Computer that can run MS flight sim

dustin746

dustin746

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
17
Display Name
Display name:
dustin746
Hey guys. I'm looking for a desktop computer that can run MS Flight Sim decently. I'm not too much into computers so I don't know too much about technical aspects. Could someone basically give me list of what specs I need to run MS Flight Sim decently? I plan on buying a used/refurbished computer and don't want to build it myself. If you know a good computer please let me know. Thanks everyone
 
I would like to be at or around $300 for a used or refurbished one. I was thinking a Dell Optiplex 380 might be able to run it but I'm not sure.
 
dustin746 said:
I would like to be at or around $300 for a used or refurbished one. I was thinking a Dell Optiplex 380 might be able to run it but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Might work - the thing is that MS flight sims can be adjusted to be less demanding of available CPU and GPU at the cost of eye candy.

All the so-called "gaming" computers with fast CPUs and graphic cards tend to start around $500. That price doesn't include a monitor. You can normally run the simulations with realism settings pretty high with them, though.
 
Is an AMD 5300 processor decent? I've been looking around and some barebones desktops with that processor and 3.4 Ghz are in my price range. Not sure about the graphics card though.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Might work - the thing is that MS flight sims can be adjusted to be less demanding of available CPU and GPU at the cost of eye candy.

All the so-called "gaming" computers with fast CPUs and graphic cards tend to start around $500. That price doesn't include a monitor. You can normally run the simulations with realism settings pretty high with them, though.
Click to expand...

I concur.
Yeah I'd say stay away from the cheap cheap PCs because in the long run you'll just be disappointed in the performance. Then find yourself spending more later.

OP do yourself a favor and spend a little more now for a decent "gaming" PC.

MSFS all the way up to FSX has always been a resource hog and one of the most taxing 'games' out there. X-Plane runs better on lower end PCs with less eye candy (default airports have few or no buildings, city buildings are generic, 3D cockpits aren't as detailed, etc).

X-Plane 10 has much improved graphics and the flight models just feel more fluid IMO. However, I enjoy both for what they have to offer.

I build myself a new PC every three to four years just for the fun of it but if I were going to buy one for flights sims/games, especially FSX, I would expect to pay no less than $500 (on the low end).

My last build was an Intel i5-2500K (3.3ghz) quad core, GTX-580 GPU, 8gb DDR3. That was around three years ago, so it's almost that time:D

I prefer Intel over AMD and Nvidia GPUs over ATI. Intel CPUs seems to run MSFS better IMO. However, I haven't used an AMD in years. Other people say they noticed no difference so it's probably not that big a deal:dunno:

When it comes to GPUs, Nvidia's drivers have been known to be much more stable over the years. So for flight simulator I'd get an Nvidia based graphics card but not the low end.

Bottom line: if you get a budget PC, be prepared to turn down the graphics settings within FSX / X-plane to get a decent frame rate. Way down.
 
Last edited:
Head over to the forums on avsim.net.

I have fsx - I would suggest going with x plane as it is still supported. If you must use fsx then a fast 4 core Intel cpu plus a mid range nvidia gpu should do it. Fsx isn't very good at using the multi core structure of amd cpus.
 
TB752 said:
FSX isn't very good at using the multi core structure of amd cpus.
Click to expand...

None of the MSFS versions did well with multi-core processors (Intel or AMD). I haven't paid much attention to processors since FSX came out, but back the. AMD did make single cores.
 
So I could get better results out of X Plane on lower end specs?
 
dustin746 said:
So I could get better results out of X Plane on lower end specs?
Click to expand...

Overall, yes. X-Plane is coded to automatically detect your PC specs and reduce scenery and visibility detail in order to keep the frame rate as high as possible. High frame rate is what gives you fluid flight dynamics and smoothness.

On lower powered PCs, I used to get micro-stutters in FS9/FSX. Nothing ruins the experience more than micro stutters and poor FPS.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Might work - the thing is that MS flight sims can be adjusted to be less demanding of available CPU and GPU at the cost of eye candy.

All the so-called "gaming" computers with fast CPUs and graphic cards tend to start around $500. That price doesn't include a monitor. You can normally run the simulations with realism settings pretty high with them, though.
Click to expand...

I can run MS 9 and 10 on a very old ACER 10 laptop (with a large monitor attached.) But I do have to change the settings to get the frame rate up to about 20.

For instance, turning off the other virtual aircraft (which have practically nothing to do with the flight experience) helps a lot. Changing the amount of terrain detail, the distance that detail can be seen, and some of the other items such as realistic shadows all help.

MS Flight Sim is inexpensive. Buy it, install it on whatever you have, and then decide if it is going to work for you, and what you learn will help you decide how much more powerful a machine you need.

When I had a tower unit, I did buy a graphic card so I could run two monitors -- one for showing the instrument panel and the other for the outside view.
 
So would 3.4 Ghz Dual Core with 4GB of RAM with a decent graphics card be good enough for X-Plane?
 
