Sign in to follow this  
Guest

System Requirements.....why have them?!

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,..went over the official 2004 site cheking out all the screenies one more time after i read about the news about the July release ......readin about the new key features more carefully again and than I get to the end of the page with all the system requirements...??!!!!...ohhh bldy hell........this has to stop sometime....i am running fs2002 on a P3 933 with 512SDRAM and a Geforce2 32MB and i tweak and tweak and tweak some more before I can enjoy alittle detail......so dont tell me 3D clouds enhanced this enhanced that and than this...System RequirementsWindows PC 2000/XP

Share this post


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

I agree fully. I remember that they said when FS2000 came out that it would run on a Pentium 200. BULLS***. I had a Pentium 466 and the friggin' thing wouldn't even run it was so heavy.And why is it that of all the entertainment titles out there, MS Flight Sim is the most monstrous when it comes to draining resources? I never understood that. Every game out there will run fine on my machine, but FS2002 chokes to death when I go over 30% mesh quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>And why is it that of all the entertainment titles out there,>MS Flight Sim is the most monstrous when it comes to draining>resources? I never understood that. Every game out there will>run fine on my machine, but FS2002 chokes to death when I go>over 30% mesh quality.Good point Alex! Thank you! ... ..will add to that...ok will give you some degree of marketin.....but this is far beyond any such reasonin.....just read those specs...its not even funny anymore...plain insulting.....no matter how much we love these sims...no matter how much we waited for "real" clouds and no matter how much we will spend in the end upgradin to enjoy all that....every magazine simsite etc etc....should really give us some justice and say it like it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "like it is" simply because, for some reason, FS is the only game that will never be CPU satisfied! :(I totally agree with Alex too, other games do not represent a problem at all, Windows XP with all the bells and whistles runs ideally, but when I play FS I feel I have a P133...I think until MS develpos another graphics or rendering method for this ame we'll be stuck with insufficient CPU...I don't think most users can afford 100% mesh, AI traffic, Clouds, without their FPS dropping and noticing it..But this brings another subject...If you try reinstalling FS and runing everything default, you'll be amazed by the fluidity. You can have 100% AI traffic at EGLL and it'll be quite smooth. When when you add all the add-ons that add value to the product, then the FPs Nightmare begins! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Windows 98 users won't be able to use FS2004 ...... there are MANY FS2002 users who won't be able to afford Win2000, and XP will require upgraded hardware :(The Win98 issue will rule out FS2004 for quite a few :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running FS2002 on a P3/800..... With the exception of my switching from a Voodoo 3 to a GeF/2 about 15 months ago, my system and config is pretty much the same as when I installed the GeF/2. Never once had to do a reinstall of FS2002.I discovered a simple truth without having to "tweak and tweak and tweak"--leave AI off if I don't need it, and Autogen off if I plan on flying in the flight levels, and I consistently get 20-30 fps, except around highly detailed airports like LAX, where I average 15. Except for water reflections and building shadows being off, I have every other feature maxed.Still, Microsoft's saying that a 450 will do is very misleading--I can only guess that performance would be around half mine. I can't see 10-15 fps being acceptable without the AI and Autogen, and performance in the detailed airports? Maybe 5-7 fps?. Microsoft isn't fooling anyone--that was the type of performance we had on our Commodore's. No one with an old system should be lured into thinking they will have a fluid sim--and I'm afraid there's a large amount of young people with "hand-me-down" sub 600mhz systems that might buy the product, and get FS2 like performance. As for the cpu load of the clouds, Fly 2K had the same type of clouds, and hardly a hit on my cpu did they cause. I think Microsoft is just playing "catch-up" by doing a long overdue redesign of the weather engine. If it has a big fps impact, I'd be surprised.I'm not saying systems like ours are going to run with the eye candy cranked up, but I don't think FS2004 will be a big departure from the performance we already see. And if it is, I'm content enough to stay with FS2002 until I decide to budget for new hardware. Check out my screenshots of my sailplane flights over Arizona, just posted in the screenshots forum. Even the 2-d clouds look quite cool, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So, Windows 98 users won't be able to use FS2004....."Where did you read that? The system requirements posted above, and on MS's page, show support for 98 and ME. There's still a large number of systems with 98--especially those with laptops or systems running legacy software. Microsoft won't risk killing that market...yet. Even the "won't run on Windows 95" label for FS2002 is misleading. FS2002 didn't run on Windows 95 because Microsoft didn't want people to think it could. I first installed FS2002 under Windows 95, and wrote procs on how I did it, since the install program was crippled if 95 was detected (my procs can still can be found at FSGateway.com). It ran well for months, until I could afford the 98 upgrade. Having said all this, Microsoft originally posted Windows 95 compat. in its initial specs for FS2002, then pulled a fast one by dropping it. I pity them if they try to pull the same thing with FS2004. I replace my O/S when I want to, not when MS dictates. The 95 issue was a bunch of baloney, and I'm sorry to say many upgraded before they had the chance to try my procs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have low spec PC so I take an economical approach - setting graphics at about mid range and aviod using addon scenery in order to produce a flude sim. And I am happy about that. I hope FS2004 won't tax much of my system, or maybe I have to run it with minimun graphic setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are ways to get around it, but we shouldn't have to blindly feel our way around trying to find the best system when MS, who created the darn thing, could just come out and TELL US what the optimal systems are. Many of us will have to upgrade our systems for FS2004 regardless, but it sure would be nice to know just what we need rather than guess and/or buy the most expensive system out there (and STILL get blurries!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, The System Requirements is only made for the sim to works, a minimum req'd system spec, it means all sliders to the left.For the system requirement it's always the same patterne. One thing I have learn with the time, with the latest 3d complex games released compare to flight sim that's require power and details, you will need mid or high end computer if you want good result with almost all detailed enabled. I am not talking about basic game don't require much power forget about them.256/512 ram ,1.5ghz to 3ghz or even more with the time when the cpu price will drop depend on your preference details enabled or disabled. Good 3d card video 128 meg Ati/Gforce on all latest 3d complexe games will be excellent compare to 64 megs. Flight Sim are not an exception compare to others complex 3d games released.After fs2004 release, new cpu will be available with probably 4ghz, 5ghz, 6ghz, 7ghz and new 3d video card will be available as well.It's depend on your budget, your preference and details..Company will not restrict them self with the product from old Cpu system from 2 years ago. They follow the latest techonoligies, this is the way the BEST and complex game are created.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, "And why is it that of all the entertainment titles out there, MS Flight Sim is the most monstrous when it comes to draining resources? I never understood that. Every game out there will run fine on my machine,""Flight Sim is the most monstrous when it comes to draining resources? "No there is others also like Flight Sim, get draining resources. I am wondering wich type of game you are comparing with flight sim and if all details are enabled at max. Flight sim will always take power because they use X, Y, Z, from the sky to the ground rendering. most of others games are io the ground only.. Remember FUIII, at the release, it was extremly terrible for the frame rate and smoothness not flyable...Tell me wich type of game run fine on your machine, I bet they run all on 1.5 ghz and lower..You can't compare these with flight sim. ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't they really referring to a minimum req'd system spec? That likely means all sliders to the left...anything that's taxing turned off. ...the bare-bones sim. It's a marketing tag and I think most PC gamers recognize what it means...not much :-)Keep in mind to, as soon as you customize the art with add-on's the FS team can't be responsible for poor frame rates. Poly-counts, textures sizes, Ai complexity, and so on are generally much much lower in the default art compared to your average add-on. Once you've started toying with the art it's up to you to manage your frame rate problems. That my point of view anyway.DannyCYVR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, "As for the cpu load of the clouds, Fly 2K had the same type of clouds, and hardly a hit on my cpu did they cause."Not really, fly have the same type of clouds from fs2002 but in 3d. with disappearing clouds effect etc.. Fs2004 have much more complex clouds formation that's reachhigh altitude clouds, like Cb clouds, full 3d altocumulus and they use new designe and technique for each clouds and formation. I will not surprise if there is more frame hit. But they will certainly add clouds quality slider for your computer system and preference etc..ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,One thing that we should remember is that this new version of FS is more akin to an upgrade than a complete new version. At least that's my impression.The weather will now behave in a manner more realistic as compared to earlier versions where you might be in the soup one second, and in the clear the next. Sounds more like a response to user requests.Ok, so there are more aircraft. Big deal. MS has never been one of my favourite modellers. The freeware and payware communities do a much better job.The AI traffic will be fixed to replicate the real thing more accurately. Another response to user requests, just like the upgraded ATC services.These are all good things, even given my sarcastic tone. But I imagine that MS has woken up somewhat and raised the system reqs for FS only to avoid having users with the bare minimum system trying to run FS, then complaining that it "looks nowhere near the pictures on the box".True, the sim will probably require a bit more CPU horsepower to run it with all the eye candy, but it's not like everyone is going to have to run out and get a 3.06GHz CPU to enjoy the sim; That'll be the next version.And as one of the other posts stated, all those add-ons that we install; aircraft, scenery, AI traffic, and other utilties tax our system resources. The sim out of the box flies quite well on my older PIII 866, but add some of the above items, and it can be brought to it's knees. And yeah, I'll be buying a copy of FSACOF. I figure what the hell, I've bought all vesrions since 5.1 so what's another? I also hope I'm right since I only just bought a 2.53GHz and there's no way the wife is gonna let me upgrade it within the forseeable future.KyleCF-AOA

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