Flight Simulators
Discussion
I remember MS Flight Simulator 95 being reasonably good on my first PC with a whopping 1gig hard drive, bugger all RAM and a crappy graphics card so how come MS or anyone else don't make an all bells and whistles Flight Sim for Xbox or Playstation?
Surely the power of these consoles far exceed what was around in the mid 90s?
The only thing I could find on my newly purchased xBox 360 is Flight Adventure by an indie German company for only £1.99. The graphics are a bit Nintendo 64 PilotWings but the single prop aircraft does respond in a similar way to my limited experience at the controls of a Cessna 172.
One runway and a big mountainous island so I've been playing at being a bush pilot in Indonesia
Managed to land in fields and take off again but have not successfully landed on a bare mountain.....yet.
But back to the original question, anyone know why?
Surely the power of these consoles far exceed what was around in the mid 90s?
The only thing I could find on my newly purchased xBox 360 is Flight Adventure by an indie German company for only £1.99. The graphics are a bit Nintendo 64 PilotWings but the single prop aircraft does respond in a similar way to my limited experience at the controls of a Cessna 172.
One runway and a big mountainous island so I've been playing at being a bush pilot in Indonesia
Managed to land in fields and take off again but have not successfully landed on a bare mountain.....yet.
But back to the original question, anyone know why?
MS decided to close their flight simulator studio,Aces,after FSX. No idea why,such a shame as an FS11 would be great. FSX with the many 3rd party upgrades is awesome though.
XPlane is also quite good,not sure about Prepar3d(sp?) which is a sort of FSX update IIRC.
Don't think there is a reality flight sim on a console,all a bit aemrcadey but am happy to be proved wrong.
XPlane is also quite good,not sure about Prepar3d(sp?) which is a sort of FSX update IIRC.
Don't think there is a reality flight sim on a console,all a bit aemrcadey but am happy to be proved wrong.
croyde said:
There's 8 buttons/triggers and a D-pad and 2 joysticks, surely that's enough.
1. Gear up/Gear down2. Flaps up one notch
3. Flaps down one notch
4. Airbrake up/Airbrake down
5. Elevator trim up
6. Elevator trim down
7. Rudder trim left
8. Rudder trim right
...
You're missing keys for changing radio frequencies and nav frequencies, de-icing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...http://www.mutleyshangar.com/downloads/FSX%20Keyboard%20Commands%20Pamphlet.pdf
The vast majority of people that use consoles really wouldn't care about how indepth flight simulators are anyway so they'd have no market anyway.
How many console players would have the patience to spend a weekend learning to take off, land safe, get out of a flat spin, stall etc?
Plus you don't get the feel through a controller like you can with joystick and pedals. I think the Sim market is very much a PC driven event where fans are willing to put the hours in and the money for the hardware. Hell if you spend £200 on a good joystick then £300 on a graphics card is nothing.
Lukily there are people still making sims.
Here's a fan made vid all from the Battle of Stalingrad early access
http://youtu.be/vEHSEaHwPTM
Plus you don't get the feel through a controller like you can with joystick and pedals. I think the Sim market is very much a PC driven event where fans are willing to put the hours in and the money for the hardware. Hell if you spend £200 on a good joystick then £300 on a graphics card is nothing.
Lukily there are people still making sims.
Here's a fan made vid all from the Battle of Stalingrad early access
http://youtu.be/vEHSEaHwPTM
I've been helping a friend improve his FSX system so have spent a lot of time reading up on FSX and I think FSX killed FSX it's so processor hungry even today a modern computer will struggle to get a good FPS with all sliders to the right for the best graphics. A graphics card really doesn't add much to the party.
But people are certainly still making add-ons for FSX, my friend flys a PMDG plane 737 / 767 something like that and I'm amazed at how good it is.
But people are certainly still making add-ons for FSX, my friend flys a PMDG plane 737 / 767 something like that and I'm amazed at how good it is.
Yeh FSX is insanely processor hungry but you can run it well on a decent PC if you know what you're doing. I built a PC especially for FSX (core i7 o'ced to 4.8 ghz, 32gb ram, 6gb Titan GPU) and it runs the Dash 8 Q400 like butter, even with maxed out settings. I'll post up some screenies when I get a chance.
bennyboydurham said:
Yeh FSX is insanely processor hungry but you can run it well on a decent PC if you know what you're doing. I built a PC especially for FSX (core i7 o'ced to 4.8 ghz, 32gb ram, 6gb Titan GPU) and it runs the Dash 8 Q400 like butter, even with maxed out settings. I'll post up some screenies when I get a chance.
