Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MatthewS

Can XP10 look like this?

Recommended Posts

Wings Of Prey was released a few days ago. I believe this WWII combat sim has been derived from the classic IL2 Sturmovik.Why would this be of interest to X-Plane users? Well, check out the amazing dense autogen, sharp ground textures, excellent 3D models, HDR lighting, self shadowing (including cockpit shadows), water (waves and transparent shallows) and best clouds (including shadows and windscreen rain effects) I've ever seen. No blurries, no stutter, and absolutely fluid fps.Is it possible that XPlane 10 could implement some of the same graphics capabilities? Is OpenGL as capable?Even if you're not into combat sims this demo (1.2gb) is worth downloading just to see where PC graphics are heading. And this is all using DX9. What could DX11 be capable of?This is probably what FS11 could have looked like had it not been canceled.The demo can be downloaded (as a Bit-torrent) from the Wings Of Prey sitehttp://www.airwargame.comOr get it from Gamers Hell as a single file for those who don't like Bit-torrent.http://www.gamershell.com/download_54548.shtmledit: There are also many HD videos on youtube which show off the excellent graphics too.http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type...es=20&uni=3

Share this post


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

I would say this... If Austin were to implement the newest advanced OpenGL techniques, maybe it could happen down the line, however it has been stated on ben's blog they intend on keeping as many systems as possible running it, so I doubt they will amp the graphics that much, although it would be nice.Easy enough to say... however, is that GL is capable of doing most of what DX11 can do, and once Nvidia and ATI both have hardware tessellation, (ATI already does) for GL, then GL can match DX11 graphically. As for the direct compute layer, that could be switched to OpenCL (made by the same group as OpenGL), and that would be that. For the rest of it, well I could see GL keeping up with DX 11, it's more a matter of a little bit of lag because Nvidia needs to write that one part up for tessellation. Once that's done, you could probably do something that looks the same as dx11 with opengl with near future or existing tech. (I follow this stuff because the project I work on which is in my sig, uses GL to work on both windows and linux).As for tech wise, if Austin were to do it, he would KO a lot of older rigs, and that would tick a lot of people off, that's why X-Plane doesn't have True HDR yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wings Of Prey was released a few days ago. I believe this WWII combat sim has been derived from the classic IL2 Sturmovik.Why would this be of interest to X-Plane users? Well, check out the amazing dense autogen, sharp ground textures, excellent 3D models, HDR lighting, self shadowing (including cockpit shadows), water (waves and transparent shallows) and best clouds (including shadows and windscreen rain effects) I've ever seen. No blurries, no stutter, and absolutely fluid fps.Is it possible that XPlane 10 could implement some of the same graphics capabilities? Is OpenGL as capable?Even if you're not into combat sims this demo (1.2gb) is worth downloading just to see where PC graphics are heading. And this is all using DX9. What could DX11 be capable of?This is probably what FS11 could have looked like had it not been canceled.The demo can be downloaded (as a Bit-torrent) from the Wings Of Prey sitehttp://www.airwargame.comOr get it from Gamers Hell as a single file for those who don't like Bit-torrent.http://www.gamershell.com/download_54548.shtmledit: There are also many HD videos on youtube which show off the excellent graphics too.http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type...es=20&uni=3
Before you go goo goo gah gah over this, realize, the reason you get fluid frame rates in this game is you are limited in the area of the battlefield All your scenery is loaded so the sim doesn't have too continually load new scenery as you go further like FS and X-Plane does. As for detail scenery most is (albeit high resolution) repetitive farm textures, only small pockets are actually high detail/resolution scenery like Dover. FSX already is capable of doing all of this with it's 7cm texture capability. Just look at the work Orbx has done with this. Doing this detail globally would be resource prohibited. in hard drive space. You could probably produce a global set of textures like GEX at this resolution but they would still be generic type textures, and wouldn't look as good. This is the compromise sims like X-Plane and FSX make to cover the globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before you go goo goo gah gah over this, realize, the reason you get fluid frame rates in this game is you are limited in the area of the battlefield All your scenery is loaded so the sim doesn't have too continually load new scenery as you go further like FS and X-Plane does. As for detail scenery most is (albeit high resolution) repetitive farm textures, only small pockets are actually high detail/resolution scenery like Dover. FSX already is capable of doing all of this with it's 7cm texture capability. Just look at the work Orbx has done with this. Doing this detail globally would be resource prohibited. in hard drive space. You could probably produce a global set of textures like GEX at this resolution but they would still be generic type textures, and wouldn't look as good. This is the compromise sims like X-Plane and FSX make to cover the globe.