Last edited:
I would prefer X-Plane 10 if I could, but if the 9th one would run a lot smoother I could do 9. What kind of frame rate do you think I could get in 10 if I tuned it down a little?
 
Anyone remember running the first versions of MS FS? Ran off a single diskette on an 8088.

Those weren't the days but they seemed like it at the time.
 
Bill Watson said:
Anyone remember running the first versions of MS FS? Ran off a single diskette on an 8088.



Those weren't the days but they seemed like it at the time.
Click to expand...

My first Flight Sim was SubLogic Flight Sim 2.0 on an Apple II+ with the single 5 1/4" diskette
 
Bill Watson said:
Anyone remember running the first versions of MS FS? Ran off a single diskette on an 8088.

Those weren't the days but they seemed like it at the time.
Click to expand...

Bruce Artwick :)

Hey remember Microprose Solo Flight?
http://youtu.be/s5qZfFmBNaM

That was my first flightsim. I was around 16 when I bought my first computer, a Commodore 64. Spent hours in the attic on Solo Flight before I got an IBM compatable to run MSFS.

Check out the frame rate and instrument panel :rofl:

Yes those were the days,lol.
 
Last edited:
dustin746 said:
I would prefer X-Plane 10 if I could, but if the 9th one would run a lot smoother I could do 9. What kind of frame rate do you think I could get in 10 if I tuned it down a little?
Click to expand...

The good thing is you can download the demo for free and try it on whatever you have. The demo times out after a few minutes but you can restart it for further testing.

Maybe this will help.

http://wiki.x-plane.com/Setting_Up_X-Plane_for_Best_Performance

"X-Plane users tend to notice either that the simulator runs extremely fast, giving them 100 frames per second (fps), or that it is dismally slow, topping out at 20 fps. At identical rendering settings, this is due almost entirely to the hardware in the computer.

A number of settings in the simulator can be tweaked in order to maximize performance, but it is important first to understand why X-Plane performs very well on one computer, but not so well on another."


It all depends on how much eye candy you want. If you only want to practice IFR and could care less about terrain scenery and aircraft detail, you can turn the settings down and get the sim to run pretty good on low specs.
I have done that with several of the earlier versions of X-Plane. I started with version 6.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    85.5 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
redtail said:
Bruce Artwick :)

Hey remember Microprose Solo Flight?
http://youtu.be/s5qZfFmBNaM

That was my first flightsim. I was around 16 when I bought my first computer, a Commodore 64. Spent hours in the attic on Solo Flight before I got an IBM compatable to run MSFS.

Check out the frame rate and instrument panel :rofl:

Yes those were the days,lol.
Click to expand...
Seemed like magic at the time. The idea that it would ever become photo/motion realistic was just about unimaginable.
 
FSX is more a CPU and RAM hog than GPU hog, but that said, get as much horsepower as you can afford and plan ahead for replacing at least the GPU.

FSX responds well to increased RAM, and there are some decent tweak guides out on the interwebz to improve performance on even modest machines.

As others have said, certain settings can cause FSX to perform very well, or very poorly, it will do some of the determination on its' own, but may require some testing on your part to get the level of overall performance you want in combination with the visuals or aircraft or other performance elements you want.

An average home use desktop from any of the major manufacturers will run FSX 'OK' with the graphics performance turned down - really depends on your ultimate intent with it - but for very high levels of realism in the visuals you need a fast processor, lots of RAM, and a decent GPU.

'Gimp
 
What about equipment for multi monitors?

List what equipment you believe is the best for this. Saying buy a high end machine means squat to alot of folks. More money for something does not always mean better equipment.

I run FSX on a laptop and it does an ok job at it. I have most things set to max in the config setup. But then somethings turned down about mid way.

AMD quad core A6-3420M with turbo CORE 2.40 GHz
AMD Radeon HD 6520G with 512MB graphics system memory
4GB DDR3
acer Nplify 802 11b/g/n
750 GB HDD

Tony
 
Last edited:
I am not sure why but after I purchase some upgrades from Justflight FSX ran so much smoother. I mean a lot smoother. I think Justflight did something with the software and it used the quad core part of the GPU better or something. All I can say is what a difference since purchasing this.

Tony
 
Bill Watson said:
Seemed like magic at the time. The idea that it would ever become photo/motion realistic was just about unimaginable.
Click to expand...

That's for sure! I would look at magazine articles that showcased flight simulators that ran on Cray supercomputers and daydream about having that level of realism.
 
Last edited:
Bill Watson said:
Seemed like magic at the time. The idea that it would ever become photo/motion realistic was just about unimaginable.
Click to expand...

I remember wondering if home computers would ever get fast enough to play and/or edit video!
 
1600vw said:
What about equipment for multi monitors?

List what equipment you believe is the best for this. Saying buy a high end machine means squat to alot of folks. More money for something does not always mean better equipment.

I run FSX on a laptop and it does an ok job at it. I have most things set to max in the config setup. But then somethings turned down about mid way.

