PREVIEW OF FSX (10)

[waspiflab]

OH GOD, another 350 quid graphics card to fork out

[waspiflab]

Well I run an AMD64 3800
                     2 gig ram
                     with my 6800 ultra 256mb which comes next tuesday, I 'M READY FOR YA BABY!!!!

[TacitBlue]

Honestly, I dont think that water reflections will be that big of a deal. Reason? has anyone played Age of Empires III? I know that isn't made by the same people (they are both MS, but AoE is made by Ensamble and released through MS, beside the point...) But if they can do water that looks almost completely real, with detailed reflections, then so can the FS people. And AoEIII runs perfectly on my mid-level machine.

[Triple_7]

Great...yet another M$ Flight sim that will kick almost every computers a$$ and wont run worth playing unless you shell out another couple grand for upgrades...and then you MIGHT be able to max it out ::)

I'm still running on good ol FS2002 and am perfectly happy with keeping it for a few more years...then i might consider getting FS2004

Its just disgusting that even with my system specs i cant even get 2002 to run smoothly with the settings at slightly less then half :-/  I'm slowly gathering parts to build a new system to the way i want it.  Maybe one of these days i can at least get it maxed out even with addon scenery :-/

I just dont see a point in getting all excited untill it is out and tried.  As usualy greatly detailed games will run smooth on a computer but the FS with half the detail wont without more power.  They shouldnt even bother putting system requirements on the box "ya...it will run on this system.....like a slideshow"

What is wrong with pre-rendering in the FS world.  Ide rather wait 5 minutes before flying and get a smooth and scenic flight over mountains insted of seeing the frame rate drop to the single digits when i get remotely close to a "detailed" area or even worse...clouds  FS imho is one of the most demanding games out there when it comes to system specs.  Ive had plenty of games maxed out with quality and run perfectly smooth on this system even areas that are more detailed then my FS world :-/

Triple_7   *sticking to FS2002*

[richardd43]

In most games the directions you can go are limited and you usually never move faster that a run.

FS gives you unlimited direction, distance and speed. I would think it would be more than a 5 minute wait if FS had to render all of Earth with the quality that we would like to see.

Unlike other "games" that can eventually be beaten, FS is ended only when your imagination or curiosity is put to rest.

The current versions of FS that we own and the computers we run it on will be capable of running for years to come.

I still have a windows 95 computer in the basement to run some old games on and after Vista is released I am sure I will have a XP computer for what will become "Old Games".

I love technology and the change it brings. We are only about 30 years into the desktop computer age and I am sure we have not even seen the tip of the iceberg yet. Progress will not go away and whineing about it will not help.

Sit back and enjoy the ride ladies and gentlemen, I am sure it is going to be a fun one.

[simonmd]

Triple_7, Here, Here! There are probably going to be alot of disapointed people out there when they get FSX. It's going to SUCK the power right out of your PC. There are many here that get excellent frame rates on high settings who will find that they'll have to turn them down on FSX. The 'minimum' specs quoted so far aren't the half of it. Here's the 'min' spec for FS9, my spec is shown in italics next to it,

OS- Win 98- 64mb RAM, W2k/XP- 128mb RAM XP sp2, 608mb RAM

CPU- 450Mhz AMD 1400Mhz

H Drive- 1.8 GB Seagate 80Gb

Video/Graphics card- 8mb, Direct X 9.0+ Built in 64mb

To the layman with my spec PC, it would appear that FS9 will zip along at full detail as all the minimums are exceeded by some margin. However, I actualy average 8-10fps with some AC like POSKY and Meljet being unusable. Basicaly, the 'minimum' spec is what you'll need to install and open it with, not get any satisfaction from. However, this is all speculation, we'll see when it comes out.

[GunnerMan]

Why is everyone sayin this thing is not gonna run well on any thing but a super computer. It has a new engine, new platform, new DirectX all of this enables more things to run better. Yes some will need an upgrade but what would you rather have a game that has out of this world visuals and gameply but it wont quite run on your comp or just stay with thie same ole same ole so no one needs to upgrade. The way you guys complain it sounds like you don't want improvements on FS because your system can not handle it. Rember M$ would not make money if it only ran on high end PCs it MUST run on medium/low end pcs also.

[Triple_7]

Its not that we dont want those stunning visuals and great additions and scenery etc...Its just a matter of getting those with a nice and smooth performance that is what we hate.  Just like already mentioned by simonmd...even with a pretty good system FS9 cant run very smooth even though the "min requirements" for it are a lot lower...Same with FS8 that im running.  My system blows them away and yet unless its a low quality aircraft i have to set the graphics low to keep a decent 18-20 FPS.  In a Posky im lucky to see 12-15 FPS and with a Meljet 7-10.  Its nice that they come up with new sims and better upgrades but they advertise like everyone will be getting these unbelievable graphics.  When in reality most of us will probably see a slide show.  I found that with FS9...I had to return it because even with every graphic setting to its lowest i got a whopping 1-2 FPS or the amazing 4 i saw for a couple seconds :-/  

I love flight sim and MS is one of the better ones.  But i like to spend $70 on a game and thats it....Not have to spend that $70 and then $200+ to upgrade the computer to get it running the way it should.

Right now i hold a nice 25 FPS once in the air (FS2002) and thats fine and dandy.  But when i start decent and landing procedures i would really like to keep that liquid 25 and not drop to the 15-18 when i get within a couple miles of touchdown.  Its not BAD but still a little bit jumpy to me.  And thats with settings pretty low...

I guess im just one of those nuts that would rather enjoy a smooth but not highly detailed flight (though that would be great) as apposed to running a jumpy framerate with insane scenery

We will see when it comes out...but i aint jumpin and buying it even if i get my new system built

And when i said something about the preload i didnt mean the whole world.     but at least a nice distance around the airport your starting at...that way it could concentrate more on loading the scenery ahead insted of whats already behind you

[Katahu]

Here are the system specs for my Dell Inspiron 9100 "Laptop" that costed me $1,600:

1. Pentium 4 with 2.4GHz
2. 512MB Ram
3. ATI Radeon 9700 [I thought I had a 9800] with only 64MB memory.
4. 40GB Hard Drive [but space doesn't matter much for the FS series].
5. Windows XP.

Remember, this is a laptop I have. Not a Desktop. Most of the time, it's overworked so much that the cooling fans sound similar to the Hercs that fly over the base I live at.

And yet, FS9 runs like a charm at higher settings [with or without an update for the video card]. And as an additional note, every piece of hardware inside my laptop are completely stock. No upgrades were ever made. In fact, all I ever did was simply maintain my computer by doing weekly scans, biweekly defrags, monthly updates, and yearly reinstall of Windows. That's all. A well maintained computer is a happy computer and can go a much longer way than an Alienware setup, IMHO.

So again, don't say that buying a new version of FS truely requires a brand new computer. It's possible [and I don't care how small the possibility just as long as the possibility exists] that all you will really need is an upgrade in Ram [which is slowly becoming cheeper].

So, everyone, do me a favor. Stop the pessimism about new, unreleased versions of FS. It's annoying and premature.

[BFMF]

So, everyone, do me a favor. Stop the pessimism about new, unreleased versions of FS. It's annoying and premature.

Exactly. The release is still almost a year away, and we simply don't know a lot. Speculation and unconfirmed rumours won't help

[expat]

Exactly. The release is still almost a year away, and we simply don't know a lot. Speculation and unconfirmed rumours won't help

Better close this forum up for a few more months then

Matt

[simonmd]

Triple_7, can't understand how you got such low performance with your system specs. Most of it is better than mine and that's the sort of fps' that I get sometimes and I don't even have a graphics card!

Speculation and unconfirmed rumours won't help

On SimV? Surely not!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for upgrades and development and i'm very much looking forward to hearing about what FSX is like 'in reality' when it does eventualy come out. My point was just trying to calm down some of the frenzied "Oh, Oh, I want it now, looks great!" stuff because they may well be dissapointed.

Oh and Gunnerman, it does not have a new engine, otherwise it would not be backwardly compatible. MS has confirmed this already.

[BFMF]

Better close this forum up for a few more months then

Matt

Also, ban all FSX discussion,

[Katahu]

Also, ban all FSX discussion,  and threaten who does with the latest marmalade weapons

*Katahu opens his case of syringes*

Already ahead of you.

[The_Joker_Flyer]

Damn you guys.. why are you guys all so negative 'bout it all  ???  "Oh the water textures can be better".. "it'll blow out ure computer".. "i dont get why its so great".. etc...

Think... if you guys are saying already it'lll blow ure computer, then you definately dont want any better water textures, as then the survival rate of ure computer will be even lower!!!!!   :-/ :-/ :-/