will my rig be enough for BS?

[viper3two]

Hi, new to the forums, long time falcon driver......

I have an XPS 700, P4 3.0 DualCore with 4 gigs of memory, 500GB drive space, a SoundBlaster XFi Extreme Music and an EVga 8800GTS 640mb video card. Should this be enough to run the sim at a decent frame rate?

Also, how is the trackIR4? Thinking of getting that also when I get the sim....

 

Thanks!

[Aeroscout]

Yes, with ease...

 

Track IR is a must if you want to get all you can out of the sim. Pedals are good too.

[Prophet]

I would say no one knows for certain since I believe the engine is being worked on.

 

And TIR is a must.

[Weta43]

Seriously ?

[britgliderpilot]

Hi, new to the forums, long time falcon driver......

I have an XPS 700, P4 3.0 DualCore with 4 gigs of memory, 500GB drive space, a SoundBlaster XFi Extreme Music and an EVga 8800GTS 640mb video card. Should this be enough to run the sim at a decent frame rate?

Also, how is the trackIR4? Thinking of getting that also when I get the sim....

 

Thanks!

 

 

A P4 3.0 is OK - but a Core 2 Duo is much better.

 

Everything else should be fine, but a beefy processor is really recommended here.

 

 

TrackIR 4 with the 6DOF cockpit should be fantastic ;)

[Raploc]

Mmm just got a "secondhand" Dell 690. 2 Xeon 5140 procs, 4GB mem, 1 80GB Raptor, 1 146GB SAS drive and probably tomorrow i'll get 2 500GB SATA2 discs. Will this run BS?

[britgliderpilot]

Mmm just got a "secondhand" Dell 690. 2 Xeon 5140 procs, 4GB mem, 1 80GB Raptor, 1 146GB SAS drive and probably tomorrow i'll get 2 500GB SATA2 discs. Will this run BS?

 

Google says the Xeon 5140 is based on a Core 2 Duo with 4Mb L2 cache. And you've got two of them. That's a fairly good recipe :P

 

 

Sounds like a server machine, though . . . do those get PCI-E slots?

Squeeze a 768Mb 8800 Ultra in there, then we're talking ;)

[RedTiger]

I'm going to play complete dummy and/or devil's advocate here just so I can see what answers I get. ;)

 

What is it, exactly, about flight sims that makes everyone say that processor speed and quality is of the utmost importance. This flies (no pun intended :lol:) in the face of my decade's worth of expirience with just about every other type of PC game that tells me that RAM quantity and quality, along with your video card specs have a MUCH bigger impact on how well the game plays, not to mention providing the most bang for your buck.

 

Again, I'm 99.9% sure I know what yer gonna say, but I wanna here you say it!

[britgliderpilot]

I'm going to play complete dummy and/or devil's advocate here just so I can see what answers I get. ;)

 

What is it, exactly, about flight sims that makes everyone say that processor speed and quality is of the utmost importance. This flies (no pun intended :lol:) in the face of my decade's worth of expirience with just about every other type of PC game that tells me that RAM quantity and quality, along with your video card specs have a MUCH bigger impact on how well the game plays, not to mention providing the most bang for your buck.

 

Again, I'm 99.9% sure I know what yer gonna say, but I wanna here you say it!

 

 

What makes me say it?

First hand experience ;)

 

As to why that's the case . . . . well I'll give you one of two options ;)

 

1. A flight sim thinks about an awful lot more stuff. The calculations behind the scenes, not the shiny 3D rendering up-front, are what attracts the hardcore flightsimmer.

 

2. It's been specifically coded to use as much CPU power as possible, and to keep ramping up the CPU power required forever. This is because there's a global conspiracy between the flight sim makers and the CPU makers, into which come such other considerations as Black Helicopters (actually true), Tinfoil Helmets (only if their owners can't afford genuine fighter pilot articles from eBay), HyperLobby (it's evil and a virus, you know), and Starforce. Which is just the work of the devil, and will eat your children, run off with your wife, cause your dog to hate you, and incite a catastrophic nuclear meltdown in the reactor you didn't even know your computer had. But then you wouldn't, because that's part of the conspiracy too.

[viper3two]

Thanks for the replies. Looks like a definite TIR4 in my future and perhaps a processor/mobo upgrade, but I think I will see how BS does. FSX does pretty good around 30fps, and I have read that it relies on the processor mostly. Open Falcon, Falcon Allied Force, IL2, Lomac all run really good with no hiccups....so I think I will wait a bit until the sim is released.....

Thanks again

[Cyb0rg]

Here is my rig :

 

PIV 2.4HT

1 Gb Ram

Ati9800XT 128Mb

TIR

 

Would this be enough? :cry:

 

PS . I Fly Falcon with no problem at all...

[britgliderpilot]

Here is my rig :

 

PIV 2.4HT

1 Gb Ram

Ati9800XT 128Mb

TIR

 

Would this be enough? :cry:

 

PS . I Fly Falcon with no problem at all...