AMD quad core A6-3420M with turbo CORE 2.40 GHz
AMD Radeon HD 6520G with 512MB graphics system memory
4GB DDR3
acer Nplify 802 11b/g/n
750 GB HDD

Tony
Click to expand...

I didn't think the OP was looking for the best or a multi-monitor setup.
I thought he was looking for the bare minimum specs:dunno:

Well I can't say what the "best" is but here's what I'm running.
Built it a little over three years ago. (Some components upgraded over that time).

i5-2500K quad core @3.3Ghz (overclocked to 4.2) using a Corsair H-50 liquid cooler.
8GB DDR3-1600 (G.Skill Ripjaws-X series)
Nvidia GeForce GTX-580 (1536 MB VRAM)
Creative Labs X-Fi XtremeMusic sound card
Hitachi Deskstar 500GB 7200RPM SATA II hard drive (some people call it the Deathstar, but I never had any problems with it):lol:

3 Acer 23" monitors (one is a touchscreen), connected via
Matrox Tripplehead2go (digital).
Corsair TX 750w power supply

Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
X-Plane 10.25 (64 bit).
Carenado Mooney M20J

X-Plane settings:
Texture resolution- Very high
World detail distance- High
Airport detail- High
Anti-Aliasing (AA) 4x-hardcore
Anisotropic Filtering (AF) 4x-hardcore
Cloud detail- 50%

Frame per second
Sitting on the runway at KSEA
42fps (2D cockpit), 42fps (3D cockpit).

Airborne FPS mid 40s, sometimes up to 60!
Runs smooth as butter:yes:
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 9
Last edited:
What one should ask for is a machine that will produce 20 FPS with some of the graphics turned up.
When it comes to flight simulators the higher frame rate the easier it is to fly. Get anything below 20 fps and it gets kinda choppy. That makes it harder to fly, you are chasing the controls IMHO.

Tony
 
Here's an excellent book that I highly recommend, probably the best ever written on the topic of Flight Simulator. Much of it applies to X-Plane as well as FSX. No (despite the title) this is not intended to be a substitute for flight training.

It's written by two flight instructors as an enhancement to get the most out of flight simulator, nothing more.

Microsoft Flight Simulator X For Pilots Real World Training

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Pilots-Training/dp/0764588222

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/conte...ht-Simulator-X-For-Pilots-Real-World-Training
 
For the most part, I’ve run the Intel quad core CPU (i5-2500K) at stock settings of 3.3GHz. A few days ago, I installed the Corsair liquid cooler (Hydro H50) that has been sitting in the box gathering dust. So last night I decided to see how far I could push it.
The (K) denotes an unlocked multiplier, which means the chip can be overclocked. The motherboard has an auto-overclocking button called “OC Genie”. What that does is apply an automatic overclock once the button is pressed- 4.2 GHz. However, with better cooling the CPU can do much more than that. As high as 5GHz by some accounts, but the Hydro is an inexpensive “beginners” liquid cooler, not a full-fledged water cooling system.
I’m a beginner, so the best I could get is 4.5GHz by changing the multiplier to 45 while leaving the Front-Side Bus frequency at 100MHz (100MHz x 45). Had to bump up the CPU Vcore voltage a little bit but not much. I had it running at 4.7 but it would only hold for about ten minutes then reboot. So after a few hours of stable performance at 4.5, I think I’ll leave it there before I burn up the chip! :yikes::rofl:

The new results:

Carenado Mooney M20J
KSEA 3 mile final runway 34R
CAVU, 100SM=58fps
MVFR, 5SM, OVC014=75fps!

VERY SMOOTH, FLUID FLIGHT DYNAMICS.

Having started this hobby in 1983 with a Commodore C64, “Solo Flight” and SubLogic Flight Simulator, I never imagined I’d see this level of performance on a home computer.

These screenshots were taken with my iphone, so they're not as clear as they should be.

Edit: 4/25/14 Stable at 4.6GHz
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    744.6 KB · Views: 10
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    1,008.1 KB · Views: 12
  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    742.6 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
So I was just on Facebook with my computer-geek son. He builds PCs, designs web pages, writes code, etc.

Discussing my recent overlocking success and elation at the "impressive" performance gain...

He says "that's great", but basically told me I needed to step up my game, lol.

Then he sends me a link to the (8 core) AMD FX-9590 Vishera. He says "that ought to be enough for flightsim" :lol:

Kids:mad2::rofl:
 
Last edited:
I'm in PC rebuild mode:D. First thing replaced was my GPU.

Old--PNY GTX-580 (Enthusiast Edition).

New--PNY GTX-780ti OC (Enthusiast Edition)

Still haven't decided on a CPU/Motherboard, but I'm leaning towards an i7-980 (6 core). Probably another month or so before I get around to it.

I'll probably put the 580 on ebay. If anyone wants to grab it, pm me.

I'm starting to like what I see Lockheed Martin doing with Prepar3D. Thinking of trying it out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top