Can you post up a spec? I'm thinking of building a PC for FSx and wouldn't know where to start! Thanks.Flanders. said:
Can you post up a spec? I'm thinking of building a PC for FSx and wouldn't know where to start! Thanks.
A good place to start is here: http://kostasfsworld.wordpress.com/fsx-software-an...This guy is a real guru on FSX and has written a guide on how to tweak it to the max.
Here's a paste of the section on hardware:
"There are many threads, and always new ones created, with a typical question, what should I buy for the FSX.
FSX is a resource hog. If Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3, or any other current game is running great, this does not mean that FSX is going to. FSX is an old code, it needs raw CPU power and it needs quite a lot of GPU if you want no shimmering (high IQ)! People tend to forget how important GPU is when getting hardware for FSX.
There is this huge misconception that GPU is not important for FSX and I hope that my previous explanation under Nvidia Inspector managed to shed some light on it.
In this part, we’ll be discussing those hot thread questions like “Build for FSX”, “What is good GPU for FSX” and alike.
CPU
Budget oriented: 3570K, 2500K…
Both quite OK overclockers, good all-rounders, as usual IB running hotter than SB…
Performance: 3770K, 2700K…
2700K is a great overclocker, need to turn off HT though to overclock. Same like above concerning temperature.
All Ivy Bridge CPUs have a temperature problems, thus able to overclock less than 2700K, but with improved performance per clock, it reaches same performance like 2700K with slightly lower overclock. The only chance of overclocking IB like SB is to delid it, replace the thermal paste with a better compound (Coollaboratory Liquid Pro).
Link
It basically right now comes to this: if you want to overclock to reach high FSX performance, an overclock is quite recommended or even a must. 2700K can quite easily reach 5.0Ghz or more with a decent cooling. Out of the box, without any modification. Ivy Bridge though, since it is running quite hot, can out of the box reach max. about 4.5Ghz. That will not top the 2700K’s 5.0Ghz performance. Thus:
If you want high performance with a decent overclock, 2700K.
If you’re ready to delid the Ivy Bridge (warranty-loss in any case), then you have good chances of reaching the same 5.0Ghz or even more. Since IB is faster than SB clock for clock, 5.0 on IB are better than 5.0 on SB. But 4.5 on IB are not better than 5.0 on SB.
It all comes down to what you are ready to do with your CPU.
PCIEx3:
The awaited PCIEx3 is also not a boost in FSX some were expecting it to be.
Check this to get an idea how the performance scales:
Link
Overclocking
This is very important part when it comes to FSX and should be considered when building a computer for FSX. Get a chip that can be overclocked well and get a decent cooling.
Some good sites for overclocking Sandy Bridge CPUs:
Link1
Link2
And some links for Ivy Bridge overclocking tutorials:
Link1
Link2 (video, I think this NCIX guy really explains well)
Most users are running their SB chips around 4.5-4.8. Take that as a pointer.
DISCLAIMER: You and solely you are responsible for your hardware when overclocking.
Temperatures
One of the most asked questions on the forums is “how hot is too hot”.
While everyone is going to have their opinion, there is probably one number that most agree about:
Sandy Bridge should not go 24/7 over 80c (synthetic Prime95 test).
That said, max. operating temperature for the CPU is about 100c, so you should really get worried if you cross 90c, but the hotter it gets, the worse it is for the CPU.
If your synthetic benchmark is going up to 80c, you are most likely not to cross 70c in FSX usage. FSX is never going to load the CPU as high as synthetic benchmarks.
I personally believe that if you keep the CPU cool enough, and if you pump quite a lot voltage into it, you’ll be fine (*disclaimer here that this is only my personal opinion, nothing more).
The usual accepted numbers are up to 1.4 Vcore on the 2500k/2600k/2700k and up to some 80c. (*80c is measured with CoreTemp at high load with Prime95/Linx in a stress test over 1 hour).
Cooling
Be sure to get known and high performing products.
