Scrap everything when DirectX10 gets here.

[ctjoyce]

Nope a card flash wouln't work. To flash your card, you need to get a BIOS of a card with the same core as yours (or a compatable one). Anyway so you can run DX10 on a DX9 card, but without all the flashy stuff.

So the bottom line is, your gonna need a new card.

Cheers
Cameron

[kipman725]

*Laughs head off at all you conned by marketing stuff*

When Dx9.0 came out did you all rush to replace your geforce 4 ti 4800 with the 5800ultra... and if you did was it worth the money?  thought not

As for games looking significantly worse on a DX9.0 card, I doubt you will even notice that much of a differance.  If you have COD try switching between dx9.0 and dx7.0 modes and you will see a suprisingly small visual differance (mainly the smoke not looking quite as spiffy).  My pc having such a lame dx9.0 implemantation runs HL2 at dx8.2 mode.  The only visual differance I have is that I cannot run HDR.  I still run with AF and max detail just fine.

As for M$ taking the screen shots on DX10 hardware thats imposible as the spec isn't finilized and the chips haven't been made yet.

Even if dx10 is the next big thing games don't have to use it.  For example DOOM3 dosen't, it uses openGL instead and still was the best looking game when it was released!

All this doom mongering about fsx needed a mega rig is silly as M$ will want the largest audiance posible so it will run (not as prettly) on all but the worse FS9 systems.

kipman

[cleobis]

well I don't know about that....fs9 runs very bad on medium to bad fs2002 running systems....so I assume that FSX will need, to run ok, a good fs9 running system...

edit: and by ok, I mean 15fps with medium to low detail levels...

[kipman725]

well I don't know about that....fs9 runs very bad on medium to bad fs2002 running systems....so I assume that FSX will need, to run ok, a good fs9 running system...

edit: and by ok, I mean 15fps with medium to low detail levels...

low definition of ok, my ok is medium detial with an avrage fps of above 35 with a minmum of 20.

[C]

[quote]*Laughs head off at all you conned by marketing stuff*

As for M$ taking the screen shots on DX10 hardware thats imposible as the spec isn't finilized and the chips haven't been made yet.

Even if dx10 is the next big thing games don't have to use it.

[cleobis]

well I don't know about that....fs9 runs very bad on medium to bad fs2002 running systems....so I assume that FSX will need, to run ok, a good fs9 running system...

edit: and by ok, I mean 15fps with medium to low detail levels...  



low definition of ok, my ok is medium detial with an avrage fps of above 35 with a minmum of 20.

Well I meant an ok level fthat anyone could probably achieve....

[elite marksman]

I don't know what specs you guys have, but your definition of ok is much more stringent than mine.

I manage to run FS9 at medium-high level and get about 10-15 fps. I have clouds turned down as low as they get because if I fly through a bank of clouds a medium setting, I drop to 2-5 fps. I would definatly like to get much higher framerates, but since I don't have much chance of getting a new system soon, I've learned to live with what I got.

After a few hours at 15fps you don't really notice it. Even with FS8 I can't get more than about 25 fps. I consider ok to be anything above 12 fps. After a while, you'll get used to landing at 10-15 fps and it won't be hard at all, it just takes getting used to.

That said, I'm looking to upgrade my system, and probably will wait until the new hardware comes out, not because I'm going to get it, but because it will drive the price of slightly older equipment down.
My current system:
P4 2Ghz
ATI 9200SE 128, agp
768MB pc2100 DDR.
Integrated sound
160GB hd (1 WD 40GB, 1 WD 120GB)

As you can see, even an entry level system is light years ahead of my current setup. If I got a new system, I would probably have:
Athlon 64 X2 (after AMD releases new chips)
either ATI X800 or Nvidia 7600
1GB RAM
Audigy 2 pro
150GB+ (WD or Seagate)
Still not cutting edge hardware, but enough to blow my current system away.

[congo]

After a few hours at 15fps you don't really notice it.

The trouble is, after 5 minutes on a decent system, you'll be disgusted at what you have now and won't ever consider less again.

[ctjoyce]

+1

After you start to see what you were missing you will never want to go back. When I first started FS9 I was running a Northwood 2.4Ghgz, 512MB PC2700, 80GB HDD, and intagraded intel GFX. I thought this was amazing. 12FPS on medum/low settings. Then I upgraded to Sheila, and my whole world changed. Everything was so crisp and clear, now I have trouble on lesser systems as I am use to seeing the smallest details with my setup now.

Cheers
Cameron