Last updated on July 10th, 2026 at 09:24 am
In my beginner guide, I explained how to start flight simulation on a low-end or mid-range PC. In this article, I want to focus more specifically on system requirements and what actually happened when I tested different simulators on older and newer laptops.
Official system requirements are useful, but they do not always tell the full story. A simulator may technically run on a computer, but that does not always mean the experience will be smooth, comfortable, or enjoyable. This is especially true with flight simulators because scenery, weather, airports, aircraft, and graphics settings can all affect performance.
From my experience, the difference between “can run” and “runs well” is very important. A simulator might launch, but if the frame rate is too low or the aircraft feels delayed during takeoff and landing, the experience can become frustrating for beginners.
My Experience Checking MSFS 2020 on an Older HP Laptop
When Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 was released, I wanted to see if it would work on my older HP laptop. Before installing it, I used System Requirements Lab to check whether the laptop met the minimum requirements.
The result showed that my laptop did not meet the minimum requirements. I still tried installing Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 anyway to see what would happen, but the installation repeatedly failed before it could complete. Because of that, I was not able to properly test MSFS 2020 on that older laptop.
That experience taught me that system requirements matter, especially with large and demanding modern simulators. If a system checker shows that a laptop does not meet the minimum requirements, it does not always mean you can never try, but it does mean you should expect problems. In my case, I could not even get to the point of testing performance in flight.
FSX and X-Plane 11 on Older Hardware
After the MSFS 2020 installation failed, I went back to Flight Simulator X for a while. FSX was easier to run on older hardware, but the simulator showed its age compared to newer flight simulators. The scenery and visuals felt dated, and I personally found the aircraft control and landing responsiveness less comfortable.
I also tried X-Plane 11 on the older HP laptop near Chicago airport. It did run, but the frame rate was too low for comfortable flying. At high settings, the FPS was usually under 10. At low settings, it improved slightly to around 10–12 FPS, but it still was not smooth enough for regular flying, especially near a large airport area.
That is one of the biggest lessons for beginners using older PCs. A simulator may open and run, but if the frame rate is low or the controls feel delayed, learning to fly becomes more difficult.
X-Plane 11 on My Ryzen 7 Laptop
After upgrading to my Lenovo laptop with a Ryzen 7 processor, 16 GB of RAM, and integrated Radeon graphics, my experience changed significantly. X-Plane 11 performed much better on the newer laptop, especially after adjusting graphics settings. I recorded a Beechcraft Baron 58 flight over Honolulu, Hawaii, to show how X-Plane 11 performed on the newer laptop in a real flight session. Compared to my older HP laptop test near Chicago airport, the simulator felt much smoother and more comfortable to fly on the Ryzen 7 system. Although I did not display the frame rate during the Honolulu flight, the video showed that X-Plane 11 ran much more smoothly than it did on my older HP laptop. I still noticed some performance drops in certain areas, especially over large cities or when using heavier scenery add-ons, but the overall experience was much better.
I also used System Requirements Lab to check X-Plane 11 on the Ryzen 7 laptop. The laptop met the minimum requirements but did not meet the recommended requirements. Even so, X-Plane 11 still performed smoothly enough for enjoyable flying with balanced settings.
This is a good example of why system requirements are only a starting point. My laptop did not meet the recommended level, but real-world performance was still usable because I adjusted the settings and avoided pushing the simulator too hard.
✈️ Aerofly FS 4 on My Ryzen 7 Laptop
Aerofly FS 4 also performed very smoothly on my Ryzen 7 laptop with integrated Radeon graphics. During a flight over Honolulu, Hawaii, I found it noticeably lighter on the system than X-Plane 11 and able to maintain stable performance. Although the scenery was not as detailed as X-Plane 11, it still looked good and provided an enjoyable flying experience. For users with low-end PCs or those who prioritize smooth performance over maximum scenery detail, I think Aerofly FS 4 is a good option, especially for shorter flights.
X-Plane 12 Demo on the Same Laptop
The X-Plane 12 Demo did run on my Ryzen 7 laptop, but the frame rate was noticeably lower than X-Plane 11. When I launched the simulator, I saw a message indicating that the settings would be automatically lowered. During my test flight from Portland airport using the Cessna 172, the FPS stayed around 9–11 FPS.
This showed me that X-Plane 12 was much heavier on integrated graphics. Even with automatically lowered settings, the experience was not as smooth as X-Plane 11 on the same laptop. This does not mean X-Plane 12 is bad, but it showed me that newer simulators can require stronger hardware for a comfortable flying experience, even when they technically run on a mid-range laptop.
