For Your Consideration: Flight Simulator X

I hope the previous entry helped you decide on which version of Microsoft Flight Simulator is best suited to your PC and your piloting style. However, for the remainder of this blog, I am going to focus primarily on Flight Simulator X (10) because not only is this the latest version of FS, but it is also the version I have installed on my hard drive at the moment :)

WELCOME TO FLIGHT SIMULATOR X

I will state up front there is no consumer computer hardware currently available at stock speeds that can run FSX with every single feature set at maximum.

The reason is ACES Studio, when developing FSX, wanted the program to be future proof until the next version of Flight Simulator (FS11) is released. The problem is they based their development of FSX around what future hardware development road maps looked like in 2006. ACES erroneously predicted there would be an increase in the overall speed, Gigahertz (GHz), of future desktop processors. This did not happen. Instead, the processor industry gradually introduced multicore chips, dual, triple and quad cores, but at much lower speeds than ACES had forecast. As a result, FSX requires processors with speeds in excess of 4 GHz, to be able to run the game smoothly and with all visual settings at very high levels. There are currently no consumer processors with a stock frequency this high and there probably will not be any in the immediate future, unfortunately.

This doesn't mean FSX is unusable, obviously. What this does mean, however, is virtual pilots who are choosing FSX as their primary simulation platform must be prepared for possible hardware upgrades, but more importantly approach FSX with tempered expectations given the technical limitations of how FSX was developed and how it currently performs on a number of PC configurations.

THE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:

Processor: 3.6 GHz CPU

RAM: 2048 MB

Video Memory: 512 MB

Hard Drive Space: 14000 MB

These hardware specifications are from the official Microsoft product page for Flight Simulator X. They are accurate if you want to run FSX with most of the detail sliders set to "High", or "Ultra High". Even though these recommended specs were listed when the game was released in 2006, they still hold true today because (as stated) there is currently no high-end processor, dual, triple or quad core, from either Intel or AMD that ship with a stock speed above of 3.3 GHz at the current time.

So, what hardware can virtual pilots run FSX on? What level of performance should they expect?

Processor (CPU): If you are looking to build a system to run FSX, I recommend a Intel Processor. Either a dual, or quad core because they are currently the leaders in terms of both raw speed (GHz) and amount of data that can be cached & processed. AMD is a viable option for those on a budget, but for FSX, I highly recommend the Intel Core 2 Duo, or Core 2 Quad line of processors to make sure FSX has enough processing power to run well. FSX performance depends more on the speed of the CPU than rendering of the GPU (video card). It is a "processor bound" game because of the amount of calculations it must do to simulate things like aerodynamic flight, changing weather conditions, AI Air Traffic routines, etc.

A general rule of thumb to adhere to when purchasing current PC hardware is to be aware most applications and games are not optimized for multicore processors. Therefore, having a faster single core (in a dual core setup) will benefit a user greater than having four cores (quad core setup) at lower clock speeds. Thus, for FSX, I recommend the fastest dual core chip you can afford (the current top-of-the-line Intel Core2Duo is the E8600 Wolfdale @ 3.3 GHz). However, users on various flight sim forums have reported better performance with an Intel Quad (Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz x4) core while others have reported decreased performance with a Quad Core just the same. So, who to believe? And what kind of processor should you purchase for FSX?

I still stand by the accepted rule of thumb I stated earlier and that is a processor with a faster clock speed and fewer cores is still the better purchase until more applications make proper use of more of than one core.

As of this entry, the new Intel i7 chips have officially been released. Various reports from flight sim forums and communities have stated the main benefit these new chips have on FSX is they smooth out the overall frames per second versus increasing frames per second overall.

Now would also be a good time to emphasize that non-combat/civilian flight simulations like FSX do not require a high rate of frames per second (FPS) like most action games and first person shooters. However, like any game, FSX still needs a fluid and consistent rate of frames per second to maintain the illusion of movement and responsive feedback. Anything in the range of 25 to 45 FPS or more is considered a good target rate that provides smooth (non-stuttering) movement and responsive control.

RAM: The two main factors that effect FSX performance the most are the amount (how much) and speed (bandwidth) of RAM. The amount of RAM determines how much data can be stored and the speed of the RAM determines how fast that data can be processed through the CPU and then rendered by the GPU (Video Card).

At the present time two gigabytes of RAM are sufficient for FSX. FSX is a 32-bit application and this means if you are on a 32-bit OS (Windows XP, Vista) FSX cannot use more than two gigabytes of addresses space (RAM). Therefore, a good RAM configuration for a 32-bit OS would be two sticks of 1 GB (1 GB x 2 sticks = 2 GB) RAM, plus two sticks of 512 MB (512 MB x 2 = 1 GB) RAM if your motherboard has enough (four or more) slots. The total would then be three gigabytes ((1 GB x 2 sticks = 2 GB) + (512 MB x 2 = 1 GB) = 3 GB) without sacrificing Dual Channel capabilities.

However, if you use a 64-bit OS (Windows XP, Vista), then four gigabytes of RAM (in a dual channel configuration) would be ideal because a 64-bit OS allows programs to use more than two gigabytes of address space depending on the application itself. FSX users should know SP2/Acceleration, adds a Large Address Aware (LAA) flag to the main executable. This means if you use FSX on a 64-bit OS it can theoretically use four gigabytes of RAM. Again, more RAM equals better game performance because of less loading time and faster processing.

