Just bought a new computer

[Josquin]

[quote]
XPS 700 Pentium

[Katahu]

I think SLI is supported more by FSX rather than dual core. But then again, I never tested a dual core before.

[Daube]

yes, Hail Pete

as for the fram issue...

*sigh*

If 3D rendering were the same as watching a video what Daube posted would be correct but 3D rendering is not a video.

24 frames can look and feel just as smooth as 50 and you would not know the difference if I put you in front of a PROPERLY designed and PROPERLY set up system and ran both side by side.

Were people notice the difference is in the frame TRANSITIONS.

I have seen 40 frames look out of sync and 22 perfectly smooth.

3D is not video or film.

Sure, but the frame rate variation that you describe in your other post can occur at 24 FPS as well.
I was just pointing the fact that YES, the human eyes CAN SEE the difference between something displayed (video or 3D) at 24 FPS and the same thing displayed at 48 FPS.

And yes, I understand that 24 FPS is just enough for the sim, but I dont agree with what was said before, stating that more than 24 FPS was useless because of human eye limitation. That's just wrong.

[eniranjanrao]

I have three with various sepcs to run win 98 to XP but will not get a new one till Vista is launched as i have ram required min 1gb so vista may need min 4 gb vdo card of 1 gb Hd of 250 X 2 sets as i have heard so you can run all types of high end games.  ;D

[cheesegrater]

Sure, but the frame rate variation that you describe in your other post can occur at 24 FPS as well.
I was just pointing the fact that YES, the human eyes CAN SEE the difference between something displayed (video or 3D) at 24 FPS and the same thing displayed at 48 FPS.

And yes, I understand that 24 FPS is just enough for the sim, but I dont agree with what was said before, stating that more than 24 FPS was useless because of human eye limitation. That's just wrong.

That's true, I've played Quake 2 with a frame lock of 30 fps, and I could definately tell it wasn't as smooth. The game was released in 1997, so there is no problem with the computer not rendering in exact intervals.

[Katahu]

The difference between games like Quake 4 and Flight Simulator is that the sim has to render an entire globe and to consider the complex calculations involved with managing AI traffic, scenery object, etc. that populate an area that measures a good 300 square miles. In games like Quake 4 and Doom 3, the game only has to render an area of only about one square mile since you're only on foot most of the time which means that the game doesn't take much resources. Basically, it wouldn't matter how powerful the computer is. The sim's calculations alone would bring the system to its knees. So, I still think it was best to wait for the latest hardware to come out next year so that you could save a good $100 bucks on the current hardware when you buy them next year.

[cheesegrater]

The difference between games like Quake 4 and Flight Simulator is that the sim has to render an entire globe and to consider the complex calculations involved with managing AI traffic, scenery object, etc. that populate an area that measures a good 300 square miles. In games like Quake 4 and Doom 3, the game only has to render an area of only about one square mile since you're only on foot most of the time which means that the game doesn't take much resources. Basically, it wouldn't matter how powerful the computer is. The sim's calculations alone would bring the system to its knees. So, I still think it was best to wait for the latest hardware to come out next year so that you could save a good $100 bucks on the current hardware when you buy them next year.

I wasn't talking about the difference between Quake and FS. I was just pointing out you can tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.

However, since you brought up the subject up, FS will render a large area, a FPS will render a smaller area, but the area in the FPS will be more detailed than in FS, so it is same thing. For example a building in a FPS will be much more detailed than in FS. It will have several times more polygons and more detailed textures.

Also, the physics in FPS's are getting complex too with destructable environments, damage modeling, and projectile physics. They no longer use simple hitboxes or skyboxes.

The point is games are developed to take full advantage of the current hardware, regardless of what type of game it is. It's not like FPS are 3 years behind simulators, they are on the same level.

[Ashton Lawson]

Techinically,  Quake renders a scene creating and destroying polygons in the terrain, but not degrading them.  Degredation is done on characters and such.

In FS, degredation is done to everything to a point where the degredation completely takes away every polygon.  FS doesn't render the entire world, it renders as far as it can see, and degrades areas depending on distance...

If thats too technical for you, u shouldn't have read it...

[Mees]

You seriously just bought a PENTIUM CPU???????????????????????????????????????