Good overclocking coolers are:
Corsair H100, Noctua NH-D14 (good for high overclocks on air)
Custom Watercooling (best cooling for home use, short of LN2 and alike solutions)
Scythe Katana 3 (cheaper than those above, for those not wanting to overclock as high as 5.0GHz)
…and many more (too many to count!)
As described above, cooling is not something to look over with ease. Think about it as a way to the high performing computer for FSX.
DO NOT FORGET: a good CPU cooler also needs good supporting case fans. It’s no use if the CPU cooler is good, and it’s fans “cool” the CPU with the hot air stagnating inside the case. See the part about the case cooling.
HYPERTHREADING
FSX has no benefit of it and it should be turned off in BIOS.
If you need HT for some other applications, by all means, use it, but do set the correct Affinitymask to force FSX to use all cores but Core0, and no HT cores.
MOTHERBOARD
Not a hard choice, currently Z77 series, something like:
ASUS P8Z77-V
Asrock Z77 Extreme4
MSI Z77A-G45
…
Whatever takes your fancy. All these boards are good, all are going to fullfill the mission. ASUS is to be said to be a great overclocker, take a look at what the board offers in terms of slots and connectors, and see if it’s enough for you. ASUS Deluxe even offers a front bay…
RAM
Budget oriented:
8GB recommended
1600 MHz / CL7
Performance:
8GB recommended
2400 MHz / lowest CL possible / higher RAM clocks
It’s actually very little difference between these when it comes to performance in FSX.
There have been many tests on this topic, and results have shown that RAM has very little impact on FSX. Some say it’s about microstuttering, yet I couldn’t find any proof that the RAM I tested (second) was any faster or caused any less stuttering than the current one I have.
The fact is, if you keep above 1600 MHz and accordingly with the latency, you shouldn’t have any problems.
Make sure though that you get two sticks and not four. More sticks you have, more does the memory controller on the CPU have to work, making more heat, and making your overclocks harder. It has been proven through some tests that the systems were much more stable by usage of 2 sticks when overclocking.
Besides, FSX doesn’t use more than 4GB in any case, and 4GB including all the FSX apps is more than enough for Windows. 16GB is only going to be needed for things like video cutting, professional photography…
GPU
This is a huge topic. It has been partly covered in the part with Nvidia Inspector, so I won’t go into much depth here.
Recommended GPU for FSX is currently Nvidia. The most commonly used GPUs currently are from 660Ti up to GTX680.
Mostly used *new* GPUs today are GTX660 /Ti, GTX670 and currently top of the line for FSX, the GTX680. According to many tests, going dual GPU cards, like GTX690 has no benefit for FSX. Only high costs.
Budget oriented: GTX 660
Mid-Range: GTX660TI/GTX670
Performance: GTX 680
There have been tests comparing 580 and 680 series of cards. In geometrical sense in a single screen configuration, these cards perform pretty much the same.
Though, add IQ, and differences can be quite big.
If you check the FSXMark11 results, and find comparable results with similar CPUs but different GPUs, you’ll notice very little difference between these GPUs. This is because FSXMark11 doesn’t test the IQ, the AA settings are default (=weak). So is the picture quality.
Yet my cloud test that was run on couple of computers (which is really hard on card’s IQ), confirmed that these cards scale with up to 33% FPS performance differential. This was compared between 560Ti and 580. The GTX680 gives even higher boost over GTX580 when using high Anti-Aliasing methods like SGSS (4x, 8x). It has been seen that GTX680 is almost 2x faster in clouds when compared to GTX580 and using high IQ, for example 4x SGSS.
Here is the link to the cloudtest:
Cloudtest
Unrar this and load in FSX. Press S ONCE to enter external view. Do not unpause.
See what it reads in FRAPS. As a reference, my computer, full screen (settings from above): 26fps. You can use this is as a reference to the cloud performance, which often takes the toll on performance while landing in the bad weather. You are also welcome to post your result below!
That said, it’s up to you to decide which GPU is best for YOU. The more dough, the faster it will be, especially if you like sweet non-shimmering picture with lots of detail!
2xSGSS is going to get rid of most of shimmering, something no other mode is going to do. 4x SGSS goes even step further, and is resolving even the slightest shimmering. So if you want that, there is only one card for you currently: GTX680. Otherwise the performance is going to suffer in heavy overcast clouds.
PCIEx3: in complement with the GTX 670/680, provides no real boost in FSX.
Temperatures
As I have my GPU watercooled, I can hardly report on any normal GPU temperatures or fan speeds. My watercooled GPU never goes much over 45c, even on hard overclock.
STORAGE
Now, this is a huge moot point on the forums. And with right it is.
One thing stands: you should have two harddisks in your system. One for windows and one for FSX.
Budget oriented: HDD
You are going to get the best price/GB ratio. Also if you decide going the HDD way, the best solution right now is the Western Digital Velociraptor 600GB HLHX. It’s big and it’s fast.
Other possibilities include:
Western Digital 1TB Black
Samsung 1TB F3
Performance: SSD
You are going to get the best performance there is.
The biggest plus for the SSD are the loading times. There is virtually no difference while flying. Some say snappier texture loading when changing views, but that’s all there is.
SSD is NOT going to improve your FPS and SSD is NOT going to improve blurries.
Recommendations are OCZ Vertex 3 or 4, Samsung 830, Intel 520… GB? Basically what you can afford, which brings me to…
Most users afford themselves a 128GB one, some more wealthy 256GB ones. And some that really have the dough, ranges of 512GB.
Now, think carefully how big your FSX is, how fast you are going to fill it, and how long until you need a bigger one.
That said, SSDs are also becoming cheaper by the day, it’s only a matter of time until it becomes a massproduct.
A word on RAID: According to some tests I read, RAID setups need to have very good (=expensive) controllers and also fast disks. It has been tested and seen they don’t do much for FSX, in terms of speed. It remained a fact that a single disk, like a Raptor will do much better in FSX than RAID. Not even mentioning SSD. On my own, I never did do any RAID testing.
COMPUTER CASE
Do not underestimate a good case. If you are building an air cooled computer, a good case is of big importance.
The airflow is very important and having big and good quality fans for intake and outtake is of essence.
You must consider that when cooling the computer, it is not only enough to cool the CPU, GPU and the main components, but also the mainboard parts, so good airflow over the mainboard is needed.
Thing to consider too is that the case should have some kind of wire management – an ability to hide the cables behind the mainboard, allowing for better airflow.
Recommendations for the cases are:
Corsair Obsidian 650D/800D (medium/full tower)
Cooler Master HAF 932 /X (full tower)
…and possibly some other comparable cases (open for forum suggestions)
PSU
You need a good PSU. You are building a good computer, saving on the PSU might only bring you troubles.
If overclocking and a strong GPU are planned, consider getting at least 750w.
If buying a system with two GPUs, consider 850w+.
Also do think of getting a modular PSU, so that you connect only the cables you need, allowing for better airflow in the computer.
Also not a bad idea is to get a PSU with an 80+ Gold certification.
Good PSU companies include Corsair, Seasonic, Cooler Master, SilverStone…"
Interesting stuff, thanks for posting it.
I have to say that FSX still crashes my system in fog with everything on full, I don't use any scenery mods though but am running a reasonable system i7, 16gb of Ram and a GTX Titan.
Agree it will never happen on console though,the only way I could see it working is with a flly interactive cockpit which DCS use so you can just use the pad to individually press all the buttons, but that wouldn't really work. The A10C in DCS can take 20 minutes just to get the damn thing fired up and thats before you get in to the navigation and weapons systems! I haven't been able to fire up the mustang yet as there isn't a tutorial.
I have to say that FSX still crashes my system in fog with everything on full, I don't use any scenery mods though but am running a reasonable system i7, 16gb of Ram and a GTX Titan.
Agree it will never happen on console though,the only way I could see it working is with a flly interactive cockpit which DCS use so you can just use the pad to individually press all the buttons, but that wouldn't really work. The A10C in DCS can take 20 minutes just to get the damn thing fired up and thats before you get in to the navigation and weapons systems! I haven't been able to fire up the mustang yet as there isn't a tutorial.
Mattygooner said:
..........I haven't been able to fire up the mustang yet as there isn't a tutorial.
This any help?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIMSGGhd5U8
For the A2A one, but I wonder if most of the buttons & settings will be similar?
Or get the A2A 'Stang for FSX,IIRC they have VERY full manuals
I really need to get a new PC for FSX,my old one had hundreds of planes,free & payware, & a fortune in add ons. Hope I will sti;l be able to download them!
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff