FSX on Modern fast computer-- worth it etc?

[Cas141]

Suppose you have a modern new powerful gaming computer capable of running the flight simulator MS2020
.
However you have many peripherals, and ancillary programs , in use  running FSX on an old computer reasonably satisfactorily.And you want to keep that 'bird -in-the-hand' and not risk losing it or messing it up by interfering with it.
But, wouldn't it be great if it could be maxed out as a modern top computer would allow?
Because the 'piloting' and closeness to flying a real plane , with emphasis on real-type navigation etc, is good in FSX and maybe not so good in the scenery strong MS2020?

Anyway, you want to keep your present computer, but You have an idea that if you bought a top gaming computer of today, and installed  MS 2020 on it,
what's to stop you also installing FSX on it as well.

Please correct me if I have got things wrong here. It's what I understand , but I'm no expert.

From what Ive read it is possible to install, from discs, FSX on to Windows 11. This would need some registry entries? ( there are guides out there apparently,but a bit techie for me)

Or, you could buy FSX Steam edition, and those install problems wouldn't exist?

The idea of doing this is that should MS 2020 not reach expectations, then you would have FSX capable of being run at almost  its maximum settings.

Now, I know that a disc install of FSX allows much third party scenery, planes etc to be installed, enhancing it tremendously.

May I ask, does FSX S.E. allow the same?  Does most or all of what can be installed, in FSX disc,  work in FSX S.E.
 
Can the FSX Confg file be amended, the same as in FSX disc?

Finally, if you had a clean install of FSX on your super duper computer, what scenery would you install, and what wouldn't you.?  Some like photo real type, some don't.
What are the outstanding sceneries.

You have probably gathered that I have got FSX running great on a moderate computer with excellent other aids such as Flightsim Commander etc,
but just wishing my computer was as fast and powerful as the modern ones

Thank you, and cheers

[sfgarland]

I've been running FSX Steam Edition for years and runs fine. With addons from many sources.

[JSkorna]

There is nothing wrong with installing FSX and MSFS 2020 on the same computer. Please know that MSFS really needs a SSD drive with plenty of space on it and it also needs a strong internet connection.

[Skywatcher12]

I think you need far more PC for FSX than MSFS.
I worked it out ages ago and came up with needing something like a 6-7gig CPU to likely run it smoothly with top end add-ons.
I may use FSX in the future but CPU's aren't there yet so I'll stick with FS9. No interest in MSFS, it's too arcade.

[tirith63]

People here present some good points to keep in mind. Here are a couple things to note about FSX to consider (and yeah, the Steam version, at least for me, has been more reliable than disc installs - I can't get the disc installs to register any longer).

1. FSX is heavily CPU bound, so a high end, modern, fast CPU will do you a lot of good there. I would start with that before upgrading my graphics card.

2. FSX is a 32-bit program, so no matter how much memory you have, it's stuck in a 4 GB limit. It uses a lot of this memory for add-ons, scenery, and sim objects like complex aircraft (which can slow down performance a lot). So you will be limited to how many add-ons or complex sceneries you can utilize. Too many can result in crashing and out of memory errors soon into a flight.

I have been a flight simulator and P3D user for many many years (more than I want to count) and MSFS is a fine and very accurate simulator. If you want realistic flight as well as beautiful scenery, and your computer can handle it, it's an excellent choice. I keep P3D around for some of the aircraft I can't get on MSFS, but that's the only reason. Now that FS Traffic from Just Flight is out, I have one less reason to keep P3D active. As with most things, which simulator to use is a personal choice based on your needs, capabilities, and preferences.

As far as scenery for FSX or P3D, I chose to go with Megascenery Earth's excellent satellite imagery. Over the years, I acquired most of the United States. It looks good from at least a little altitude (about 3,000 ft?). Since it's real world scenery, I can use it for VFR flight using landmarks. No real framerate impact, either (although having a lot of them can increase the startup load time for your flight). I attached a sample screenshot so you can see what that scenery looks like.

Hope it works out well for you, regardless of which simulator you use.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

On 1/31/2023 at 9:21 AM, sfgarland said:

I've been running FSX Steam Edition for years and runs fine. With addons from many sources.

Same here with FSX Gold with tons of addon scenery, etc. Never have frame rate issues. Just slower startup to load everything. I have created file sets for scenery and aircraft that I use to minimize the load issue.

[JSkorna]

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. My i7 3.8 gives me over 200FPS with FSX. You do not need a 6-7 gig cpu. Just more hot air blowing through.

[JSkorna]

That is with sliders maxed out too!

[Skywatcher12]

11 hours ago, JSkorna said:

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. My i7 3.8 gives me over 200FPS with FSX. You do not need a 6-7 gig cpu. Just more hot air blowing through.

Geez. One of us isn't telling the total truth.

[JSkorna]

I can offer proof of my post. Can you about needing a 6-7 gHz cpu? Will love to see that spreadsheet!

[Skywatcher12]

4 hours ago, JSkorna said:

I can offer proof of my post. Can you about needing a 6-7 gHz cpu? Will love to see that spreadsheet!

Your claim is one of those really ridiculous claims you can often find on the internet.
No, I have no spreadsheet so users will have to take my comments from their own experiences with FSX and I'm sure they will find them accurate.
There are those who love to argue everything I post such as yourself who may also come in and make equally ridiculous claims.

PMDG type aircraft, into a high end payware international airport, large number of AI and heavy weather.
No, neither you or anyone else on planet Earth is getting 200fps with a 3.8GHz CPU. lol
You couldn't achieve your claims in FS9!
FS9 needs a 5GHz CPU I estimate for optimal performance in the most demanding situations.
Yes, for FSX 6-7GHz is my estimate with 7GHz likely being the optimum number to achieve good performance in the most demanding situations.


 

[Cas141]

Gentlemen, thank you for your comments. Interesting to say the least :), though I find  bothprotagonists Skywatcher and Skorna claims to be a touch extreme.

Skorna, I cannot believe that 200fps is possible in FSX in ALL circumstances. Top payware jets at big airports in weather, with all parameters implemented?? - sorry, No.

Skywatcher, , I have seen  that MSFS2020 running at 4K in same circs as above, i believe, on Youtube, on very high end computer.  Airbus on IFR flight. Looked great.

Surely, FSX would run similarly on that computer. We are talking 64 bit computers here, so the 32bit VAS problem is no longer relevant, I think. In fact, I read somewhere that that is the big plus for using FSX Steam edition, its install does away with the VAS problem. ?    Not sure on that, maybe someone with FSX on top 64 bit computer could verify, or correct?

I am aware of need for SSD these days. If I got a high end computer, Id go as high as commercially possible, water cooled SSD overclocked etc.

Tirith, interesting comment of yours about MSFS able to fly as "study " simulator, and not necessarily is it Arcade only. Clearly some think it is. Have you flown it "as real". So many youtube videos show it being flown Arcade, outside view behind the plane, (is that X box flying?).  That, I don't want!

What is the position with updates for MSFS.. Are they frequent, and reliable?  Is it clear when you have to get them?

 

Skywatcher..... Ive got FS9 sculling around somewhere.  Does it need internet activation, and where can I see the best of it.   ( I might dig it out:)  )

 

cheers again

[Mowgli22]

I find this very interesting. I have had zero luck with FSX-SE. With Orbx scenery and default planes using Orbx recommended settings i barely get 20 fps at Ganges Aerodome. Yet I run MSFS Premium Deluxe at over 70 fps. God knows what i would get with my FS9. I run it locked at 45fps. Still my sim of choice. I like it because  i don't need to be a seasoned pilot to fly any aircraft. I just get in and away i go , anywhere anytime any aircraft. Live long FS9 gonna be 20 this year.

[Cas141]

2 hours ago, Mowgli22 said:

I find this very interesting. I have had zero luck with FSX-SE. With Orbx scenery and default planes using Orbx recommended settings i barely get 20 fps at Ganges Aerodome. Yet I run MSFS Premium Deluxe at over 70 fps. God knows what i would get with my FS9. I run it locked at 45fps. Still my sim of choice. I like it because  i don't need to be a seasoned pilot to fly any aircraft. I just get in and away i go , anywhere anytime any aircraft. Live long FS9 gonna be 20 this year.

Interesting indeed.!  You say you dont need to be a pilot, so do I gather that you fly more Arcade than trying to fly like a pilot. (I know that these sim are not like RL, but navigation wise they do make an effort).

[Mowgli22]

No, not what i meant. I mean that i learned to fly a Cessna 152 but what i like about FS9 is that should i want to take a flight in any aircraft i can use what i know and fly it, maybe not to the book but still enjoyable with all the addons and such. As far as i'm concerned MSFS is the way of the future like it or not, it just requires more pilot skills than i possess currently.

[airernie]

4 hours ago, Cas141 said:

Surely, FSX would run similarly on that computer. We are talking 64 bit computers here, so the 32bit VAS problem is no longer relevant, I think. In fact, I read somewhere that that is the big plus for using FSX Steam edition, its install does away with the VAS problem. ?    Not sure on that, maybe someone with FSX on top 64 bit computer could verify, or correct?

Unfortunately FSX:SE is still a 32-bit program, so the VAS issues remain.  Only by jumping up to P3D, MSFS, or X-Plane can you escape the 32-bit limitation.  However, you can make FSX or FSX:SE a bit better VAS wise by monitoring the DLLs, textures, etc. that consume some of the 4GB VAS. 

As for FPS that's pretty much why 4096 and sometimes 2048 textures are best avoided.

[loki]

4 hours ago, Cas141 said:

Have you flown it "as real". So many youtube videos show it being flown Arcade, outside view behind the plane, (is that X box flying?).  That, I don't want!

You can fly from the cockpit or external views as you like. Here's a pilot using MSFS to teach flying with both cockpit and external views.

 

[airernie]

4 hours ago, loki said:

You can fly from the cockpit or external views as you like. Here's a pilot using MSFS to teach flying with both cockpit and external views.

Not cool.. MSFS videos belong in MSFS forums. 

[Skywatcher12]

11 hours ago, Cas141 said:

Gentlemen, thank you for your comments. Interesting to say the least :), though I find  bothprotagonists Skywatcher and Skorna claims to be a touch extreme.

Skorna, I cannot believe that 200fps is possible in FSX in ALL circumstances. Top payware jets at big airports in weather, with all parameters implemented?? - sorry, No.

Skywatcher, , I have seen  that MSFS2020 running at 4K in same circs as above, i believe, on Youtube, on very high end computer.  Airbus on IFR flight. Looked great.

Surely, FSX would run similarly on that computer. We are talking 64 bit computers here, so the 32bit VAS problem is no longer relevant, I think. In fact, I read somewhere that that is the big plus for using FSX Steam edition, its install does away with the VAS problem. ?    Not sure on that, maybe someone with FSX on top 64 bit computer could verify, or correct?

I am aware of need for SSD these days. If I got a high end computer, Id go as high as commercially possible, water cooled SSD overclocked etc.

Tirith, interesting comment of yours about MSFS able to fly as "study " simulator, and not necessarily is it Arcade only. Clearly some think it is. Have you flown it "as real". So many youtube videos show it being flown Arcade, outside view behind the plane, (is that X box flying?).  That, I don't want!

What is the position with updates for MSFS.. Are they frequent, and reliable?  Is it clear when you have to get them?

 

Skywatcher..... Ive got FS9 sculling around somewhere.  Does it need internet activation, and where can I see the best of it.   ( I might dig it out:)  )

 

cheers again

FS9 doesn't need internet activation. You just need to install v9.1 patch and the nocd.

On FSX v MSFS performance, I could run MSFS on my PC reasonably well but FSX totally struggles simply because it is so CPU bound and only utilizes a single core. FSX needs far more CPU power than MSFS despite being a much older sim.
 
FSX on it's own (default) sure, you can get some very high FPS with a modern processor but this all drastically ends when you throw in high end add-ons. My estimate will be about right. It would allow you to max FSX out, run any combination of add-ons and maintain around 60+fps. There is no one who can achieve this right now or ever has in the past if using the most system intensive add-ons.
This is the reason I have stuck with FS9 as with my 3.7GHz CPU I can still maintain 20-30fps in the most extreme situation. I'd need to go to the 5GHz CPU I mentioned earlier to push over 60+fps in FS9 in such a circumstance. GPU also comes into the equation a little so with 5GHz you would likely get the 60fps even if running quite an average GPU.

The other FSX issue is VAS. Even if eventually I get my 7GHz CPU, VAS will still greatly limit what I can do in FSX. In FS9 once you increase the VS limit, it is incredibly difficult to have an OOM.

SSD is an interesting one. I've had one for so long I can't remember back to the days of running FS on a mechanical drive. However, I think they are greatly overrated. With FS9 or FSX, the only difference between mechanical and SSD is the initial load time of the sim. I'm not 100% certain on this but can't recall ANY other benefit with FS. I'm not even sure loading a flight is any quicker from the main menu, I doubt it is.

Finally, I've always said FS9 is the best overall sim. I outlined some of the reasons why above. It is fuss and problem free. If you then compare identical high end add-ons in both FSX and FS9 (I have), there is soooo little difference FSX is simply not worth the hassle. The only reason I would eventually use FSX is to run some add-ons that are not available for FS9.

 

 

[Skywatcher12]

11 hours ago, Mowgli22 said:

I find this very interesting. I have had zero luck with FSX-SE. With Orbx scenery and default planes using Orbx recommended settings i barely get 20 fps at Ganges Aerodome. Yet I run MSFS Premium Deluxe at over 70 fps. God knows what i would get with my FS9. I run it locked at 45fps. Still my sim of choice.

This sounds realistic. Even with FS9 and high end add-ons, you don't get 200fps. The other big benefit of FS9 over FSX is the choice of ground textures. FSX you basically have Orbx or default. While FS9 textures are lower resolution, at least you can change the look of your FS world more often. I'll take the hit to resolution in order to have more choice. Aircraft and airports, as I said in my post above, there is incredibly little difference when you compare apples with apples.

[HardCub]

I agree with you. FS9 is still my favorite, even 20 years later. With today's new hardware and graphics, it's rock solid, runs flawlessly, and can look absolutely beautiful. Even if you are only using freeware, it can still look absolutely amazing! Long live FS9!

[Cas141]

13 hours ago, Skywatcher12 said:

FS9 doesn't need internet activation. You just need to install v9.1 patch and the nocd.

On FSX v MSFS performance, I could run MSFS on my PC reasonably well but FSX totally struggles simply because it is so CPU bound and only utilizes a single core. FSX needs far more CPU power than MSFS despite being a much older sim.
 
FSX on it's own (default) sure, you can get some very high FPS with a modern processor but this all drastically ends when you throw in high end add-ons. My estimate will be about right. It would allow you to max FSX out, run any combination of add-ons and maintain around 60+fps. There is no one who can achieve this right now or ever has in the past if using the most system intensive add-ons.
This is the reason I have stuck with FS9 as with my 3.7GHz CPU I can still maintain 20-30fps in the most extreme situation. I'd need to go to the 5GHz CPU I mentioned earlier to push over 60+fps in FS9 in such a circumstance. GPU also comes into the equation a little so with 5GHz you would likely get the 60fps even if running quite an average GPU.

The other FSX issue is VAS. Even if eventually I get my 7GHz CPU, VAS will still greatly limit what I can do in FSX. In FS9 once you increase the VS limit, it is incredibly difficult to have an OOM.

SSD is an interesting one. I've had one for so long I can't remember back to the days of running FS on a mechanical drive. However, I think they are greatly overrated. With FS9 or FSX, the only difference between mechanical and SSD is the initial load time of the sim. I'm not 100% certain on this but can't recall ANY other benefit with FS. I'm not even sure loading a flight is any quicker from the main menu, I doubt it is.

Finally, I've always said FS9 is the best overall sim. I outlined some of the reasons why above. It is fuss and problem free. If you then compare identical high end add-ons in both FSX and FS9 (I have), there is soooo little difference FSX is simply not worth the hassle. The only reason I would eventually use FSX is to run some add-ons that are not available for FS9.

 
Oh, now you have gone and done it,:)

Got me thinking I should give this FS2009 another proper go. Where is the best place to find out , in simple language, answers to the basic questions re install, essential add ons , etc.

Eg  Is it OK to install on same drive as FSX  ( only got the one drive ), and if so, do I use the same path or go C/FS9.  Will they interfere with each other? what is best Cfg file, or scenery?

I do like the sim to look good, and I am surprised it can be made to look as good as FSX? 

I'll do some digging but would appreciate a few pointers.

Thanks
 

 

[Skywatcher12]

7 hours ago, Cas141 said:

 

Use the FS9 forum here.
I will admit this, if you are coming to FS9 now, it'll be more difficult to find all the add-ons. Some are simply gone or download links are dead. Members here may be able to help out with certain add-ons you cannot find. On the positive side, there are quite a few payware add-ons that have been released for free still available. I do also run a lot of payware in mine that is still payware.
Have a play with FS9 and do some digging, ask questions in the FS9 forum.
If you find you are not enjoying yourself you can always switch back to FSX.  
Both FS9/FSX can happily exist on one drive. Install as you have suggested, C/FS9.
Most importantly, have fun!

[PhrogPhlyer]

2 hours ago, Skywatcher12 said:

Most importantly, have fun!

Best advice for all of us!

[Elvensmith]

In line with the general musings above, this seems to be the place to drop in a few observations/feedback on the state of FSX.

 

After an absence of quite some months if not a year or two I finally fired it up again last night, hoping to gain some air miles in the much loved Level D 767. The first thing that hits you on a 4K screen is the opening screen is tiny due to the fixed fonts. Various fixes on the internet change this once off, but next time you start the sim it's back to the tiny, tiny window. The same affects the in flight menus and toolbars so to compromise you have to drop the graphics to 1440p.

 

As I may have mentioned previously, FSX (both original and SE) now seem to struggle on modern O/S to save complex aircraft. I reloaded my flight later in the evening, to find the flight plan I meticulously loaded in the LVD 767 FMS had completely vanished, not even the origin and destination airports shown. This also seems to afflict other aircraft that rely on FMS rather than default GPS nav, but it never used to be an issue back in the day. Did something change from Windows 7 onwards (I'm running Win 10) to cause this?

 

Finally when you sit in the flight deck the default view angles down such that you can see very little in front of the plane. Raising the eye height doesn't really help, it's the angle that's the issue. Again not just the 767 but various other third party aircraft now do this.

 

So it was with some sadness I again hit uninstall for FSX and have started to tidy my HD's to make way once more for the bloatware which is MSFS(2020).