the default scenery, but with the default scenery in FS9 you can't. For that to happen in FS9 I had to buy some addon scenery.
Trevor :)

JJJJJ
13-06-2007, 10:27 AM
The default scenery in FSX is far superior to the default scenery in FS9. In FSX I can pick out all the local hills where I live with the default scenery, but with the default scenery in FS9 you can't. For that to happen in FS9 I had to buy some addon scenery.
Trevor :)

I agree with you about the default scenery. But who flies with only the default scenery?
I have custom scenery for most of the airports in NZ and OZ and I miss all these in fsx.
I do most of my flying in OZ with the latest versions of voz installed. It's almost like real world.

When voz for fsx is released later this year I will probably switch to fsx, but in the meantime I will stay with fs9

dolby digital
13-06-2007, 10:54 AM
Go for it Jack.

We don't all believe the latest and greatest IS the best. Its has to earn it.

PS. I will get FS X at some stage, but I need better hardware.