This is where the difference between system requirements and real-world performance becomes clear. A simulator can launch and allow you to fly, but if the frame rate is low, the experience may not feel comfortable for regular use.
Why Minimum Requirements Can Be Misleading
Minimum requirements usually mean the simulator can start and run under basic conditions. They do not always guarantee smooth performance at detailed airports, in bad weather, with AI traffic, or with higher graphics settings.
Flight simulators are demanding because they process many things at once. The aircraft, scenery, weather, lighting, terrain, airport details, and controls all affect performance. On low to mid-range PCs, integrated graphics can be one of the biggest limits, especially in newer simulators.
Recommended requirements are usually closer to what you need for a more comfortable experience, but even those are not perfect. Performance still depends on settings, updates, drivers, cooling, background programs, and the type of flight you are doing.
Playable FPS vs Comfortable Flying
One thing I learned is that playable FPS and comfortable flying are not always the same thing. A simulator may be technically playable, but if the frame rate drops during approach or landing, it can affect control.
For beginners, smoothness matters a lot. Takeoff and landing already require practice, and low FPS can make small control inputs feel delayed. In my experience, a stable and responsive simulator is more useful than higher graphics settings with stutters.
This is why I prefer balanced settings on mid-range hardware. Medium or optimized settings may not look as impressive as ultra settings, but they often provide a better learning experience.
Practical Tips for Low to Mid-Range PCs
For beginners using low-end or mid-range PCs, I recommend starting with realistic expectations. Do not assume that meeting minimum requirements means the simulator will run smoothly in every situation.
Start with lower or medium graphics settings, then increase settings slowly while testing performance. Pay attention to scenery density, reflections, shadows, weather, AI traffic, and airport detail because these can affect frame rate.
It also helps to close unnecessary background programs, keep the laptop cool, and avoid installing too many heavy add-ons at once. Some add-ons can improve the simulator, but complex aircraft, large scenery packages, or too many plugins can reduce performance.
If a simulator offers a demo, like X-Plane 12, testing the demo first is useful. It gives you a better idea of how the simulator actually performs on your own hardware before spending money.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are minimum system requirements enough for flight simulators?
Not always. Minimum requirements usually indicate that a simulator can start and run, but they do not guarantee smooth performance in all situations.
Why did X-Plane 11 perform differently on my two laptops?
Hardware plays a major role in flight simulator performance. My older HP laptop struggled to run X-Plane 11 smoothly, while my Ryzen 7 laptop delivered a much better experience after adjusting graphics settings.
Can integrated graphics run modern flight simulators?
Yes, but results vary depending on the simulator and settings. In my experience, Aerofly FS 4 and X-Plane 11 were more manageable on integrated graphics than the X-Plane 12 Demo.
Why is performance worse at large airports?
Large airports contain more scenery, buildings, aircraft, and airport details that increase the workload on the computer. This often leads to lower frame rates compared to rural areas or smaller airports.
Is a flight simulator still usable at low FPS?
Sometimes. A simulator may still be technically playable at lower frame rates, but smoothness and aircraft control can become more difficult, especially during takeoff and landing.
Should I try a demo before buying a simulator?
Yes. If a simulator offers a demo version, testing it on your own hardware can provide a much better idea of real-world performance than system requirements alone.
Final Thoughts
System requirements are helpful, but they are not the full story. My own experience showed this clearly. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 did not install successfully on my older HP laptop, X-Plane 11 struggled on older hardware, but the same simulator performed much better after I upgraded to a Ryzen 7 laptop and adjusted the settings.
I also found that different simulators place very different demands on the same hardware. Aerofly FS 4 ran smoothly on my Ryzen 7 laptop, while the X-Plane 12 Demo was much more demanding despite running on the same system.
The biggest lesson I learned is that meeting minimum requirements does not automatically guarantee a good flying experience. For beginners, focusing on smooth and stable performance is usually more important than trying to run the highest graphics settings possible.
If you’re still unsure about choosing a simulator or evaluating your hardware, the following questions may help.
Hi Elamin,
This article was easy to understand and I liked how you showed the real difference between “can run” and “runs well.” Your older and newer laptops tests made the concept clearer for me. It helped me see why smooth FPS matters more than fancy graphics. In overall your article gave fair amount of understanding on this concept. Thank you very much for sharing these useful information. I just wonder; do you think X‑Plane 11 is still the best choice for weak laptops in the future as well?
Hi Shafna,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I’m glad the article helped explain the difference between “can run” and “runs well,” because I actually learned that lesson the hard way myself. I assumed X-Plane 12 would run well on my Lenovo laptop since it met the minimum requirements, but factors like detailed airports, live weather, and large cities can easily impact performance.
As for your question, I still think X-Plane 11 is one of the best choices for weaker laptops. Despite being older than X-Plane 12, it’s still very realistic and delivers a much smoother experience. Compared to FSX, it offers a better balance of modern flight dynamics and performance, making it a great option for learning and enjoying flight simulation without high-end hardware.
Thanks again for your kind words and for joining the discussion!
This is a really honest and useful breakdown — the kind of real-world testing that’s hard to find amid all the marketing-driven “minimum requirements” charts. The X-Plane 11 vs X-Plane 12 comparison on the same Ryzen 7 laptop really drives home how much heavier newer sims can be, even when the spec sheets look similar on paper.
I went through something similar with MSFS 2020 on an older machine — it technically launched, but between approach stutters and laggy control response, it actually made landings harder to learn, not easier. Your point about playable FPS versus comfortable flying captures that perfectly.
The tip about testing demos before buying is something I wish I’d done earlier; it would’ve saved me a lot of trial and error. Thanks for sharing actual screenshots and FPS numbers instead of vague claims; that level of detail is genuinely helpful for anyone planning a budget setup.
Hi Andrejs,
Thank you for sharing your experience. I agree that system requirements only tell part of the story. A simulator may technically run, but real-world performance can change a lot when flying around dense cities, large airports, complex scenery, or different weather conditions.
That’s why I tested X-Plane 11 and X-Plane 12 on the same Ryzen 7 laptop instead of relying only on the numbers on paper. Smooth FPS and responsive controls make a big difference, especially during approaches and landings.
Testing before buying is definitely helpful. The X-Plane 12 demo from the official website is a good option, although it’s limited to certain areas. I also tried X-Plane 12 through Steam, but since it didn’t perform as expected on my laptop, I requested a refund and it was processed successfully.
Thanks again for your feedback. I’m glad the real-world tests and comparisons were useful!
I can imagine how disappointing it would be to spend time installing a flight simulator, finally get it to open, and then realize the controls feel too delayed to actually enjoy learning. That difference between “it launches” and “I can comfortably practice landings” is something beginners probably do not think about enough. Your real laptop examples make it feel much more practical than just reading a requirements chart. When testing a weak or mid-range PC, would you recommend using the same short route and airport every time, so the FPS comparison is fair?
Hi Hanna,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree that there is a big difference between a simulator simply launching and providing a smooth experience that’s comfortable for learning takeoffs and landings.
In my experience, frame rates tend to be lower around dense cities and large airports, while smaller airports usually perform much better. Once you’re in the air, especially over rural areas with fewer buildings and less scenery, FPS often stays noticeably higher.
To answer your question, I think it’s best to start testing with a small aircraft and experiment with the settings before moving to larger aircraft. Flying between smaller airports can give you a good baseline for performance. If you later switch to major airports, the FPS may drop, but it can still be playable depending on your hardware and settings.
For example, on my system, flying around rural areas during the day or at night generally provides better performance, while larger airports such as Toronto or New York tend to produce lower FPS, especially when using higher graphics settings.
Thanks again for your great question!
Your real-world testing on both older and newer laptops perfectly captures the gap between “can run” and “runs well,” which is exactly what budget-conscious simmers need to hear before investing in a new title. I really appreciate how you highlighted the difference between playable FPS and comfortable flying, especially since low frame rates during critical phases like landing can actually hinder the learning process for beginners. It would be interesting to explore how specific settings like scenery density or AI traffic impact performance across different simulators, as those variables often cause the biggest drops in real-world scenarios. Your practical advice on testing demos first and balancing settings over chasing ultra graphics is a solid strategy that could save many newcomers from frustration and unnecessary refunds. Thank you for sharing your honest hardware experiences, as this kind of grounded testing is far more valuable than any official spec sheet.
Hi Ropata,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Based on my own experience and testing, that was exactly my goal because I initially thought meeting the minimum requirements would always mean a smooth flying experience.
I also noticed that changing AI traffic can make a difference. For example, when I added three AI aircraft, the frame rate dropped noticeably with the Boeing 747-400. However, using aircraft like the Boeing 737-800 and MD-82 gave me better performance. Of course, the results depend on the hardware, graphics settings, and simulator version.
That’s why I usually recommend experimenting with different settings before deciding to upgrade to the latest simulator version. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!