glocke6:
You might not be on the best forum for your issues. Apparently there are a number of serious flight sim forums around, where you will get some good advice from actual experienced users.
You piqued my interest if FSX, and I did some research. Here is a good post of some good advice:
Other poster talking: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the risk of repeating what has already been said, may I offer some thoughts based on my own experience as a user of Microsoft's flight simulators since about 1995 (and earlier, if memory serves)?
First, the game now makes much better use of multi-core processors. In my case installing SP1 more than doubled the achievable framerate (against Microsoft's prediction of an average 20% performance increase). Admittedly I run it on a dual Xeon 5160 set-up (ie, four Core 2 cores running at 3GHz) so this might be a little above average; but others have also reported major improvements. This suggests that MS has finally broken (or, at least, weakened) the link between performance and fast clock speeds. So you might be better off with a moderately-paced quad core processor, than a faster dual-core processor.
Secondly, the game now makes better use of modern graphics cards. With previous versions of this game, I have always been disappointed by the limited advantages achieved by adding a better card. But this time, the improvement has been remarkable. I went from a 7900GT-based card to a BFG 8800 GTS OC2 320MB. I'd say that the improvement was of the order of another 70% or so after a little adjustment of the settings in the Nvidia control panel. I would be interested to see Tom's VGA Charts updated to show the framerates achieved under SP1: my strong suspicion is that the "bottlenecking" which previously occurred (8800GTX performing much the same as far older and slower cards) is a thing of the past. I think you should expect that performance will relate much more closely to the quality of the card than was the case in the past.
Thirdly, at least one real expert (Phil Taylor, who is one of the developers and who has a blog to which an earlier post provided a link) is uncertain about how DirectX 10 will affect performance. It's too technical for me; but as I understand it, DX10 holds the promise of making some procedures faster; but, on the other hand, in doing so, it may impose a greater memory overhead than DirectX 9. So it might be sensible to buy a cheap-ish DirectX 9 card for the time being, with a view to buying the latest and best DirectX 10 card when Microsoft gets round to delivering the DirectX 10 update for FSX. For example, my 8800GTS (admittedly a DX10-ready card) only has 320MB of RAM. This is fine even for a resolution of 1920x1200; but I have no confidence that the memory will be sufficient under DX10.
Fourthly, do not underestimate the importance of RAM. It is by no means unheard-of for FSX to crash with out-of-memory errors. This is partly to do with the need for un-fragmented memory space. I would not recommend less than 4GB of RAM: this will allow you to set a switch which lets FSX see beyond the 2GB normally allocated to 32-bit applications, which will reduce this problem (or at least, it has for me).
Fifthly, hard drive speed is not a significant factor for this game in my experience. I have run it from slow (7200 RPM) SATA drives, fast (15K RPM) SCSI drives, and even from fast (15K RPM) SCSI RAID 0 drives: trust me, it makes no appreciable difference.
Sixthly, like others who have replied to your post, I would be surprised if you can achieve an average framerate as high as 39 FPS with high settings. It is easy to get high FPS by flying in open sky, even with high settings; but your FPS will rapidly drop as you approach the ground, especially near built-up areas. Do not assume that you will be unaffected by this just because you plan to fly "seriously". A low framerate, or a "spiky" one, can critically affect your ability to control the plane on landing and take off. May I suggest that a more realistic target, even for a really good setup, is 20-25 FPS in built-up areas with maximum scenery complexity and autogen density. This is perfectly adequate for smooth flight. You can of course scrape together a higher framerate by reducing the levels of detail but, believe me, you will not want to do so once you have seen the thing running properly.
Seventhly, may I suggest that you should think again about a multi-monitor setup, at least until you've seen how well the game performs with a single display? I don't know what they're running in your shop in Toronto, but my experience tells me that it must be a pretty outstanding machine if it can really run multiple displays at high settings with a sustainable framerate that even approaches 39FPS.
geofelt talking:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a practical matter, I would suggest that you go slow, and upgrade your system in the areas that it needs it based on your actual experience.
Start with just one monitor. Look for one with a wide viewing angle. 178 degrees is best.
Start with a P35 based mobo that has at leaast 2 pci-e slots. Your upgrade might be a second vga card for adding monitors instead of using the triple head to go approach. The mobo should be capable of running the upcoming 45nm quads. If it supports the Q9650, you should be ok. Like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128083
Today, the Q6600 is probably the best bang for the buck for FSX. The new 45nm parts are about 10% faster clock for clock than the current E/Q6xxx cpu's. The new cpu's will be priced a bit better, so you should be able to get a Q9450 2.66 for about 10% over the $316 1000 unit price.
DDR2-800 is cheap, start with a matched 4gb set of ram in a 2x2gb configuration.
There is the suggestion that FSX likes ram, and that preserves your option to go to 8gb. Don't worry about the ramspeed, core 2 duo's and quads are not very sensitive to memory speeds. The difference in real world applications(vs. synthetic benchmarks) is on the order of 1-3% between the slowest and fastest ram. If you want high overclocks, then ram speed matters more.
The more detail you want, the more you need a good vga card. Preferably a dx10 capable unit. Get an EVGA card. That gives you the option to use their "step-up" program to upgrade to a stronger card within 90 days if the one you pick is not good enough. I would suggest the EVGA 8800GTS-512-G92. $259.99 after rebate.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130325
It is almost as fast as the 8800GTX, and runs much cooler because of a good otes cooler. You likely will never have to change it.
As an alternative, consider the 9600GT:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130328 for
$179.99.
Considering the price of the triplehead2go unit, It might be better to get two vga cards instead. Run your main monitor on one, and the two side monitors on the other. I believe that FSX supports multiple monitors.
) and I would go with 4Gb DDR2 as well 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram