Your thoughts - Software dilemma? FS2004 or FSX

[stanhargs]

Hello all,
My name is Neale and I'm midway through building a 737NG cockpit in deepest Somerset in the UK. So far I've completed the MIP, including EFIS and MCP, Fwd Overhead, base, TQ and central pedestal. It's looking good and taking shape well.
I've reached the stage where I need to make a final decision on whether to stick with FS9 or move on to FSX. My original concerns with FSX where the frame rate for the main graphics, which seemed very slow 3 years ago. However, now I have 5 linked PC's all doing different bits, and a quad-core PC driving the main out-of-the-window displays, this issue has gone away.
For the initial stages of my build I've been using FS9 with PMDG, which has been fine, but given the FSUIPC offsets are limited, my overhead really needs to be driven by Project Magenta.
Therefore, I've made a decision to use Project Magenta Boeing Displays, CDU, PM Systems for the overhead, and Project Magenta MCP. To get the most out of this configuration my thoughts are that the default FSX 737 may be the best solution?
I'm also thinking that moving to FSX will allow better scenery models and, as I'm told the software makes use of Quad-Core processing, FSX should get faster and faster as technolgy moves on, whereas FS9 is really no longer benefitted by increases in processor speed.
Any thoughts welcome,
Neale

[Clive]

Hi Neale

I started with FS9 and moved on to FSX for my 737 800 cockpit which uses PM for everything. My PC operating FSX is by no means the best yet I am delighted with the visuals. In particular the cloud effects I get from REX 2 ..... Stunning clouds... and an add on that I could not be without. My advice would be to take the FSX route!
I was worried when I moved over to FSX that I would have problems but it was easy and the improvement in realism is well worth it.

Clive

[kiek]

as I'm told the software makes use of Quad-Core processing, FSX should get faster and faster as technolgy moves on,

Negative, FSX makes use of 1,5 cores and its development has been concluded.

However, I still recommend to move towards FSX. With the high speed quad cores available these days you can easiliy run your whole setup at one PC in stead of 5 linked PC's...

My 2 cts,
Nico

[stanhargs]

Thanks Clive, Nico.......I think my mind is pretty much mde up to move on and up.....
cheers,
Neale

[saabpilot]

Hi,

Since Intels latest breed of processors - Sandy Bridge - can be overclocked to more than 5 Ghz, tests now show that FSX is not stable over 4.5 - 5 Ghz clock speed.

Another consideration factor in a FSX vs FS9 desicion is whether you will run the outside view on three projectors plus a TH2Go. If so the computer will be heavily taxed and FSX might not run flawlessly. In a single screen setup there are no problems.

Further you might also like to see what airport scenery is available for the two platforms.

It is luckily easy to install both FS9 and FSX in the same computer so you can evaluate them for your own needs and preferences.

Best,
Bjorn

www.boeing737sim.se

[metamarty]

We are running FSX on an intel 980X 6 core processor with TH2Go. At the moment this processor is faster than the newer Sandy Bridge processors. With an external view, I have seen 500 FPS on it. I don't think there's any reason to stick to FS9 if you have modern hardware. There is a lot to gain with the multithreaded nature of FSX over FS9.

[saabpilot]

Hello Marty !

Thanks for the update on processors.

Sandy Bridge (2600K) is however I believe the choice if you want to overclock it and then it seems like FSX reaches its limit around 4.8 - 5 Ghz.
(FS9 does not need that fast overclocking). FSX only support 2 cores.

But, I will probably "upgrade" to FSX sooner or later - but, at the moment there is too few 3:rd part scenery for FSX available for Sweden (=1 ) - in FS9 I have all my own, earlier commercial, Swedflight Pro scenery.

Also, probably we will change our two sims from PM to your ProSim software

All the best,
Bjorn

www.boeing737sim.se

[Sean Nixon]

We are running FSX on an intel 980X 6 core processor with TH2Go...

...With an external view, I have seen 500 FPS on it.

Is that with 3 (or otherwise) external views open?

[metamarty]

Hello Marty !

Thanks for the update on processors.

Sandy Bridge (2600K) is however I believe the choice if you want to overclock it and then it seems like FSX reaches its limit around 4.8 - 5 Ghz.
(FS9 does not need that fast overclocking). FSX only support 2 cores.

But, I will probably "upgrade" to FSX sooner or later - but, at the moment there is too few 3:rd part scenery for FSX available for Sweden (=1 ) - in FS9 I have all my own, earlier commercial, Swedflight Pro scenery.

Also, probably we will change our two sims from PM to your ProSim software

All the best,
Bjorn

www.boeing737sim.se

I believe the 2600K is a bit easier to overlock than the 980X, but the latter currently stays unbeaten when it comes to raw power. I don't exactly know why the 980X is faster, but it may be due to larger cache. Also, you get the 2 extra cores, which can run your OS and other cockpit software, while the 4 cores stay available for FSX. The only drawback is the huge pricetag, but if you really want the ultimate FS PC, I would currently vote for the 980X, with the 2600K as a close second.

[metamarty]

Is that with 3 (or otherwise) external views open?

This was an external view of the aircraft.