A Total Joke

[cavity]

Oh, come on guys, lets just say its FSX so we have something pleasant to talk about.  :D I was hoping to keep Rollerball from having a stroke.  Whats funny about this is that for the 1st time in months Im error free on fs9 and loving it.  Turned out to be a bad memory module, so now Im back at it and will wait a while for FSX.  Todd

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

Yay! This topic is opened again

[RollerBall]

Good, God Almighty!

Video cards in the GB range?

I need to win a freakin lottery to buy that.

Ah now we're getting there. Now we're beginning to see what kind of specs we really need to properly run FSX.

Of course MS aren't trying to deliberately pull the wool over our eyes with the min spec they quote on their packaging............ but like I've said, how many aunties and uncles will grab FSX off the shelf this year for Christmas presents (it's wholesome, non-violent and it's made my MS so it must be good.....). And then the kids they give it to who usually just poke the CD or DVD into their PC, load and run their game find that not only don't they have a cat's chance of making it look anything like what it says on the packaging but in some cases it will hardly run on their machine at all.

I know Jessie has posted a list of gorgeous new features that FSX contains compared to FSX - but for most people they are largely theoretical.

And if a program actually needs a

[Daube]

Minimum requierement have never been meant to describe the machine needed to obtain the same shots as on the box.

Minimum requirement are normally set to describe the minimum hardware to run the soft.

But I agree that this 32 Mb video card is a joke. They should have written something like 128 Mb video memory, and 512 Mb RAM. This would allow, by turning almost everything OFF, to run FSX at its minimum.

[Daube]

[quote]
And if a program actually needs a

[RollerBall]

No, let's scotch this one that keeps popping up.

FS2004 did run out of the box pretty well for most people because by then the 'average' PC was some way above the minimum spec on the box. That's why people could laugh about it.

Then we went on to improve our experience by tweaking and installing add-ons. We didn't have to work on the damn thing just to make it run at all on our machines and that's the difference between FS9 and FSX.

Hey, I've just heard about the new Mercedes. It only has the performance of a moped right now because it won't run on current technology. That's why it has great shelf life - ie the punters give the manufacturer the money to buy it now but then have to leave it parked in their garage. Would you buy it? Would you heck.

But people on this forum have quoted exactly the same concept for FSX and expect us to swallow the argument.

Come on........ which space ship did you get off

[microlight]

Hi Roger - that's funny - you used pretty much the same analogy as I did in a different thread, about cars! I actually have a slightly older Mercedes that runs very well on current technology and am very happy indeed with it; I have no yen for the updated version because it ain't so nice IMHO.

Same for FS9.

[Bindoe]

[quote]

Ah now we're getting there. Now we're beginning to see what kind of specs we really need to properly run FSX.

Of course MS aren't trying to deliberately pull the wool over our eyes with the min spec they quote on their packaging............ but like I've said, how many aunties and uncles will grab FSX off the shelf this year for Christmas presents (it's wholesome, non-violent and it's made my MS so it must be good.....). And then the kids they give it to who usually just poke the CD or DVD into their PC, load and run their game find that not only don't they have a cat's chance of making it look anything like what it says on the packaging but in some cases it will hardly run on their machine at all.

I know Jessie has posted a list of gorgeous new features that FSX contains compared to FSX - but for most people they are largely theoretical.

And if a program actually needs a

[vololiberista]

M(qualcosa)s have designed a programme for a technology that doesn't exist yet!! I bet that doesn't appear on the packet under Minimum specs!!!!!!!!!

DX10 is still under development. All that exists is an artist concept image of what M(qualcosa)s "hope" the game will look like. As for Vista, remember that at the beginning of this year they decided to throw it away and start again 'cause they couldn't get it to work!!!!! AND, now they won't let third parties access the kernel code. ......I ask you this question would you trust your PC to a virus checker written by M(qualcosa)s ?? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Vololiberista

[ozzy72]

My advice is this;
a) If you're happy with things the way they are then don't bugger about with 'em.
b) If you're not happy with things the way they are then bugger about with 'em.

This works for about 99% of things
And remember there are VERY few personal problems that can't be solved by the careful application of explosives

[Brett_Henderson]

Hey, I've just heard about the new Mercedes. It only has the performance of a moped right now because it won't run on current technology.

I'm having my frustrations, trying to get good performance out of FSX... that's for sure. But that's not a fair statement. Current technology CAN run FSX. quite well.

A $500 CPU..  $500 video-card .. and $500 worth of RAM along with $500 for M-board and all the drives, etc... could handle FSX pretty well. That's a $2,000 computer. Hardly a lot for a gaming machine by anyone's standards. And for $3,500 you could build a computer that would run it MORE than well.. right ?  I mean.. we are NOT talking about technology that doesn't exist.

You could build the computer I'm running now from scratch for about $1,000 and it's "OK".  (Athlon3700, eVga7800GT256, 1GB Corsair3200). Up until FSX.. that was a pretty darn good gaming rig, albiet middle-of-the-road.

If FSX is going to do extraordinary things, pushing a TRUE, state of the art gaming computer (prob $4,000 or more) to it's limits (as it should).. the fact that it brings a $1,000 computer to it's knees is to be expected.

What could Microsoft have done to improve on FS9 enough to make it worh being a three year newer simulator that would run just fine on marginal computers ? Not much..

You can't get mad at Microsoft over the technological leap (and if you're still getting angry with Microsoft for releasing buggy software, you're headed for the loony-bin).

FSX will run fine on a state-of-the-art, gaming computer.

[microlight]

That's a different argument, though. There are many people, me included, who just wouldn't spend

[freedomhays]

And remember there are VERY few personal problems that can't be solved by the careful application of explosives,

I like that...Give me some Trinitrotoluene

Here's my spec's

[Brett_Henderson]

And that's the beauty of it. It's not like FS9 quit working. People can move up the FS-rank as their desire and budget allow. A year from now.. a hardware upgrade for FSX will be much more affordable and probably

[Hagar]

FSX will run fine on a state-of-the-art, gaming computer.

That should be printed on the packaging in big red letters. It's very different from the quoted minumum specs which I'm not convinced would even run the program. My main problem is not with FSX itself but the way it's being marketed which could arguably come under the category of False and Misleading Advertising. I can't think of any other companies that would get away with it, certainly not for as long as M$ has with the MSFS series.

I still can't understand why after being treated like this for years some people remain so passionately loyal to M$ they not only refuse to listen to any criticism but also try to prevent sensible discussion.

PS. In the end it's only a game chaps.