 

I'd recommend an upgrade for best results. My last rig was an an A64 3700+, 1Gb RAM, and an X800XL . . . and I wanted more performance even in Flaming Cliffs. Black Shark's a bit more intense, and that rig was a step up from yours.

 

If you do decide to upgrade for BS, though, leave it a little longer. There's still some time left before release, and the longer you leave it the better the deal you'll get :)

 

 

Falcon is a poor comparison for performance, but at least a good one for pushing buttons!

[Frostie]

PS . I Fly Falcon with no problem at all...

Sheet man, I got that installed on my moby.:phone:

[RedTiger]

What makes me say it?

First hand experience ;)

 

As to why that's the case . . . . well I'll give you one of two options ;)

 

1. A flight sim thinks about an awful lot more stuff. The calculations behind the scenes, not the shiny 3D rendering up-front, are what attracts the hardcore flightsimmer.

 

Yeah, I knew that. Its almost a shame too. Flight sims aren't the only type of PC game I play. Sometimes I get tired of them after a while and play other stuff too.

 

I too have first had experience. I've played things on computers with fast processors but very little RAM and a crappy video card vs. minimum processor speed but large amounts of RAM and a good video card. More RAM and beefier card has always won out. The effects on flight sims are also noticeable, but processor speed in the end seems more meaningful. Processors used to be the LAST thing I worried about.

[leafer]

What if I decided to spend the money on TIR4, HOTAS, rudder pedals and touchscreen for TouchBuddy and get a new comp in a year or so after BS is released, how much can I expect to enjoy BS with my Sempron 3000+/512 mb ram/GF 7600 gs?

 

Should I spend money on bumping up the ram to one or two gig or just deal with some stutter, and put that money towards a new comp down the road?

[britgliderpilot]

What if I decided to spend the money on TIR4, HOTAS, rudder pedals and touchscreen for TouchBuddy and get a new comp in a year or so after BS is released, how much can I expect to enjoy BS with my Sempron 3000+/512 mb ram/GF 7600 gs?

 

Should I spend money on bumping up the ram to one or two gig or just deal with some stutter, and put that money towards a new comp down the road?

 

I can't say categorically that that machine won't run Black Shark, but from experience so far I'd say it wouldn't be much fun.

 

TrackIR, Hotas, pedals, and Touchbuddy are great, but IMO wouldn't enhance your experience as much as a PC that will run Black Shark well. I'd start saving for an upgrade nearer release time, and give it an X52.

The HOTAS is more important than any of the other accessories - a hatswitch will do, a twist-stick will do, a rudder rocker will do . . . none of them are perfect, but unless you have a HOTAS you'll wish you had three hands.

 

For reference, I think Jim's PC running the beta at the RC Sims show was a Core 2 Duo at about 2.5GHz, 2Gb RAM, and a 7900 of some variety.

So if you're aiming for a new PC for Black Shark, go for that level of spec, or as much higher as you can afford!

[leafer]

Dilemma. Dilemma. I guess the bright side is I still have some time before I need to decide.

 

Thanks, Brit.

 

but unless you have a HOTAS you'll wish you had three hands.

 

As weird as this may sound, that is the best news, yet!

[Raploc]

Google says the Xeon 5140 is based on a Core 2 Duo with 4Mb L2 cache. And you've got two of them. That's a fairly good recipe :P

 

 

Sounds like a server machine, though . . . do those get PCI-E slots?

Squeeze a 768Mb 8800 Ultra in there, then we're talking ;)

 

Well I had a chance today to play around with it. I found this on the Dell site:

 

Slots

3 PCI-e x8 slot wired as x4

1 PCI-e x16 graphics slot

2 PCI-X 64bit/100MHz slots with support for 3.3v or universal cards

1 PCI 32bit/33Mhz slot

 

As for the 8800 Ultra , that one is a bit on the expensive side. I got a 8800 GTS instead :).

[Aeroscout]

seriously, get the better comp hardware then an X52. It has the mini switch. It's what i used before Track IR, and it worked rather well. It's twist function is good too, better than a rocker switch. (more natural)

[viper3two]

I think you will really enjoy that 8800GTS, I love mine! I am sure the Ultra will outdo it, but look at the price jump on an Ultra, really not worth it in my opinion.

I do have one more question if I can bump in here -). I did a little researching on my rig at Dell...I posted my specs at the start of the thread...but it says I can go with a core 2 duo or core 2 extreme. The E6600 is around 300, the E6700 is 389 and I didn't even want to look at the X6800 extreme lol....

I am getting outrageous frame rates right now with my rig in games like doom 3, gtr2, even call of duty 4 is getting anywhere from 65-120 fps depending on what is going on...crysis is getting around 50 or so with everything cranked at 1280x1024...lockon is smooth as butter as well, not sure of the exact fps on it tho.....the ONLY one that runs a little slow is FSX, which I heard is very processor dependent and there is not a rig out there that can run it playable with everything cranked up....

Do you think that it would be worth the 3/400 bucks to upgrade the P4 3.0 dual core to either an E6600 or E6700? I'm planning on this with income tax return money, christmas will be a TIR4! lol.....

