FSXMinimum System Requirements

• Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7
• Processor: 1.0 Ghz
• RAM: Windows XP SP2 - 256MB, Windows Vista – 512MB
• Hard Drive: 14GB
• Video Card: 32MB DirectX 9 compatible
• Other: DX9 hardware compatibility and audio board with speakers and/or headphones
• Online/Multiplayer Requirements: 56.6 kbps or better for online play

I wonder what they did to reduce it by 4GB???Looking forward to "an exciting announcement"...

I'm sorry but after reading that I have to wonder why anybody takes published minimum requirements seriously......Those min specs for FSX couldn't put out a frame per second on ultra low settings if the whole world depended on it.The last time published specs mattered was when they said "3D video card required" or "200 MHz Pentium 2 or better."

I think the picture with the road in it is actually a 3d model of a landmark that happens to have a high detail road/bridge included with it rather than a new general road system for Flight, I do hope I am wrong but I doubt it.

Excellent point. I had not thought of that. ( though I do hope it's not the case, as well...)

It will be a hard decision whether to go for the competition or stay with the MSFS series. I prefer the Flight sky's but in the department of autogen/scenery they seem to have become stuck in an ancient graphics engine. I'm referring to the road/bridge picture. Maybe they keep the best part hidden, but there's no traffic, traffic signs or light poles seen nowhere. I remember, (was it FS2000) had light poles besides the roads. In the next version these were left out for performance reasons. Few versions after that the smooth popping of autogen was left out, also for performance reasons. So i wonder what they actually can do with this graphics engine. I hope we will be pleasantly surprised the coming month, really hope.

I'm sorry but after reading that I have to wonder why anybody takes published minimum requirements seriously......Those min specs for FSX couldn't put out a frame per second on ultra low settings if the whole world depended on it.The last time published specs mattered was when they said "3D video card required" or "200 MHz Pentium 2 or better."

Thats exactly the point, Microsoft are claiming that with these minimum specs in Flight you can still get reasonable performance albeit in low detail.

I think the picture with the road in it is actually a 3d model of a landmark that happens to have a high detail road/bridge included with it rather than a new general road system for Flight, I do hope I am wrong but I doubt it.

Yes good spot, those raised reinforced sides are indeed indicative of a beam or arch bridge so could well be a model, still it's very impressive and smooth. I like the way the model soaks up the ambient light ala x-plane global lighting as well, neat!

The cockpits look decent. Yeah the terrain looks good. It definitly is looking to be Hawaii only, at least RTM version. I'd imagine we'd pay for upgrade packs or something. I'll probably buy it just because. But I'm probably going to buy XP10 as well.

The Maule Cockpit looks awesome, in fact, better than any VC I know of for FSX.

Wow, this made my day! My Graphics card met the requirements for High settings, and my RAM, CPU and HD space exceed the requirements! :D Does anyone know what the difference is between a GTX 560 and a GTX 560Ti?

Just 2 random cards from newegg that fit the standards for the card (non-OC editions)GPU1: GeForce GTX 560 (Fermi)2:GeForce GTX 560 Ti (Fermi)Core Clock1: 810MHz2: 822MHzStream Processors/CUDA Cores1: 336 Processor Cores2: 384 Processor CoresEffective Memory Clock1: 4000MHz2: 4000MHzMemory Size1: 1GB2: 1GBMemory Interface1: 256-bit2: 256-bitMemory Type1: GDDR52: GDDR5DirectX1: DirectX 112: DirectX 11OpenGL1: OpenGL 4.12: OpenGL 4.1According to nVidia Buying GuideRelative Graphics Performance1: 51x2: 56xRelative Compute Performance1: 23x2: 26xTI is better than non-TI, but negligible if you already have a non-TI card.

Sure the roads on FSX weren't the best, but I think the big purpose was to make the world seem more alive with the traffic. I appreciated it, even if it wasn't the best.Gee, Gamers are so demanding. Sure I want them to look very awesome, but I'm not going to have a damn tantrum over little things.X-Plane 9 felt dead to me, plus their menus and selection process sucked, but I might get X-Plane 10 anyway.