As stated, the speed of RAM is also important. FSX performs better using higher bandwidth RAM. Currently, the most affordable high-end DDR2 RAM is 1066 (533 MHz). DDR3 RAM is on the market, but it is very expensive for the average consumer and requires specific motherboards to use. This is why I recommend investing in DDR2 1066 RAM if your motherboard and CPU supports it. FSX performs well on standard DDR2 800 (400 MHz) RAM, but if you are building a PC specifically for FSX, plan your CPU and motherboard purchase around DDR2 1066 RAM if possible. The extra 533 MHz of bandwidth should improve FSX performance and other applications as well.

Operating System: What OS should you use with FSX? XP or Vista? 32-bit or 64-bit?

I recommend using a 32-bit version either Windows XP, or Vista. There are very few applications written for a 64-bit environment right now. This includes FSX. Conversely, your OS should also help determine how much RAM you purchase taking into consideration the information above on how much RAM you/can want to use, I.E.There is no reason to buy four gigabytes of RAM if your OS can't use it all.

On a personal note, I have no problems running any version of Windows (XP or Vista; 32 or 64-bit) on my current system (specs below), but I prefer XP 32-bit because it is a rock solid OS with over seven years of driver support with apparently no end in sight. Also, as previously stated, FSX is a native 32-bit application and was designed for Windows XP. In addition, the numerous addons made by third-party developers are also natively coded for XP as well.

If you prefer Vista and/or a 64-bit OS, I strongly recommend Vista Business 64-bit. It is the equivalent to Windows XP Professional, but has a lot of the bloat stripped out that Vista Ultimate ships with. Namely, the Media Center that takes up a lot of hard drive space and is of no use to a flight simmer... Unless, of course, you also use your flight sim PC as a HTPC, or streaming media center?

Standalone Video Card: Nvidia or ATI?

This depends on personal preference. Any mid-to-high end graphics card starting with the Nvidia Geforce 8000 up to the recent 290 series, or ATI 3800 to the new 4800 series and up will render FSX with full depth and clarity. Be sure to plan your GPU purchase with additional factors in mind such as what resolution you plan to play FSX at because this will help determine if you get a higher-end version of the cards like a Dual Slot solution (4870x2), or SLI or Crossfire pair of cards.

Also, from a strictly unbiased technical stand point Nvidia does a faster job of decompressing DDS files than ATI. A majority of the textures in FSX are stored in a Nvidia proprietary format known as DDS. This is the main reason why FSX seems to be "Optimized for Nvidia", and should be taken into consideration.

Conversely, this is one reason why Flight Simulator 2004 can be run with full settings on a variety of current and low-end hardware compared to FSX. Most of FS9's textures are low resolution bitmaps that don't have to be decompressed. This means more data can be decoded and rendered at a faster rate, regardless of hardware brand.

VRAM (Video RAM): How much VRAM the card you purchase should also be determined by the same factors above like what resolution you plan to play at in addition to how many textures (and at what size) the VRAM can hold.

These are important factors for FSX and Flight Simulator in general because the VRAM has to be able to manage not only the increased frame buffers for higher resolutions (1280x1024+) with Antialiasing (AA) and Aniostropic (AS) filtering active, but also the size of the textures you choose to run FSX with. FSX allows users to choose the size of the textures from as low as 64x64 all the way up to 1024x1024. The larger size means a larger amount of data has to be stored in the VRAM. Thus, if users want to run FSX with large resolution textures they should consider a video card with at least 512 MBs of VRAM, or more. There are cards available with 768 MB up to One Gigabyte of VRAM and I highly recommend these cards for FSX if users want optimial visuals and smoother in-game performance.

Hopefully, these recommendations will give prospective FSX pilots at least, a sound starting point where they can do further research and comparisions to arrive at a system they cannot only afford, but one that will run FSX at acceptable levels both visually and at a consistent frame rate.

For comparison here is the current PC specs I run FSX on:

AMD Phenom X4 9600 @ 2.4 GHz (9850 Speed)
2048 MBs of DDR2 800 RAM
ATI HD 4850 512MB DDR3
KDS 22" LCD Widescreen Monitor (1680x1050 native resolution)

I can average around 45 FPS in the default aircraft that do not simulate very many systems. For GA aircraft like the Cessna 172 it can go as high as 60 FPS. For more complicated payware addons like Wilco/FeelThere and PMDG, my frames drop to as low as 7 FPS in some situations.

I am going to "upgrade" to an Intel E5200 Wolfdale (stock 2.5 GHz). This is obviously not a top of the line Core2Duo chip, but coupled with a Gigabyte G-31 motherboard it is apparently *the* processor to get because it can supposedly be overclocked to 3.6 GHz on stock cooling with very little voltage increase. I intend to use the overclocked E5200 as a stop gap until I can afford a E8600, or Core2Quad. I am not expecting miracles with an overclocked E5200, but possibly more consistent FPS than I am currently getting with my Phenom.

I will post updates on this new processor once I have it setup and running with FSX. I hope the results are positive for not just myself, but for FSX pilots on a budget who want Core2Duo performance, but don't want to pay Core2Duo prices.