Microsoft Flight Simulator X?

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

I have been having bad problems with my PB 17" and will probably sell it and my MB to get a 2.4Ghz. 15" MBP.
I also play Microsoft Flight Simulator X on my MB w/bootcamp. This game is very taxing on the 2GB of Ram and the pitiful integrated Intel GMA X3100 "graphics processor", which gets around 10fps. This game is still usable with this computer, but I want to know a few things...
1. For people who use this game on any Intel Macintosh, what FPS do you get?
2. Would getting the 2.66Ghz. MBP w/512MB of VRAM be way better than the base 2.4 MBP with only 256MB of non-shared VRAM?
3. If I get the 15" MBP, what is the best way to move the Bootcamp partition with the games to the MBP from the MB? (the FSX game folder is around 35-40GB in size because of all the add-ons)

 

[GreatDrok]

I have been having bad problems with my PB 17" and will probably sell it and my MB to get a 2.4Ghz. 15" MBP.
I also play Microsoft Flight Simulator X on my MB w/bootcamp. This game is very taxing on the 2GB of Ram and the pitiful integrated Intel GMA X3100 "graphics processor", which gets around 10fps. This game is still usable with this computer, but I want to know a few things...
1. Would upgrading the RAM to 4 or 6GB and the HD to a 7200RPM make any noticeable difference?
2. For people who use this game on any Intel Macintosh, what FPS do you get?
3. Would getting the 2.66Ghz. MBP w/512MB of VRAM be way better than the base 2.4 MBP with only 256MB of non-shared VRAM?
4. If I get the 15" MBP, what is the best way to move the Bootcamp partition with the games to the MBP from the MB? (the FSX game folder is around 35-40GB in size because of all the add-ons)

The problem with your MB is the video card. The X3100 is slow. Even one of the new MBs with the 9400M will blow it away and the 9600GT in the MBP will be quicker still. I don't even think your MB will support more RAM due to the chipset, certainly not 6GB.

 

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

The problem with your MB is the video card. The X3100 is slow. Even one of the new MBs with the 9400M will blow it away and the 9600GT in the MBP will be quicker still. I don't even think your MB will support more RAM due to the chipset, certainly not 6GB.

Yes, the X3100 GPU is a big bottleneck.
I removed my #1 question, because I am thisclose to getting the MBP.
What do you mean that my model of MB can't support more RAM? I have the last-model polycarbonate 2.4Ghz (Penryn), those models can unofficially support 6GB of 667 Mhz ram, can't they?

 

[dimme]

I used to run flight sim x on my MBP SR2.4 with 2gb of ram and it worked OK I got about 24fps but the machine got too hot for me. I run it now on my MAC Pro desktop with windows 7x64 and get about 40fps. So other that the heat issue you will be fine with a MBP. Have you considered X-plane. I use both and wonder what mac people think about x plane. BTW I have been using MS Flight Simulator since the commodore 64 days.

 

[silentsage]

I spent quite a bit of time getting FSX to run on a Mac Book Pro.

The frames per second you get will depend on the setting you have for display resolution and the various options for the rendering of things in the image.

The MBP will give you far better frame rates for a given set of settings vs. the MB (even the new ones with the 9400 GT video card). On a 15" unibody MBP 2.4 GHz, with the 9600M video card and 256 MB of memory, , running at native display resolution (1440 x 900) I was getting about 25-30 FPS with the FSX display option sliders set at about mid-range.

The amount of video memory (256 vs. 512) has almost no effect. Faster clock rates help. FSX is one of the few games where processor performance is much more important than the video card used.

I found that one great Apple machine for FSX was the 24" iMac with the 8800GS video card and the 3.06 GHz processor. It would get about 35 FPS with most of the FSX setting at about 3/4 scale.

 

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

I spent quite a bit of time getting FSX to run on a Mac Book Pro.

The frames per second you get will depend on the setting you have for display resolution and the various options for the rendering of things in the image.

The MBP will give you far better frame rates for a given set of settings vs. the MB (even the new ones with the 9400 GT video card). On a 15" unibody MBP 2.4 GHz, with the 9600M video card and 256 MB of memory, , running at native display resolution (1440 x 900) I was getting about 25-30 FPS with the FSX display option sliders set at about mid-range.

The amount of video memory (256 vs. 512) has almost no effect. Faster clock rates help. FSX is one of the few games where processor performance is much more important than the video card used.

I found that one great Apple machine for FSX was the 24" iMac with the 8800GS video card and the 3.06 GHz processor. It would get about 35 FPS with most of the FSX setting at about 3/4 scale.

That is pretty good, I think I will settle on a refurb 2.53 MBP. Would the L2 cache on the the 2.53 Ghz.+ models make any difference because it is double the size of the 2.4 Ghz's cache?

 

[silentsage]

The folks who experts in such things (at flightsim.com and avsim.com) say that more cache helps, but they don't quantify the benefits.

Good luck!