Today, I had the chance to take a look at the new screenshots posted in the MS Flight website, and I have to say that I was impressed with the work that MS has put with the default terrain and water textures, these screenshots shows an improvement over FSX but still some addons can make the default FSX textures look as good as in these MS Flight screenshots. Now, what I am worried about is that MS has not released details on the system specs that a computer needs to decently run Flight. Based on previous releases of Flight Simulator, I think that the system requirements for MS Flight will be the following:

• Processor: 2.3+ Ghz (Dual Core)
• Memory: 1.5 GB of Ram
• HDD: 25GB
• Video Card: Direct X 10 compliant card with 128mb of memory.

Please tell me what do you think about these specs, thank you!

Now, what I am worried about is that MS has not released details on the system specs that a computer needs to decently run Flight. Based on previous releases of Flight Simulator, I think that the system requirements for MS Flight will be the following:

• Processor: 2.3+ Ghz (Dual Core)
• Memory: 1.5 GB of Ram
• HDD: 25GB
• Video Card: Direct X 10 compliant card with 128mb of memory.

Please tell me what do you think about these specs, thank you!

That's a good guess. It's no surprise that specs have not been released yet, as Flight is in early development. nothing to worry about.Here's my specs guess:

• OS: Windows Vista/7
• Processor: 2.0GHz or higher (single core)
• Memory: 2 GB
• Hard Drive: 20.0 GB
• Video Card: DirectX 10 compliant video card or greater, 128MB video RAM or higher, Shader Model 1.1

Flight might run primarily on DirectX 11.

Well, HDD space will be more than 2GB since FSX is ~15GB.

Well, HDD space will be more than 2GB since FSX is ~15GB.

Just realized that...I misread the HDD spec on the box.

That's a good guess. It's no surprise that specs have not been released yet, as Flight is in early development. nothing to worry about.Here's my specs guess:

• OS: Windows Vista/7
• Processor: 2.0GHz or higher (single core)
• Memory: 2 GB
• Hard Drive: 20.0 GB
• Video Card: DirectX 10 compliant video card or greater, 128MB video RAM or higher, Shader Model 1.1

Flight might run primarily on DirectX 11.

Well, HDD space will be more than 2GB since FSX is ~15GB.

Just realized that...I misread the HDD spec on the box.

Well those are good guesses as well, what I really hope that a computer, lets say the 2000 bucks config of the MacBook Pro with the Core i5 processor is capable of handling this monster, I have a MBP (system specs below) and handles FSX amazingly, I can get 30FPS in dense cities (in mid to high settings) in most cases when locked at 50FPS. What I would love is for Flight to take advantage from the Intel iSeries, hypertreading, and TurboBoost Technologies, and most importantly to take advantage of the GPU processing power such as the Nvidia 330m with 256mb of memory. In other words, the MS Flight code should be efficient in current systems because is a new code (I hope MS is doing what it's promising).

Minimum:

• Dual core CPU (any Core 2 Duo or better will do)
• DirectX 9, Shader Model 3 compliant graphics cards (GeForce 8800, GeForce GT220 and above)
• 2GB RAM
• 20GB Free Disk Space

Recommended:

• Windows Vista/7
• Any Quad Core CPU
• DirectX 10 compliant graphics card (GeForce GTX 260 and above)
• 4GB RAM
• 20GB Free Disk Space

Optimum:

• Windows 7
• Core i7 CPU
• NVIDIA DirectX 11 compliant graphics card (GeForce GTX 480 and 470)
• 6GB+ Ram (Hoping the engine will be smart enough to utilize over 4GB of RAM)
• 40GB Free Disk Space

Enabling 3D Vision

• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 and above recommended
• A 120Hz (or above) monitor
• NVIDIA 3D Vision kit
• Microsoft Windows Vista or Windows 7

There is great news for us simmers from Intel this year with their new "sandy bridge" CPU series hitting the shelves. We'll get almost twice the power at less than half the price. I'm buying a new computer as soon as there is a release date for Flight, but until then I'll just sit back and relax...

My only guess is that if 'Flight1' is a re-write and a total break from the past, then like modern games it should be more GPU bound than CPU bound.So maybe focus more on the video card this time round.Who knows!

Aren't you a little soft on HD space? X-Plane 9.60 takes ~75GB for the basic installation including the world scenery. And then you don't have addon aircraft or REX or photoreal or airport sceneries.

Aren't you a little soft on HD space? X-Plane 9.60 takes ~75GB for the basic installation including the world scenery. And then you don't have addon aircraft or REX or photoreal or airport sceneries.

This is not X-Plane...this is Flight. Two totally different sims. There is no guarantee/nothing to prove that both sims will use similar HD space.

GUESS is the key word in this thread. I honestly cannot fathom why this will continue, but I know it will! :(

GUESS is the key word in this thread. I honestly cannot fathom why this will continue, but I know it will!  :(

It will continue because some (me included) are excited, curious, and passionate about our hobby.  Nothing wrong with a little speculating and contemplating "what if" scenarios.

I didn't mean to compare it simulation-wise, just visually based on textures and mesh.As a MSFS 2004 user I always found the stock X-Plane scenery much better looking than stock FS9 one. But I agree that both sims will be totally different products.