You really think FSX is as graphically advanced as Wings Of Prey? Dream on. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before you go goo goo gah gah over this, realize, the reason you get fluid frame rates in this game is you are limited in the area of the battlefield All your scenery is loaded so the sim doesn't have too continually load new scenery as you go further like FS and X-Plane does. As for detail scenery most is (albeit high resolution) repetitive farm textures, only small pockets are actually high detail/resolution scenery like Dover. FSX already is capable of doing all of this with it's 7cm texture capability. Just look at the work Orbx has done with this. Doing this detail globally would be resource prohibited. in hard drive space. You could probably produce a global set of textures like GEX at this resolution but they would still be generic type textures, and wouldn't look as good. This is the compromise sims like X-Plane and FSX make to cover the globe.
I have to side with tf51d on this issue, we have all heard the comments years ago: Why can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really think FSX is as graphically advanced as Wings Of Prey? Dream on. :(
If you compare the screen shots in the screen shot forum I did of fsx 7cm scenery with Wings of Prey-I would say yes-I'd even give the reality of looks edge to fsx.But then-both the 7cm scenery and Wings of Prey are limited geographic areas. Doing a worldwide sim, at least right now, is a whole other deal.But I haven't had so much fun as I have with Wings of Prey in a long time. It is super well done, the atmospherics are great, and yes the graphics are amazing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you compare the screen shots in the screen shot forum I did of fsx 7cm scenery with Wings of Prey-I would say yes-I'd even give the reality of looks edge to fsx.But then-both the 7cm scenery and Wings of Prey are limited geographic areas. Doing a worldwide sim, at least right now, is a whole other deal.But I haven't had so much fun as I have with Wings of Prey in a long time. It is super well done, the atmospherics are great, and yes the graphics are amazing!
Even if the 7cm textures of Orbx Tamworth airport look a little more realistic than the "generic" textures of Wings Of Prey, how does that make FSX graphically more advanced than W.O.P?Do you really think 2006 FSX can compete with 2009/10 W.O.P in graphics department? W.O.P is far more advanced, just look at the clouds/shadows/rain/prop disks/lighting/effects etc, all at high FPS, no stutter, no "blurries".Come on, credit where credit is due!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really think FSX is as graphically advanced as Wings Of Prey? Dream on. :(
Well proof is in the pudding! In addition to Geof's pics, take a look at the Orbx videos especially the "BoB" video at Darrington, and the Tamworth one.http://fullterrain.com/videoblogs.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well proof is in the pudding! In addition to Geof's pics, take a look at the Orbx videos especially the "BoB" video at Darrington, and the Tamworth one.
Very impressive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very impressive!
Well...............after seeing those Orbx video's, does this statement still apply? I don't think so!!!! :( "XP will continue to improve its capabilities whilst FSX is never going to. XP already is much better than FSX in many ways already!FSX is dead"I figure that as long as third parties continue to write for FSX, it will only keep improving. And this being an X-Plane forum, X-Plane is welcome to keep improving too!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if the 7cm textures of Orbx Tamworth airport look a little more realistic than the "generic" textures of Wings Of Prey, how does that make FSX graphically more advanced than W.O.P?Do you really think 2006 FSX can compete with 2009/10 W.O.P in graphics department? W.O.P is far more advanced, just look at the clouds/shadows/rain/prop disks/lighting/effects etc, all at high FPS, no stutter, no "blurries".Come on, credit where credit is due!
