[jhb_airlines] Re: VFR

  • From: "F FISHER" <ffisher991@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:22:32 +0100

Peter

FSX is a lot smoother at lower FR's than FS9 or prevoius, at least M$ got that right.

Which is why I cruise at around 25-30 frames on my puny rig, and that with GenX loaded. Ok the load times at the start, is bad, but liveable. Around 5 minutes from startup to the apron.

Frank F

A new machine will improve that.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Dodds" <pdodds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <pdodds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 2:39 PM
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: VFR


The RAM game in 2Gb chunks and it was cheaper to put in 2 x 2Gb than 3 x
1Gb, as i'm sure you know, pricing is often daft like that.

Anyway 80FPS is a slight improvement over 14, which in FSX is actually
quite flyable. I've never been a frame rate chaser - I wanted more than 20,
so 80 is a bonus!!

Peter

*From:* "F FISHER" <ffisher991@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*To:* <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Date:* Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:21:58 +0100

Peter

A fairly good spec, I am aiming a little higher, and will opt
(against my better judgment) for Vista 64 bit(32 bit apparently
will only read up to 3gig ram, so putting in 4, will be a bit of a
waste, WinXP is also 32 bit by the way, same limitation).

Assuming that FSX will run happily in Vista 64.

SP1 and 2 does ramp up FSX, the extra coding to cope with the newer
technology. A plus.

Frank F



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



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.13/1642 - Release Date: 29/08/2008 18:12


Other related posts: