November update!

[F35LightningII]

Still Hawaii...

They've got 13 new screenshots and some news. The minimum and recommended system requirements have been listed.

www.microsoftflight.com

[BrandonF]

Beautiful screenshots! 

And a relief to know that I should actually be able to run Flight with decent display settings. 

[Strategic Retreat]

So, an i7 960 with 6GB and Gefo 560 as minimum requirements? Comforting. :-/

I KNOW the above one is the SUGGESTED, not the MINIMUM configuration, but HISTORY TEACHES, and you should know already by the way, that when at M$ they talk about minimum configurations, they mean the bare minimum to make the program START with NO ERRORS, not to the minimum configuration that allows you to USE it, and that the REAL minimum configuration if you want to USE the program is the SUGGESTED one.

REEEEEEEEALLY comforting.

[Slotback]

Intel Core i5-2400 3.1GHz $190 (a bit faster than the i7-960 in anything that doesn't use hyperthreading, like FSX and all games).
Mushkin Enhanced Essentials 8GB $40 (RAM is cheap)
ASRock Z68 PRO3 GEN3 $115 (nice mobo, solid caps and supports PCI-E 3.0 with a supporting processor)
Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB $60 (this SHOULD be the price of this hard drive when the manufacturing capability is restored after flooding in SE Asia).
MSI GeForce GTX 560 1GB $190 (non referance cooling )
SeaSonic M12II 520 Bronze 520W $87 (modular and rated at 40 or 50C)
Antec 300 $55

So in other words, the recommended system requirements are pretty common for todays software and only describe a $737 (prices from newegg) system, probably closer to $1000 if you need to purchase things like windows, a screen, a mouse, dvd drive, or keyboard. Of course, by the time MS Flight comes out, the processor I suggested will be obsolete with new processors coming out early next year, so will the videocard with new graphics cards at the start of next year, all of which will knock off a bit of the price.

Not surprising at all.

[BrandonF]

So, an i7 960 with 6GB and Gefo 560 as minimum requirements? Comforting. :-/

I KNOW the above one is the SUGGESTED, not the MINIMUM configuration, but HISTORY TEACHES, and you should know already by the way, that when at M$ they talk about minimum configurations, they mean the bare minimum to make the program START with NO ERRORS, not to the minimum configuration that allows you to USE it, and that the REAL minimum configuration if you want to USE the program is the SUGGESTED one.

REEEEEEEEALLY comforting.

You seriously read their news item wrong. The specs you posted are what you need for HIGH settings. The absolute minimum requirements are:

    CPU: Dual Core 2.0 GHz
    GPU: 256 MB card capable of shader 3.0 (DX 9.0c compliant)
    HD: 10 GB Hard Drive space
    OS: WinXP SP3
    RAM: 2.0GB

[Steve M]

Those panel pics are awesome.
But look what we get with minimum specs. Like I alluded to in another Flight thread, We'll have to spend money to get all the hardware we need to enjoy Flight to its fullest. This is still reminding me of FSX..

[BrandonF]

[quote]Those panel pics are awesome.
But look what we get with minimum specs. Like I alluded to in another Flight thread, We'll have to spend money to get all the hardware we need to enjoy Flight to its fullest. This is still reminding me of FSX..

[Steve M]

[quote][quote]Those panel pics are awesome.
But look what we get with minimum specs. Like I alluded to in another Flight thread, We'll have to spend money to get all the hardware we need to enjoy Flight to its fullest. This is still reminding me of FSX..

[BrandonF]

I don't know for sure that AA isn't turned on. But the sharp jaggies on the plane in the low settings shot suggests that either AA isn't turned on, or the full screen resolution in Flight is set lower than the monitor's display setting, therefor causing jaggies. You'll notice that in the High settings shot, there are no jaggies.

[Steve M]

I don't know for sure that AA isn't turned on. But the sharp jaggies on the plane in the low settings shot suggests that either AA isn't turned on, or the full screen resolution in Flight is set lower than the monitor's display setting, therefor causing jaggies. You'll notice that in the High settings shot, there are no jaggies.

It's sort of my point. High settings require better hardware. 
Not that I'm overstressed about it, however.

[Slotback]

The screenshot definitely doesn't have AA. AA adds a slight blur to the edges making them appear smooth.

You shouldn't need a high end system for anti-aliasing.

[Strategic Retreat]

You seriously read their news item wrong. The specs you posted are what you need for HIGH settings.

And now tell us all please WHO, and we want names and surnames, will content him/herself with minimum settings.

Thank you.

[jetprop]

it looks better then fsx on low settings.(both on low)
and these are MINIMAL settings,normal settings would look way better then fsx so.

[Steve M]

It's unclear to me why some of us think MS team would elect to turn AA off to get a worse screenshot. If a low end graphics card doesn't have an option for AA, then the game most likely does. I have to admire the honesty in that low end shot though.

(I never saw AA as a big performance killer but I could be mistaken.)

[BrandonF]

It's unclear to me why some of us think MS team would elect to turn AA off to get a worse screenshot. If a low end graphics card doesn't have an option for AA, then the game most likely does. I have to admire the honesty in that low end shot though.

(I never saw AA as a big performance killer but I could be mistaken.)

AA can have an affect on FPS. My friend who uses FSX can run default scenery with AA turned on, but if flying in PNW, has to turn it off as it seems to have a bigger affect, since PNW is already a big performance killer. So, it can have an affect depending on the system. Maybe not much, but it can. Having the option to turn it off is something common on other games that I've seen as well.