Mathew-I don't get stutters, blurries or any of that in fsx, but I do have a mid powerful machine.As more upgrade to the newest machines these complaints will be a thing of the past.Wings of Prey does have the clouds/shadows/rain/prop disks/lighting/effects--and it is great stuff for a game-though the rain is rather unrealistic it is fun.However, the sim starts and ends you in the air, has a very tiny small geographic area to fly in, basic ww2 aircraft with few instruments, a limited set of weather, etc. That is fine for a game, and allows a concentration of these graphic bits of fun.For a sim, it is more about the feature set. All these things you mention are nice-but if the core functions of what a simmer needs are not there-it remains a game. Graphics are nice if they serve these purposes. So far between sim savvy scenery for instance or the orbx stuff fsx still wins out over Wing of Prey for me-and comparing the 7cm stuff for fsx it wins out for sure. But Wings of Prey sure is fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathew-I don't get stutters, blurries or any of that in fsx, but I do have a mid powerful machine.As more upgrade to the newest machines these complaints will be a thing of the past.Wings of Mercy does have the clouds/shadows/rain/prop disks/lighting/effects--and it is great stuff for a game-though the rain is rather unrealistic it is fun.However, the sim starts and ends you in the air, has a very tiny small geographic area to fly in, basic ww2 aircraft with few instruments, a limited set of weather, etc. That is fine for a game, and allows a concentration of these graphic bits of fun.For a sim, it is more about the feature set. All these things you mention are nice-but if the core functions of what a simmer needs are not there-it remains a game. Graphics are nice if they serve these purposes. So far between sim savvy scenery for instance or the orbx stuff fsx still wins out over Wing of Prey for me-and comparing the 7cm stuff for fsx it wins out for sure. But Wings of Prey sure is fun!
Yes, my post was about the graphics capabilities and not GA sim aspects since W.O.P is a "combat sim" and not GA like FSX. Btw you can takeoff and land even in the demo. Takeoff is option at start of mission and landing is a secondary mission goal after completing the primary.
Well...............after seeing those Orbx video's, does this statement still apply? I don't think so!!!! :( "XP will continue to improve its capabilities whilst FSX is never going to. XP already is much better than FSX in many ways already!FSX is dead"I figure that as long as third parties continue to write for FSX, it will only keep improving. And this being an X-Plane forum, X-Plane is welcome to keep improving too!
I am talking about the "core" platforms and not how 3rd parties extend the "core". What I said still applies, the "core" platform of FSX is 2006 tech and cannot evolve to take advantage of new GPU tech (eg DX11) because ACES no longer exists to update the core to support DX11 etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, my post was about the graphics capabilities and not GA sim aspects since W.O.P is a "combat sim" and not GA like FSX. Btw you can takeoff and land even in the demo. Takeoff is option at start of mission and landing is a secondary mission goal after completing the primary.I am talking about the "core" platforms and not how 3rd parties extend the "core". What I said still applies, the "core" platform of FSX is 2006 tech and cannot evolve to take advantage of new GPU tech (eg DX11) because ACES no longer exists to update the core to support DX11 etc.
