Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

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

Recommended Posts

450mhz? very funny........ Someone else should create a civilian flightsim. X-plane is very good for realistic FDE etc. but visual part etc. is not that good... MS know that every (or almost every) flightsimmer will buy FS, if someone will create civflightsim like MS one, then MS will have to make better FS. BTW, I would rather see an Expansion Pack for fs2k2... but this is just my opinion...Jacek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jacek, Remember FUIII, at the release, it was extremly terrible for the frame rate and smoothness not flyable..."X-plane is very good for realistic FDE etc. but visual part etc. is not that good"This is why have good frame rate and smoothnees..Publisher are not interested to release Cv flight Simulator, there is no demand. This is why FlyIII was never created..And this is why you wont see many Cv out there..Extremely complex to do and require ALOT of $$.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs


Kind Regards
Chris Willis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>Publisher are not interested to release Cv flight Simulator,>there is no demand. This is why FlyIII was never created..And>this is why you wont see many Cv out there..Extremely complex>to do and require ALOT of $$.Is it because there's no demand, or because MSFS has a strangle-hold on it? If there was no demand, MS wouldn't still be publishing new FS versions every two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, "or because MSFS has a strangle-hold on it? If there was no demand, MS wouldn't still be publishing new FS versions every two years."I understand what's you mean, but If you look all others game type available and company, you will see the Cv flight product are almost non in the market. Even at the same time, Pro pilot, FuIII and MsFs, these are only 1% of the game type title available compare to any other game type. You will see more Combat flight sim available more popular..Most game and demande are all in others game types, now we are talking around the world million and million. If Tri was not able to release flyIII, it is mainly because of many publishers are not interested, but they still release others games type as well..ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs


Kind Regards
Chris Willis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Just look at what Microsoft claim as the Min system to run FS2004 and then double that as your min! So if they say a 450Mhz PC, Use at least a 900Mhz PC and double the ram.Mind you I would never run FS2002 or FS2004 on anything less then 1.5Ghz and 512Ram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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."" The "simple truth" is that is UNACCEPTABLE to me! While everyone gets different things out of FS, once you see and experience the eye candy (realism) you (I) can't go back. I have a few other sims as well as several game titles I indulge in, but FS is the main reason I use my PC,,and the main reason I need to upgrade!! While it is very true that the sim performs well right out of the box, all the 3rd party add ons are what make this thing happen for me!!! I design scenery and it would be great to have more "head" room for FPS and performance. That is the main reason I don't do large airports as I will be totally frustrated with the results having an unflyable clump of polygons that I spent months on.With full AI, all the sliders maxed running several utilities and the simflyers DFW (home airport), and real weather, I get an amazing slide show!! Almost like the pics I see on airliners .net with my current Athlon 1.4 1 gig of 2100 memory, and a G4 4600.Am I upset?, no, I realize that the new version will adress many of these issues and have more features out of the box, so I will make the most of it, plus the new 3 gig system I am getting will help! LOLRegards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com


Best, Michael

KDFW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, "Just look at what Microsoft claim as the Min system to run FS2004 and then double that as your min! So if they say a 450Mhz PC, Use at least a 900Mhz PC and double the ram"I agree, the same with the latest Unreal Tournement II and Unreal II they said: min 700 mhz in the box. Just double or triple the amount of Cpu, ram, 3d graphics card for better frame and details at full..Ms Flight Sim have no expection either.Mind you I would never run Unreal Tournement II and Unreal II anything less then 1.5Ghz and 512Ram. Whats about Battle Feild system spec,even worst, near 2.0 ghz and 2.5 ghz for full details ? :-eekThe system spec on any (3d complex game) are not the real spec.. you need much more, they put the basic to run the game. Always double or triple or more the spec..Don't Forget you have flight Sim for 2 years, not each years like many game others released..ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs


