MS Flight X

[Strategic Retreat]

Yeah, seem almost otherworldly, doesn't it? Yet, if you ask M$, they will tell you that those specs are the bare minimum to make the program start... not to use it. That's the clever excuse (that NO law has EVER seen for what it is FOR REAL) to snag uninformed and unaware people.

After all... try and mount a legal case against MICROSOFT if you dare...

[BrandonF]

I love how you guys think that because FSX required a super computer to run, that Flight will be the same way. It's very funny. 

[Strategic Retreat]

No, Brandon, EVERYONE of us can tell FOR SURE that Flight will perhaps have the performances angle corrected, but WILL be beleaguered by ANOTHER set of mistakes and errors that will make it unsuitable for some people... mistakes and errors we all spoke about in other threads and I'm not going to resume here because merely writing about it, here or elsewhere, never resolved NOTHING anyway.

And anyway, we were nor talking about it. We were simply examining the crystalline honesty M$ used into defining the minimum suggested specs for FSX.

[JBaymore]

We were simply examining the crystalline honesty M$ used into defining the minimum suggested specs for FSX.

This was not limited to FSX.  Look backward.

Looking at the early pages and threads in the other MS simulator sections can be very enlightening.  As can living through every version since the original.

best,

............john

[Kim2506]

But in all honesty, what are going to be some main differences between FSX and microsoft flight? By looking at the images, they both look the same. :-?

"same same, but different"...

[lollebol]

[quote]I love how you guys think that because FSX required a super computer to run, that Flight will be the same way. It's very funny.