a new consideration for us simmers

[barryward12345 0]

I am prompted to bring this up after a poster placed a post saying that he had a free copy of FSx - but only an older P4 2400 to run it on.Without getting into yet another discussion about comparisons between FS9 & FSx, I believe there is a larger consideration in all this. I remember years ago - when we ran 486's and then Pentium 2's and 3's -- it was pretty well automatic that we all eventually upgraded because these old machine were slow in everything that they did and when the opportunity came along to economically upgrade our hardware, we did so. I remember upgrading for a P2 233 to a P3 1000 - primarily because I wanted to play a new version of "Age of Empires" and the P2 233 just couldn't cut it. But I didn't mind spending the $2000 neccesary for this upgrade because fundamentally , the new P3 1000 did EVERYTHING that I used it for FASTER.But today, my AMDxp 2400 ( even though it is quite an old machine now) basically does everything I need - Office stuff, Internet, etc and of course FS9. Actually it would be nice to have a bit more power even for FS 9- for example an AMD 3800 would be vey nice. BUT - this is going to cost me a fair bit of money . For the first time ever I don't really need to upgrade for ANY OTHER PURPOSE except for FS9 or FSx. Obviously if/when my machine dies , I will upgrade - but while it is still alive, there really is no compelling reason to ditch it. I think that we are now possibly reaching a stage where the assumption that everybody will continue on the upgrade path with hardware is no longer valid. Any game publisher who automatically assumes that everybody will race out and upgrade their machines at a cost of $2000 just so the new game can be played is in for a bit of a shock . Those days are over-- UNLESS a new generation of game that really takes advantage of the real hardware advances (like multi core) emerges. If that happened then I may quite possibly open my wallet. Barry

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Ditto. Same here!For now I'm quite happy to keep my P4 3.4 GHz matched to an ATI X800XT and 3 gigs RAM.As you say, everything else is lightening fast...including FS9 to the max with three or four satellite programs running in the background.With FSX out of the box....dismal.One program will not trash the entire present computer anymore. I think that others are thinking along those lines as well.I agree totally with your statement, that we have reached an apex. Before my Dell XPS, I basically upgraded with each major Pentium release. Each new release of FS put the impetus to high. FSX bringing current and latest-greatest hardware to its knees was the hand-slap onto the forehead for myself. I'm going to sit in the bush and see what happens when the XP and DX10 patch come into play.Mitch R.

[Guest Jetfan]

Yeah, me too...I quit the upgrade game a couple of years ago with my latest computer, a Dell Dimension 4600, P4, 3.0GHz and FS2002. All other programs and internet surfing run fine and FS2k2 flows smoothly and looks 'as real as it needs to be' for me. I did buy FS9, but it didn't run very well, so it's on the shelf. Although it was a waste of money for me, it wasn't like buying a new computer.Cheers,Bob

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Geez Bob,...FS9 should run great on a P4 3.0!!!!Your computer is no slag heap!What kind of FPS did you get with FS9 with sliders at mid-point?What is your graphics card?I only have 400 Mhz greater than you and I get 30 plus FPS with everything bent to the right and three other programs tying into FS9 via 3.72 FSUIPC.I have:Dell XPS Gen2Pent 4 3.4 GHzATIx800XT 256 meg G.C.3 Megs PC2-4200 MemorySound Blaster Audigy II sound cardXP ProMitch

[BillW 210]

I get 27 fps with a 2.8. Somethings not right on your machine.

[Guest dpc]

I think this is a very sound observation. We are getting to the point now where upgrades geared towards improving game performance have little impact on performance overall for a basic home or business user. How much faster will an instantly opening spreadsheet open? HOWEVER there is still room to see improvement for those multi-media enthusiests. Crunching down a video format conversion or manipulating large photo files still has some room for improvement and will continue to as multimedia equipment improves in quality and price. Just look at digital cameras these days. But as the average user is concerned, I would agree with Barry.

[BillW 210]

Consumers would be wise to take some time deciding the main usage of the computer.If gaming is the main activity, then you should buy a gamer's machine.(If you can afford it!) Microsoft may learn a lesson from FSX. Not all of us are willing to sacrifice family harmony for the sake of keeping up with the latest and greatest. As far as that goes, I'm not sure that many people feel that FSX is the greatest. I've been a simmer since the very first version. I am quite content with FS9. I realized long ago that you simply cannot expect a $50 piece of software to be like climbing into the cockpit. If you are realistic in your expectations, the nerves start to settle and the fun begins. That's my $.02.

[Bob Scott 7,721]

But...you guys should see FS9 run on a 2GB overclocked Dual Core Extreme running at 3.8 GHz. FSX may not be worth the upgrade, but FS9 on a fast new machine is, for me at least, a like-new experience, with lots of the stuff I had to dial down on my 3.06GHz P4 now up and running.This "$50 piece of software" (plus a couple $$hundred for FSUIPC, ActiveSky, GE Pro II, airport and aircraft add-on of choice) is much more like climbing into the cockpit in many ways than the full-motion sims I taught instrument flying in just 25 short years ago.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Dillon 2,197]

Great points made Barry and very true. Very little reason to upgrade at this point. I personally won't upgrade until the machines are out that can run FSX the way Mitch (Sesquashtoo) above can run FS9 now...

[Guest]

Yes mate you are correct. Today's hardware runs everything perfect EXCEPT FS10. This is not normal. Now i just pity all the people who drop 3-5000$ on a new system to run FS10 in stock form. When the complex 3rd party software kicks in in about a year, they will be back down to 4fps. Which is why i am not doing anything until i see the major products released and i'll go from there... right now i'll enjoy fear, crysis, nfs and whatever else on my FS10 incompatible rig. along with fs9...

[kerosene31 349]

Video games push the hardware envelope. This is nothing new. At my work, we plan to upgrade/replace PCs on a 3 year cycle. There is no need for more upgrades than that. For PC gamers, you are looking at a 2 year and maybe even 18 month cycle. For me, it isn't even the money issue but the time put into research and actually putting the thing together and configuring it. I used to be big on it, but lately the whole thought of it makes me exhausted. I know I'm not alone. It also seems like the amount of pushing from game developers increases each year. My point is, what happens when game developers push too hard? Simple, we sit back and get off the roller coaster. Many of us are sticking with fs9 for now and are more than happy. So many people are concerned about this and even angry about it. However things will work themselves out. Relax, have fun with the sim of your choice!

[MD83 1]

This thread has hit the nail on the head! Back in the days of FS98 and FS2000 I was using a P3 450Mhz, with 128Mb of RAM and a pathetic 8Mb ATI "Rage Pro Turbo" (8Mb of RAGING TURBO :-lol). FS98 was "ok", but the upgrade to FS2000 was terrible! MS Office ran very slowly at times, along with most of my other applications. An upgrade was essential back then!I have a three-year-old P4 3.05Ghz PC with 1Gb RAm and a 256Mb ATI 9600. Everything runs brilliantly on this PC, apart from FSX :-lol. I can't justify purchasing a new PC when 99% of software runs well on it.

[MarkRey 16]

I've ordered an ATI X1950pro to replace my trusty X700pro, plus a new psu and a few fans to ensure adequate power/cooling. That's about my limit having decided to stick with fs9. My machine is kept clean and lean and is as fast or faster than the day I bought it, so I'll not be looking at new hardware for at least 2yrs. If that means I'll be watching from the outside as FSX comes into it's own, so be it. I've bypassed versions before and bought good airplanes years late - no big. And who knows, maybe between ACES and the community FSX will in fact be tamed.regards,Markhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/a320/custbanner2.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

Always upgraded every two years. This last time, it was five years.Last machine would run FS2002 & FS9 with a few sliders pulled back.Upgraded to a high mid line this time. Runs FSX rather well, looks fantastic, and as before, some sliders are again pulled back. This machine will also run FS9 with sliders on the high end, which helps the third party scenery and aircraft vendors, as I seem to be buying additional FS9 addon's along with some for FSX. Running X-Plane 8.5 with global scenery too, and the machine does very well.Athlon 64 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32 res.L.Adamson

[Virtualwombat 4]

One could argue that this idea of not being able to justify upgrading for any reason other than to run games is the reason that so many have moved to consoles. They are a compelling value proposition to consumers that already have a TV, as most do ($700 vs $3000). Something of the same trend can be seen in consoles as in PCs, with more memory, faster drives and HD resolutions required for the best results. Obviously the games industry will always be pushing the premium end of the market, no matter what the platform might be.For PCs to survive as a gaming platform, there really has to be a compelling advantage over consoles. This is probably the motivation of DX10. The pressure is certainly on MS to deliver.Cheers,Noel.