![c64 load sublogic flight simulator c64 load sublogic flight simulator](https://i.imgur.com/xUxNaPQ.gif)
(Some components upgraded over that time). Well I can't say what the "best" is but here's what I'm running.īuilt it a little over three years ago. I thought he was looking for the bare minimum specs I didn't think the OP was looking for the best or a multi-monitor setup. I started with version 6.Ĭlick to expand.
![c64 load sublogic flight simulator c64 load sublogic flight simulator](https://www.lemon64.com/games/screenshots/full/f/f-14_tomcat_01.gif)
I have done that with several of the earlier versions of X-Plane. If you only want to practice IFR and could care less about terrain scenery and aircraft detail, you can turn the settings down and get the sim to run pretty good on low specs. It all depends on how much eye candy you want. At identical rendering settings, this is due almost entirely to the hardware in the computer.Ī number of settings in the simulator can be tweaked in order to maximize performance, but it is important first to understand why X-Plane performs very well on one computer, but not so well on another." " X-Plane users tend to notice either that the simulator runs extremely fast, giving them 100 frames per second (fps), or that it is dismally slow, topping out at 20 fps. The demo times out after a few minutes but you can restart it for further testing.
#C64 LOAD SUBLOGIC FLIGHT SIMULATOR FOR FREE#
The good thing is you can download the demo for free and try it on whatever you have. So for flight simulator I'd get an Nvidia based graphics card but not the low end.īottom line: if you get a budget PC, be prepared to turn down the graphics settings within FSX / X-plane to get a decent frame rate.
#C64 LOAD SUBLOGIC FLIGHT SIMULATOR DRIVERS#
When it comes to GPUs, Nvidia's drivers have been known to be much more stable over the years. Other people say they noticed no difference so it's probably not that big a deal I prefer Intel over AMD and Nvidia GPUs over ATI. That was around three years ago, so it's almost that time My last build was an Intel i5-2500K (3.3ghz) quad core, GTX-580 GPU, 8gb DDR3. I build myself a new PC every three to four years just for the fun of it but if I were going to buy one for flights sims/games, especially FSX, I would expect to pay no less than $500 (on the low end). However, I enjoy both for what they have to offer. X-Plane 10 has much improved graphics and the flight models just feel more fluid IMO. X-Plane runs better on lower end PCs with less eye candy (default airports have few or no buildings, city buildings are generic, 3D cockpits aren't as detailed, etc). MSFS all the way up to FSX has always been a resource hog and one of the most taxing 'games' out there. OP do yourself a favor and spend a little more now for a decent "gaming" PC.
![c64 load sublogic flight simulator c64 load sublogic flight simulator](https://i.imgur.com/oVhvBTY.jpg)
Yeah I'd say stay away from the cheap cheap PCs because in the long run you'll just be disappointed in the performance.