# Microsoft Flight Simulator X and PC compatibility



## wgreene (Jul 20, 2001)

I just purchased MS Flight Simulator X; however, after reading the early reviews at Amazon I wonder if I should break the seal on the box. Even though my PC more than meets the minimum requirements, I'm not sure it's powerful enough to adequately handle MSFS X.

Dell Dimension 8250

2.80 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4

119.99 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
59.98 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

1536 Megabytes Installed Memory
8 kilobyte primary memory cache
512 kilobyte secondary memory cache

128 DDR ATI Radeon 9700 Pro w/TV-Out [Display adapter]
128 DDR ATI Radeon 9700 Pro w/TV-Out Sec [Display adapter]
Proview AY865C [Monitor] (18.2"vis, s/n 11224, April 2003)

Creative Audigy Audio Processor (WDM)
Unimodem Half-Duplex Audio Device

Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (build 2600)

The minimum requirements are:

Windows XP SP2 - 256 MB
1..0 GHz processor
15 GB hard drive
DirectX 9 hardware compatibility and audio card with speakers and/or headphones
DirectX 9.0c compliant video card with 32mb of ram and support for hardware transformation and lighting

Actually, I care much more about scenery than I do about the mechanical aspects of flying, so, if it would make sense to do so, I'd be willing to cut back significantly on flight performance in order to achieve the highest possible visual effects.

I figure I'm at least a year away from buying a new PC, so I'm thinking maybe I should return my copy of MSFS X and wait another year or so to purchase it, perhaps at a reduced price. Of course by that time maybe I'd be better off just to wait until the _next_ version of MSFS would be released. On the other hand, I could try running MSFS X on my DELL 8250, and even if it doesn't work well I would already have it when I get my next PC. _However_, if I can be convinced that it definitely would not work satisfactorily on my present system, then I would prefer returning it for a refund.

I would greatly appreciate hearing from anyone who could help me make the correct decision. Thank you.


----------



## alwrmc (Jan 13, 2004)

If you have concerns, why not download the demo? It is HUGE, but you could give it a try first if you are hesitant about breaking the seal on the full version. I downloaded the demo and set everything at about 75% of maximum and it ran very well on my system. See my specs in the signature. The only problem I had with the demo is that many of the automobiles at a distance were complete but up close they were visible as tires and the chassis. The demo readme did identify that as a limitation on the demo and that the full version would rectify the graphics anomolies.


----------



## wgreene (Jul 20, 2001)

Thank you very much for the information.

As you suggested, I downloaded and ran the demo. Wiith the scenery set at maximum and most of the other settings at minimum or a little above, performance was a little bit shaky. It's a close call, but after a few minutes of mulling over the situation I've decided to keep the full version. I'll let you know how things work out.

Thanks again for your input.


----------



## wgreene (Jul 20, 2001)

Unfortunately, MSFS X -- so far, anway -- does not run well on my system.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Yeh, I'm also thinking of trying MFS X, but after the review on X-Play, and another short infomercial I saw.. I don't know.
Can you get the full "realistic" look? I heard that in order to get "full detail" you would need a Windows Vista machine.. 

I want to see the buildings and the trees, like they show in the little demos. But am unsure if my system can even come close. All I have is XP, and will wait at least a year before trying Vista. 

So my question is this; Will MFS X look like the previews, or will it look more like MFS 2004 did? Great planes, but terrible background detail.


----------



## wgreene (Jul 20, 2001)

Well, it appears to me that Las Vegas in X doesn't look quite as good as it did in 2004 -- and that's with scenery settings at maximum. So that's a major disappointment. However, I can't help but think that a more powerful machine combined with the Vista OS would literally make a world of difference. Unfortunately, like you, I'm probably at least a year away from my next PC purchase. 

On the other hand, I don't know an awful lot about computers, so maybe someone more knowledgeable could get appreciably better performance from my system -- but I certainly wouldn't count on it.


----------



## MahaGamer (Jul 29, 2005)

i have the demo and set the global settings to medium high and i run at 1024x768 and using FRAPS i average around 50 fps. and that is pretty good for the PC that i have, click on my little computer icon.


----------

