Sign in to follow this  
LuisFelizTirado

Were they serious?

Recommended Posts

Real quick, I had to pause my flight I thought this was too funny. I'm cleaning my room and ran across the manual for FS2k2. Page 25, talking about improving quality and performance MS says "A Pentium II-300 or faster processor is recommended for optimal performance". It also says, our 3-D graphics card needs at least 8MB of memory, and you need at least 64MB of RAM. What would this sim look with those MS recommended specs?LOLLobaeux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The general rule, for many years now, is to never go with the recommended specs. You'll always need a lot more.As to what the sim would look like with those specs? Mud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol i did test in with in old 3dfx card and P2-400 and 512 ram it runs very bad u have to bring the silders down alot lol i think ms is nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran FS2002 on a K6-400 with a 16MB Voodoo Banshee for a year+ before I got my newer comp. FPS averages around 8 with almost everything at minimum. Get a complex aircraft and say hello slideshow! Also say goodbye to aircraft reflections and any texture above 256x256.After seeing 30fps constant at ground level on my newer comp with settings maxed...I dont see how I survived on that K6 system LOL.The MS game (doesnt matter what game) minimum specs are a JOKE. FS2002 minimum specs aren't THAT bad, but FS2000's specs were CRAZY. With the minimum specs (P166 {cough cough}, 32MB RAM, 3d accelerator OPTIONAL), your _GUARANTEED_ to get slideslow fps LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There not nuts they just wish to broaden their sales."Ok, you're right - they're not nuts then.They are lyin' crooks.:-)Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a rule of thumb for the last 4 years where I simply multiply the recommended (not minimum) requirements by 4. This works well for all games I've bought during this time except for flightsim. The rule there is that I multiply everything by 10. Meaning my current machine isn't quite fast enough, but it still runs it OK. I think 3 Ghz + machines would provide a really absorbing FS2002 experience - not that I can vouch for that personally :-lolI guess Microsoft think of it like Office XP. My Mum doesn't complain about her frame rates when running Excel 2002 spreadsheets on her K6-2 400 Mhz processor, so why should FS2002 enthusiasts complain? I mean it's all Microsoft stuff, isn't it ;)Now, the question I have is this: If you were forced to run FS2002 on a 300 Mhz machine with 8Mb graphics card and 64 Mb of RAM, would you continue flight simming or give up? Personally, I'd give up and take real flying lessons instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Jon,This is all pretty funny. I have an old Winbook laptop: 566 MHZ, 64 MB RAM, 5.6 GB hard disk, ATI Rage Mobility chip with 4 MB memory, 12" screen.Now, get ready: I usually get 30 frames per second where I fly!Pretty surprising, isn't it. Of course, the graphics quality is pretty bad, but this is due to the old graphics chip and its limited possibilities.And, evidently, I do not have all sliders set to maximum. But, I do use maximum autogen, complexity at dense, terrain textures at medium, and AI at 30%.I even make my own scenery, and have littered the landscape with custom buildings and trees, monuments, roads, special airfields, and many other elements. A pretty good flying experience, and certainly much better than the previous version of Flight Simulator. That one usually crashed after 5 or 10 minutes and gave about 12 frames per second.We have a tendency to put down Microsoft (and Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer probably deserve it) and crititicize Flight Simulator. But, this optimization of the graphics engine in the latest version is a great achievement. My results are incredible.And, why should I spend a few thousand dollars for a new system just to run a $50 game? As you say, my very low-end computer is more than enough to run the Office suite, which, in the adult world, has a somewhat more important function than a simple game like Flight Simulator.Best regards.Luis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this