Thanks again for the replies....

[britgliderpilot]

I think you will really enjoy that 8800GTS, I love mine! I am sure the Ultra will outdo it, but look at the price jump on an Ultra, really not worth it in my opinion.

I do have one more question if I can bump in here -). I did a little researching on my rig at Dell...I posted my specs at the start of the thread...but it says I can go with a core 2 duo or core 2 extreme. The E6600 is around 300, the E6700 is 389 and I didn't even want to look at the X6800 extreme lol....

I am getting outrageous frame rates right now with my rig in games like doom 3, gtr2, even call of duty 4 is getting anywhere from 65-120 fps depending on what is going on...crysis is getting around 50 or so with everything cranked at 1280x1024...lockon is smooth as butter as well, not sure of the exact fps on it tho.....the ONLY one that runs a little slow is FSX, which I heard is very processor dependent and there is not a rig out there that can run it playable with everything cranked up....

Do you think that it would be worth the 3/400 bucks to upgrade the P4 3.0 dual core to either an E6600 or E6700? I'm planning on this with income tax return money, christmas will be a TIR4! lol.....

Thanks again for the replies....

 

That much?

 

My usual store is offering an E6750 for Ј113.50 - that's what, $230 or so?

 

You do know Core 2 Duo is the same socket as P4 and there's a high probability of not needing a new motherboard?

 

And they overclock like a dream . . .

 

 

It's up to you dude - but if you can get a good deal and slot it straight into your system, I think it'd be a good buy :)

 

edit - observe benchmarks here:

 

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_7.html#sect0

 

Your current processor sounds like a 925 - P4 Dual Core at 3.0GHz - compare it with the new Core 2 Duos . . . .

 

 

 

On the basis of that testimonial, though, I just might start looking at an 8800 . . .

[viper3two]

Yes I agree that is a bit much $$ for the core 2 duo. Seems Dell is a little high on their pricing! I will do some looking elsewhere and see what I can get it for. Appreciate the link, and just judging by that it seems the 6600 will completely smoke my lil processor lol.....:)

One thing about the 8800GTS. I bought that after taking a look at Tom's Hardware and doing a lot of comparing. Check this link out:

http://http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html

 

I had a 7900GS and wow, what an improvement. One thing I did find by researching this is that the 8800GT320 will probably outdo the GTS640 by a little bit but if you run high resolutions higher than 1280x1024, then the GTS will outdo the GT...and that is the main reason why I got the GTS rather than the GT, it was only about $75 difference.

One big thing tho, if you are a FSX fan, you will probably not see much difference. That is the ONLY sim or game that I did not notice a big improvement on, and after reading about it, it is because FSX relies mostly on processor power. I should be able to fix that with that 6600 core 2 duo tho lol :). Other than that, you will love the 8800 series .....fantastic cards....

[britgliderpilot]

Yes I agree that is a bit much $$ for the core 2 duo. Seems Dell is a little high on their pricing! I will do some looking elsewhere and see what I can get it for. Appreciate the link, and just judging by that it seems the 6600 will completely smoke my lil processor lol.....:)

One thing about the 8800GTS. I bought that after taking a look at Tom's Hardware and doing a lot of comparing. Check this link out:

http://http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html

 

I had a 7900GS and wow, what an improvement. One thing I did find by researching this is that the 8800GT320 will probably outdo the GTS640 by a little bit but if you run high resolutions higher than 1280x1024, then the GTS will outdo the GT...and that is the main reason why I got the GTS rather than the GT, it was only about $75 difference.

One big thing tho, if you are a FSX fan, you will probably not see much difference. That is the ONLY sim or game that I did not notice a big improvement on, and after reading about it, it is because FSX relies mostly on processor power. I should be able to fix that with that 6600 core 2 duo tho lol :). Other than that, you will love the 8800 series .....fantastic cards....

 

We're approaching the problem from different directions ;)

 

I've currently got a 7950GT - according to that, in some games an 8800 can give me 50-75% FPS boost. However, in FSX I'd get an extra 0.6 FPS!

 

I'd like to know what processor they're running those tests on, though.

I've got an E6400 up from 2.13GHz to 2.5GHz on completely stock cooling - faster than the E6600 but with less L2 cache.

 

It still struggles with FSX in crowded environments, but I suspect that might be a video card problem. Guess the only way to find out is to take the plunge!

[VMFA-Blaze]

Of course you should ... :lol: I'm running 2 8800 GTS in SLI on Vista with the latest Beta drivers 169.12 and I'm getting 20+ FPS over cities.. And that's with the sliders pushed all of the way to the right...

 

I just have to say that the ground textures are very nicely done, they're far better then they were with DX-9c ... Shadowing and lighting are outstanding, not to mention the clouds and weather. Although the weather has always been one of the better points of the MS simulator series, this has improved considerably as well.

Oh! And I can't forget one other thing, and most importantly, the FM is a lot smoother and more realistic..

 

~S~

 

Blaze