Take a look at Phil Taylor's post in the FSX section about a review of ATI's Eyefinity technology, which included the games Crysis Warhead, GTA4, Need for Speed, Dirt 2, Left 4 Dead 2, and FSX. With an HD 5970 ATI card at a resolution of 5760x1200 (Of course spanning multiple monitors) FSX came in second in performance next to Left 4 Dead 2 with an average frame rate of 46.1fps and a high of 107FPS. This at settings Boom on, Aircraft Ultra High, Scenery High, Weather Ultra High, and Traffic High. Evidently this technology offloads work previously done in the CPU to the GPU! So that means FSX is no longer CPU bound, when used with these cards (ATI HD 5000 series). So while not a direct extension of the core, the effect is the same, performance wise at least!! All these games are Direct X, I'm not sure if it supports OpenGL apps, so X-Plane could benefit. It would be good if it could!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yes, my post was about the graphics capabilities and not GA sim aspects since W.O.P is a "combat sim" and not GA like FSX. Btw you can takeoff and land even in the demo. Takeoff is option at start of mission and landing is a secondary mission goal after completing the primary."I sure haven't found that and I own the real thing-not the demo. When I end a mission I don't have the option to land and I don't have one to start. If you know how please let me know. There is also no free flight mode."I am talking about the "core" platforms and not how 3rd parties extend the "core". What I said still applies, the "core" platform of FSX is 2006 tech and cannot evolve to take advantage of new GPU tech (eg DX11) because ACES no longer exists to update the core to support DX11 etc."..and I keep talking about the end result. Yes the core of fsx won't evolve-but the core has much more to show, and 3rd party developers are only starting to explore it. So even though Wings of Prey is late 2009 I find 2006 fsx taken to its max ultimately more realistic for duplicating world wide scenery in a realistic fashion. I really don't care what year it was made-only what the end results are. I think a compare of the shots I posted in the screenshot forum bare this out. They are both great at what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually hope XP10 doesn't look like wings of prey. I hate their green/yellow tint added for effect. It's lame imho. The texture res is actually less than FSX's (and I think current XP's) but the game looks nice because the tightly packed buildings and trees, as far as scenery goes. Yeah there are some neat damage effects. But all in all the flight modeling, interior and exterior graphics isn't anything too different from FSX or XP. Anyway, from what I've played in the demo, wings of prey seems to be pretty fun.What I'd love to see from XP10 is added ATC and better representations of stock airports, plus AI traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually hope XP10 doesn't look like wings of prey. I hate their green/yellow tint added for effect. It's lame imho. The texture res is actually less than FSX's (and I think current XP's) but the game looks nice because the tightly packed buildings and trees, as far as scenery goes. Yeah there are some neat damage effects. But all in all the flight modeling, interior and exterior graphics isn't anything too different from FSX or XP. Anyway, from what I've played in the demo, wings of prey seems to be pretty fun.What I'd love to see from XP10 is added ATC and better representations of stock airports, plus AI traffic.
I agree Ryan. Wings of Prey is really fun-but I feel like I am flying over a Van Gogh painting-both land and clouds and agree about the fm's, interior and exterior graphics. It is great for what it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree Ryan. Wings of Prey is really fun-but I feel like I am flying over a Van Gogh painting-both land and clouds and agree about the fm's, interior and exterior graphics. It is great for what it does.
The Dover mission in demo lets you start from airfield, and once all the enemy planes are destroyed you get a secondary mission of landing back at the base. Presumably its the same full version.Re green tint and increasing visibility they are in the forums as upcoming fixes :-http://forum.yuplay.com/index.php?showtopic=515http://forum.yuplay.com/index.php?showtopic=775

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evidently this technology offloads work previously done in the CPU to the GPU! So that means FSX is no longer CPU bound, when used with these cards (ATI HD 5000 series).
WOW, so you mean that new hardware magically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW, so you mean that new hardware magically “offloads work previously done on the CPU to the GPU” without any changes to the core of the program or the game engine, amazing!The stories in here get wilder and wilder by the day, lol.
Well then how do you explain the massive shift in performance stated in this review at this high a resolution? Here's a quote from Phil Taylor's post"EyeFinity is enough to cause FSX to, finally, have GPU-limited features. 5970 shows some advantage in 5760x1200 mode, HardOCP feels EyeFinity is way cool." If the CPU was still doing the same rendering it does normally, there wouldn't be that kind of performance boost. When was the last time you saw avg frame rates in the mid 40's over Seattle with high settings, traffic, and that high of resolution in FSX?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Dover mission in demo lets you start from airfield, and once all the enemy planes are destroyed you get a secondary mission of landing back at the base. Presumably its the same full version.Re green tint and increasing visibility they are in the forums as upcoming fixes :-http://forum.yuplay.com/index.php?showtopic=515http://forum.yuplay.com/index.php?showtopic=775
That is the only mission from what I can tell that lets you takeoff (other than 1 training)-and as far as landing at the base-at least for me more planes showed up-after being destroyed the mission ended. I suspect Dover may be the only airfied, and the reason for no free flight is that the areas rendered are so small. As for the dated 2006 engine-did you read Phil Taylor's post? The reviewers stated "out of all the apps reviewed, which include Crysis, GTA4, Need for Speed, Dirt 2 and Left 4 Dead 2, FSX is the second best performing game, only Left for Dead 2 is better perfoming. "hmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well then how do you explain the massive shift in performance stated in this review at this high a resolution? Here's a quote from Phil Taylor's post"EyeFinity is enough to cause FSX to, finally, have GPU-limited features. 5970 shows some advantage in 5760x1200 mode, HardOCP feels EyeFinity is way cool." If the CPU was still doing the same rendering it does normally, there wouldn't be that kind of performance boost. When was the last time you saw avg frame rates in the mid 40's over Seattle with high settings, traffic, and that high of resolution in FSX?
What massive shift in performance?How has high resolution ever impacted performance on CPU bound games with high end graphics cards? ASUS Rampage II Extreme (1639 BIOS) Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition w/Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme 1366 RTMushkin Redline Ascent 6GB (3 x 2GB) DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) (6-7-6-18-1N)Asus/ATI 5870 (Catalyst 9.12)Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1tyWD VelociRaptor 150GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well then how do you explain the massive shift in performance stated in this review at this high a resolution? Here's a quote from Phil Taylor's post"EyeFinity is enough to cause FSX to, finally, have GPU-limited features. 5970 shows some advantage in 5760x1200 mode, HardOCP feels EyeFinity is way cool." If the CPU was still doing the same rendering it does normally, there wouldn't be that kind of performance boost. When was the last time you saw avg frame rates in the mid 40's over Seattle with high settings, traffic, and that high of resolution in FSX?
The only GPU limitations in FSX are the ones that require shaders, and 2 pass rendering/shading, such as water rendering, bloom, reflections, etc. The reason why they gained performance is NOT because the game suddenly became GPU bound all of a sudden. If your a programmer, you would know that it would take patches and new coding to change ANY low-level features at all. All that happened was there was a GPU, which is many times more powerful than its last generation predecessor with better drivers (everything has to pass through the CPU first before it goes to the GPU, on any game, any application, any OS... ), which decreases CPU load due to better driver coding making rendering faster and more efficient, thus increasing FPS. Also because FSX is always said to be "cpu-bound" it does not mean every single thing is dependent on the CPU. Water, Autogen, Bump Mapping, Specular Mapping, Reflections (exp. rain) are features that have all been rendered on the GPU from the start of FSX, and even on FS9, these features are why you cannot have a Core i7 @ 4GHz, but use a Nvidia 8200, or HD 3200 and get the same FPS as a 8800GTX or HD2900 or higher. Also the autogen and all the polygons are stored in the GPUs memory to be rendered, and then the ROP (Raster OPeration Unit or Render Back-End Unit) renders the scene and handles texturing in conjunction with the Texture Unit (If you want proof compare the texture fill rate benchmarks of different generation GPUs). The 8800 GTX has 24 ROPs, the Radeon HD 2900: 16 ROPs, the GTX 280 28 ROPs, and the 5870 has 32 ROPs. All this contributes to FPS, and these are all GPU dependent features that have been part of the "new" shader model 2.0 features added to FSX, shader functions cannot be performed on the CPU through DirectX, and I doubt it can through OpenGL either. When power doubles, triples, quadruples, etc with each generation, the FPS increases. Also keep in mind that the HD2900 and 3870 had 320 Stream Processors while the 5890 has 1,600 stream processors if I remember correctly. These stream processors perform vertex, geometry (DX10 only), and pixel shading and with each generation the frequency and with new architectures the efficiency (thus increasing performance, even if they are @ the same frequency of a last gen card) increases in general, making shader operations and rendering overall, much much faster, increasing the speed the frames reach your screen, and in conclusion causing more frames to be rendered per second (FPS). In the benchmark that HardOP performened the turned many features up to Ultra High, in addition to weather, and the biggest factor bloom. Bloom is basically HDR, and HDR is soley performed on the GPU (to prove this try turning on AA and HDR on any Geforce 7 series card... it doesn't work because the card cannot do it). Bloom also requires a tremendous amount of shader power and with the increase of shaders and the increase in shear power (the 3870 did 496 GIGAflops, the 4870 - 1.7 TERAflops or 1,680 GIGAflops, and the 5870 - 2.7 TERAflops or 2,720 GIGAflops) makes all these shading, and GPU dependent operations (which have been there from the start of FSX like I said, nothing in the base code has changed for the last 2 or 3 years) perform a lot faster, increasing FPS with these ridiculously powerful