Kind Regards
Chris Willis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SE7N,...is it just me..?pls tell me....what kind of system will run Fs2004...and pls make an effort to atleast appear honest......dear Microsoft"If you bought many comparable 3d complex games to flight sim, all system spec, you will have to double and triple the spec. They always put the basic spec on the box to run the games, double and triple the spec, you will be happy with your graphics/details and performance.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs


Kind Regards
Chris Willis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping on getting mine when the day comes out, and moving all my GMAX a/c to FS2004, and keep all my FSDS aircraft in FS2002 (if I have any). Everyone that designs aircraft will have to move to GMAX so you guys that still use FSDS should start learning how to use it. Oh yea, if anyone tries to match up to Microsoft in a sim Microsoft will probally buy them out... Another question to be asked is what computers does Microsoft use to make FS2004? Does anyone know or asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thing I forgot to put down. Will FS2004 still work with Squawkbox etc.? Or will their have to be a new one made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You can still use FSDS aircraft. They said all aircraft made since FS2000 will be compatible, and that includes FSDS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JonP01

To be honest, I would have been happy if FS2004 was simply the new aircraft and the enhanced ATC. Even that would have been more than enough for me to buy the new version without hesitation. As it stands, I'm still buying it, but I don't really expect I will be terribly happy with the performance unless I fly in clear weather all the time. I think one of the principal reasons for the good performance of FS2002 has been a fairly simple weather engine, both in terms of complexity and graphics. I really don't see how the new weather engine is going to run nearly as smoothly as the old version. It would appear to be extremely GPU and CPU intensive - far more so than the FS2002 incarnations. I certainly hope I'm mistaken, but as someone who used to work as a programmer I can just imagine the huge chunks of computer code and number-crunching needed to make the new weather engine run. The power needed to do this isn't going to come out of thin air. I realise MS claims to be optimising the code this time around, but the pessimist in me suggests this is because the new weather engine is taking up more horsepower than MS would have liked. I'm also hoping that if FS2004 won't run well on my machine then there is some way of porting the new aircraft to the old sim until my next hardware upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bilbo

Here's some thoughts (Not that I agree with them).1)MS has always made this sim with a higher end consumer computer in mind. Sure it should 'run' on their specs but they are an absolute minimum needed. Now if you want the bells and whistles, upgrade about two months or so after FSXXXX comes out and get the top system. You'd be happy because ..guess what, you're gonna upgrade anyway if you're a simmer. The semi-annual upgrade is just a fact of life. 2)If your computer meets the minimum specs and flightsim doesn't run with all the details turned down or off, then you might have a legitimate complaint. Sue MS for "loss of consortium"!3)3rd party add-ons aren't MS's responsability. It is up to to the 3rd party developer to have consideration for your frame rates. If you want greatly detailed aircraft then it will cause the frames to drop. I just tried one last night and can't figure out why my frames drop by 30% on this little craft with few details unless the polygon count is excessive for no reason. Or, just because you can have 80,000 polys on a model doesn't mean that you need to. Can you get the message across with maybe 20,000? When I create a craft, I consider for this and try to minimize the unnecessary detail such as removing vertices and polys from impossible to see parts in the VC.4)Yes, the semi-annual upgrade is just a fact of life and it keeps many users from having hardware failures by pushing them to upgrade. 5)Maybe the hardware companies are in cohoots with MS pushing people to upgrade! After all, how can they sell a 200gig HDD for less than I paid for my first 650meg (which I can't even buy these days)?Just in fun because I'm addicted to this sim,Bilbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hello everyone,all very interesting arguments here which helps explain that we all recognise this spec "reality" ..so before I go on thank you all for postin. I know this issue is not one we love to talk about... better be talking add-ons instead...but judgin from my experience and friends...the way things are going we will not be able to enjoy the latest version because we simply can not afford a complete upgrade every two years....we all know business and realise why software and hardware companies have to push for a quick cycle to stay competitive and alive....but that means that we all see that this is the age for customer service, satisfaction and loyalty...you might think that all this don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi,Just one thing. I myself was getting hung up on this minimum spec thing, and realized that there is usually a recommended system spec also. I think this may fill the information gap.Paul

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...