I once thought that SSDs would give FSX a boost. So I ran a few. As mentioned, only the loading times were nice, the rest remained unchanged. So now it's sitting on a large mechanical disk, in the way you are describing it, one exclusively for FSX and the OS then sits on a SSD. Should be the cheapest and largest solution these days.
Now, if you would plan to keep your FSX folder very small, the 120gb SSD won't harm you. It's just that one can exceed that limit rather quickly. So if there was a larger benefit and if the prices in relation to the size were lower, I'd say it would be more of a go.
A few points to virge's post.
Quote:| If your monitor displays natively 1920x1080 or higher, I believe anti-aliasing is more of a hindrance on performance, and is not worth the small improvement at these higher resolutions. |
I beg to differ. A lot actually, since you don't seem to relate to the image quality improvements on especially analogue gauges in the VC. You can only receive those if you run a method called
transparency antialiasing which, usually, isn't as demanding in other games. Now FSX features the rather old-ish system for displaying clouds, which renders (literally) any kind of antialiasing a bigger hurdle, even for modern cards. Cloudy skies need the big cards when it comes to using image quality enhancements. Hence my note on the GTX650 being everything else than a big one. The small step to e.g. a GTX660(Ti) will help a lot.
You are right with saying that a LCD running at the native resolution ensures a good image quality, but since we are not running any high dpi displays with desktop PCs (like e.g. mobile devices would do), the need for antialiasing isn't broken. In fact, it's even more stressed and I doubt that people who ever saw the improvements on the gauges in the cockpit (means lines on digital ones and needles on analogue) will want to go back. Same goes for looking at how fences are rendered or how the edges of the trees come in.
Any edges to be precise.
Examples.
Here's one shot from another DX9 engine showing a single tree without and with antialiasing.
http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMyMjQ1MzM1NG1SdFV6cExsSmZfM18yX2wucG5n Now one may think 'would I ever see the difference when the picture is moving?' That's a good question and the answer is yes. People often refer to the effect as 'shimmering' as the movement causes the sharp edges to sort of.. shimmer.
For folks asking 'what is antialiasing and why would I ever need it?', perhaps Wikipedia helps to explain the basics. But I've found the articles really working with pictures to be better. For example, take this one explaining the method especially for fine lines.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2116/13For more basics, more pictures and more examples, this one is very good.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1329979/anti-aliasing-the-basicsIt mainly describes why lines come in 'edgy' on low dpi (dots per inch,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch) screens like the ones we are running on a PC. If any of you would run a very modern '4K' screen, this low dpi statement doesn't apply. For the rest, it
does. If you want to see high dpi screens in action which would indeed render antialiasing useless, pick some of your friend's phones and tablets. Mind that they have the 'retina' displays (as Apple calls them) or just head for a current Samsung or HTC model. Those are
very high dpi displays (350+ dpi) where you can't make out the single pixel basis with the naked eye. Hence the marketing name. As said, for normal PC displays, this high dpi scenario isn't really available. At least it's very expensive and card would have to render the native 4K resolution which is 3840 pixels × 2160. Only when being run on a 'small' display, you will achieve high dpi though.
So, in short, low dpi displays like ours will always need a picture improvement like antialiasing and texture filtering to allow for a sharp and non-shimmering impression. :)
For the guys wanting to try certain antialiasing methods, perhaps check out the ones being labelled
supersampling. Those can work full screen and/or just on transparent textures. And the image quality gains are huge while, the higher you go, the performance demands also increase. That's actually the way to stress modern cards, even in other games, since no one will run a GTX680 without antialiasing when it's available. Fps gains are only one factor for huge cards, image quality is the other one.
So if you haven't tried it so far or always wondered how it works, looks and feels, I'd encourage you to do so. To be honest, the fact of never having tried would be the only way I can imagine someone saying that it 'is not worth the small improvement.' [smiley=undecided.gif]
Since I'm currently far away from my FSX, I can't provide some personal screenshots. But I'll be happy to do so with one of my favourite planes, the 707. With the analogue gauges, it's very obvious how transparency antialiasing helps and why I'd even call it mandatory. Not to forget that the scenery around you, especially trees, receives an enhancement too. With 'bigger' cards, that's possible. :)
Quote:
A quad core CPU such as an i7 3770 or better, is a better choice then an i5, because there also other features in an i7 besides speed that are superior to an i5 |
The i5 processor Bernoulli was planning on is a quad core. The i7 model features the so called
Hyper-Threading feature which doesn't do much for FSX. That's from my experience running such a CPU, disabling HT and then testing FSX. No difference.
When comparing current
Haswell CPU cores (which he planned on), we are talking about two
main differences on the i5 vs. i7 cores. The existence of the mentioned Hyper-Threading feature and 8mb over 6mb 3rd level cache. When running at the same clock speeds, FSX won't care for the HT and does not react to the extra cache. So the main gain for extra performance will happen when increasing the core clocks, which
any 'K' model will allow. By this, Bernoulli may have picked just the right model as this is a 'K' and also comes in way cheaper than the corresponding i7 variant.
If he would want to run other applications, especially scientific or video encoding ones and/or if the price difference wouldn't be as big, I would agree with the i7 being the way better choice. Currently, for FSX only, I very much doubt that in value terms.
