Do you think Flight will be more CPU hungry than FSX?

[F35LightningII]

Place your votes.

[hyperpep111]

Too bad there is a limit on how many times you can push yes 

[F35LightningII]

Quite the results I expected.

So do you guys think a quad core (eg. i5) will be enough to max out its settings, or do you think it will need a hex-core (eg. i7-3930K)?

[skoker]

Quite the results I expected.

So do you guys think a quad core (eg. i5) will be enough to max out its settings, or do you think it will need a hex-core (eg. i7-3930K)?

My quad i5 can run fsx @17-24 in rural areas, Im sure it will struggle just as much with flight unless they finally figure out how to develop games that are like just cause or AVA, tons of detail, great FPS.

[Travis]

I hold firm to the belief that one of the main reasons FSX hogs so much mem and CPU time is that the legacy software it was built on had too much goofy code that was left over from previous versions.

[SamYeager]

I voted no - but I think a better question would have been "Do you think Flight will be as CPU bound as FSX?". After all who cares if Flight uses more CPU as long as it is responsive and delivers decent frame rates?

Maybe I'm naive but I believe a large part of existing processing will be offloaded to the GPU. In my view Flight will be designed for multi-core and optimised for dual core. I also believe the system requirements will mandate a minimum of Vista and DX11, possibly DX10.

IMHO Microsoft's definition of 'existing PC'

[BrandonF]

What's wrong with you people that voted yes?  There's no way anything will be more CPU hungry than FSX. If anything, it should be somewhat less hungry, or at least take advantage of multicore processors to the fullest. Like the team has said, it needs to run on today's hardware, not tomorrow's. Well, not everyone has a i7, especially not your everyday users/casual gamers. They are pretty much forced to write something that runs well or they really will screw themselves again, which doesn't seem likely will happen. 

[Strategic Retreat]

[quote]What's wrong with you people that voted yes?

[BrandonF]

Why is it that you just HAVE to  look at what FSX was, and then say what Flight is going to be? That makes absolutely no sense and is not logical. I don't think ACES ever went on and on about how FSX would have amazing performance on today's hardware. Well, guess what? The Flight team (Not "M$"....call them MS) has said in pretty much every news release/article about how the approach to flight simulation in the past was not right...and that the goal was to have the end user go through a few computers in a few years time and gradually be able to get better performance as they upgraded. Even the Flight team realizes that. It was a bad bad approach, AND THEY KNOW IT. There's no point in saying all this just to disappoint. Why do you think they've been so secretive about Flight's details? They don't want to promise what they can't deliver like they did with FSX. They are only saying that they know for sure. You may not think so, but the Flight team are people that know what they are doing. The Microsoft marketing team, well that's a whole different story. 

[JBaymore]

Is there any chance that you two guys (Strategic Retreat and BrandonF) will ever agree on anything?   ;)

best,

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

[Strategic Retreat]

[quote]Why is it that you just HAVE to

[Slotback]

I voted no, but I think it will be. Here's why.

FSX doesn't take proper use of multiple cores, Flight undoubtedly will take better advantage of multiple core processors. So even if it requires more CPU power, it still could run better on the same hardware. If however, Flight is anything like FSX in terms of its hardware requirements relative to current hardware, then it will not be purchased by myself and instead the next DCS will.

I never set any expectations for the next release of any computer software or hardware release. That way I can not be disappointed. I don't see the point in moaning about what MS did or did not say in the past, it will be what it will be and there's no changing that.

So do you guys think a quad core (eg. i5) will be enough to max out its settings, or do you think it will need a hex-core (eg. i7-3930K)?

Who knows. I would say that very high end hardware is required for highest settings, which would likely be a Sandy Bridge-E processor by the time Flight is released.

[Club508]

If they don't follow atleast a few of the following suggestions I think it will.

[Strategic Retreat]

[quote]1.

[Club508]

[quote][quote]1.