cards we have today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only GPU limitations in FSX are the ones that require shaders, and 2 pass rendering/shading, such as water rendering, bloom, reflections, etc. The reason why they gained performance is NOT because the game suddenly became GPU bound all of a sudden. If your a programmer, you would know that it would take patches and new coding to change ANY low-level features at all. All that happened was there was a GPU, which is many times more powerful than its last generation predecessor with better drivers (everything has to pass through the CPU first before it goes to the GPU, on any game, any application, any OS... ), which decreases CPU load due to better driver coding making rendering faster and more efficient, thus increasing FPS. Also because FSX is always said to be "cpu-bound" it does not mean every single thing is dependent on the CPU. Water, Autogen, Bump Mapping, Specular Mapping, Reflections (exp. rain) are features that have all been rendered on the GPU from the start of FSX, and even on FS9, these features are why you cannot have a Core i7 @ 4GHz, but use a Nvidia 8200, or HD 3200 and get the same FPS as a 8800GTX or HD2900 or higher. Also the autogen and all the polygons are stored in the GPUs memory to be rendered, and then the ROP (Raster OPeration Unit or Render Back-End Unit) renders the scene and handles texturing in conjunction with the Texture Unit (If you want proof compare the texture fill rate benchmarks of different generation GPUs). The 8800 GTX has 24 ROPs, the Radeon HD 2900: 16 ROPs, the GTX 280 28 ROPs, and the 5870 has 32 ROPs. All this contributes to FPS, and these are all GPU dependent features that have been part of the "new" shader model 2.0 features added to FSX, shader functions cannot be performed on the CPU through DirectX, and I doubt it can through OpenGL either. When power doubles, triples, quadruples, etc with each generation, the FPS increases. Also keep in mind that the HD2900 and 3870 had 320 Stream Processors while the 5890 has 1,600 stream processors if I remember correctly. These stream processors perform vertex, geometry (DX10 only), and pixel shading and with each generation the frequency and with new architectures the efficiency (thus increasing performance, even if they are @ the same frequency of a last gen card) increases in general, making shader operations and rendering overall, much much faster, increasing the speed the frames reach your screen, and in conclusion causing more frames to be rendered per second (FPS). In the benchmark that HardOP performened the turned many features up to Ultra High, in addition to weather, and the biggest factor bloom. Bloom is basically HDR, and HDR is soley performed on the GPU (to prove this try turning on AA and HDR on any Geforce 7 series card... it doesn't work because the card cannot do it). Bloom also requires a tremendous amount of shader power and with the increase of shaders and the increase in shear power (the 3870 did 496 GIGAflops, the 4870 - 1.7 TERAflops or 1,680 GIGAflops, and the 5870 - 2.7 TERAflops or 2,720 GIGAflops) makes all these shading, and GPU dependent operations (which have been there from the start of FSX like I said, nothing in the base code has changed for the last 2 or 3 years) perform a lot faster, increasing FPS with these ridiculously powerful cards we have today.
One I am a programmer, but not a graphic one, I work primarily on business apps. but I'm going by what the review said, and more importantly what Phil Taylor said, who is a programmer and was the lead project manager for FSX said!""EyeFinity is enough to cause FSX to, finally, have GPU-limited features. 5970 shows some advantage in 5760x1200 mode, HardOCP feels EyeFinity is way cool." Note the word finally, as it hadn't had them before!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
""EyeFinity is enough to cause FSX to, finally, have GPU-limited features. 5970 shows some advantage in 5760x1200 mode, HardOCP feels EyeFinity is way cool." Note the word finally, as it hadn't had them before!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX has some GPU depended features but unfortunately would need a SP3 and refurbishment.But it's great to see Phil Taylor posting again.Hopefully he won't get in trouble because of advertising an Intel competitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites