Thoughts from a stalker

[aerojim 0]

I've been watching you, no seriously :) I've been reading avsim about Flight for almost a year now in anticipation of the release of flight.I'm a recent college grad, so all I have is my little lap top that can't support a 30 minute YouTube video, much less any type of flight sim.I'm in the process of buying a new desktop, and have been waiting for system req's to come out for Flight in anticipation. When it was released it just confused me and now I'm waiting even longer.I'm optimistic about Flight, things look great, and with the BETA and CES I feel like Microsoft has basically pulled a Washington, a lot of talking, not a lot of information.Graphics look great, we know that a lot of additional content will be released, without knowing any type of timeline or actual plans. Only Hawaii is being released, and fuel management is a big part of the game, so you can't fly to the "end of the world." But they also mentioned if they see people on Live flying to the middle of the ocean they may "put something out there.:So should we expect a made up world? Can I expect to someday fly out of my small, midwest, nontowered airport? There are a lot of things we have yet to learn, and a lot of questions unanswered, but for all the furor and selling that has been going back and forth, it's the lack of knowing which is such a bummer.Especially for a guy like me (a small minority) waiting to buy a computer based off what I'd like to next do with a flight sim, whether it be dig into FSX and add-on areas as much as possible, or be a patient, Hawaii bum for awhile until we get to see more from Flight.

[Arwen 289]

I was in the same dilemma (plus you have to also factor in the constant advances in PCs). I finally just got tired of my old PC not being fast enough, so I ordered a new custom gaming PC (which hasn't arrived yet). And my budget is limited, so I put in a LOT of effort in configuring a system that would give me the best results, within that budget. I own FSX (and a bunch of addons) so I went with the fastest CPU that I could afford (Intel Quad Core i7 2600K overclocked to 4.6 to 5.0GHz). But I also own games that benefit from SLI, so I added dual EVGA nVidia GeForce GTX 570 SC 1280MB. My Boot drive is a Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe 120GB SSD, and my Data drive is a Western Digital Black WD1002FAEX 1.5TB SATA3. For RAM, I went with Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 16GB (4X4GB) CL8 [8GB would have been enough, but the price for the extra 8GB was pretty small).Both Flight and FSX will run best on the fastest CPU and fastest GPU you can afford (we don't know is Flight will be optimized for SLI, but FSX isn't). And both sims will require a lot of Hard Drive space, if you intend on adding any amount of additional scenery (and aircraft, and other stuff).If Flight succeeds, I expect that you will eventually be able to fly out of your local small airport. But that will likely be a ways off yet ... and it will never happen if Flight doesn't succeed long enough to release a regional scenery DLC that covers your area. No one (including MS) knows whether or not Flight will succeed (as in enough users will pay for enough DLC).

[Guest]

And my budget is limited, so I put in a LOT of effort in configuring a system that would give me the best results, within that budget. I own FSX (and a bunch of addons) so I went with the fastest CPU that I could afford (Intel Quad Core i7 2600K overclocked to 4.6 to 5.0GHz). But I also own games that benefit from SLI, so I added dual EVGA nVidia GeForce GTX 570 SC 1280MB. My Boot drive is a Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe 120GB SSD, and my Data drive is a Western Digital Black WD1002FAEX 1.5TB SATA3. For RAM, I went with Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 16GB (4X4GB) CL8 [8GB would have been enough, but the price for the extra 8GB was pretty small).

Wow... some system you ordered there. And that on a LIMITED budget...? That limited budget is a tad higher then my maximum budget was in June this year, I think...! :( You are going to love that PC, that's for sure.I am also curious how MS Flight will perform with an SLI setup. I don't have an SLI setup, mainly because FSX doesn't run well on it. My GTX580 is doing fine, though: I hardly play any other games so I don't miss SLI. But hopefully MS Flight will take benefit of SLI, because that would mean the program is using nowadays GPU's to its fullest! Edited January 14, 2012 by J van E

[Arwen 289]

I'm also hoping that Flight is not so CPU dependent, and that graphic cards use better utilized (than FSX) and that it will also be optimized for SLI.My main point (which I didn't cover very well in my previous reply), is that Flight is going to benefit from a faster computer ... just like FSX benefits from a faster computer.The minimum requirements for Flight (including HD space) is for the initial Free game. As you add more an more DLC, the game is going to consume more and more resources (because there will be more to process, and you will need more HD space to hold the DLC).[i've been saving up for a couple of years for a new PC. You can easily spend $4000 to $5000 on a gaming PC . . . my budget was considerably lower than that. Plus I'll be using my current monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, and joystick/throttle/pedals.]

[TheBFG 1]

I'm optimistic about Flight, things look great, and with the BETA and CES I feel like Microsoft has basically pulled a Washington, a lot of talking, not a lot of information.Graphics look great, we know that a lot of additional content will be released, without knowing any type of timeline or actual plans.Only Hawaii is being released, and fuel management is a big part of the game, so you can't fly to the "end of the world." But they also mentioned if they see people on Live flying to the middle of the ocean they may "put something out there.:So should we expect a made up world? Can I expect to someday fly out of my small, midwest, nontowered airport?There are a lot of things we have yet to learn, and a lot of questions unanswered, but for all the furor and selling that has been going back and forth, it's the lack of knowing which is such a bummer.

Is this meant to be a joke?

[aerojim 0]

Is this meant to be a joke?

Should it be? I'm serious, we don't know anything. There is an initial over reaction because this isn't what hardcore sims want, but it has everything there. Let's see if ATC comes up, let's see if this is real world or if they start making crap up.

[alainneedle1 97]

[flyingscampi 2]

Alain, please stop posting promotional material about Flight, it upsets the doomsayers.

Edited January 14, 2012 by flyingscampi

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

I finally just got tired of my old PC not being fast enough, so I ordered a new custom gaming PC (which hasn't arrived yet). I own FSX (and a bunch of addons) so I went with the fastest CPU that I could afford (Intel Quad Core i7 2600K overclocked to 4.6 to 5.0GHz).

How did you overclock it to 4.5 to 5.0 when it hadn't arrived yet?

Both Flight and FSX will run best on the fastest CPU and fastest GPU you can afford.

Really, I never knew that. I always thought FSX on a slower computer would give the same performance as it would on a faster computer. Glad you cleared that up for us, now I will go buy a faster computer :-)Btw, i'm just teasing you, I knew what you meant in both parts of the post I quoted.

[alainneedle1 97]

That to mention I'm pretty sure that might fall into the category of busting NDA.

LOL just download the latest version of Nvidia Inspector, is there for all to see....Edit: you may also need the latest driver 290.53 Edited January 14, 2012 by alainneedle1

[JSkorna 137]

That to mention I'm pretty sure that might fall into the category of busting NDA.

Inspector doesn't have an NDA. Even you can download Inspector and see the same screens.

[TheBFG 1]

Should it be? I'm serious, we don't know anything. There is an initial over reaction because this isn't what hardcore sims want, but it has everything there. Let's see if ATC comes up, let's see if this is real world or if they start making crap up.

Yes but.. there's no SDK. I don't see how anything else is relevant at all if there's no SDK. They can ship it with DirectX 99 compatibility and free lapdances for all I care. It's useless without an SDK. I don't think there's an overreaction at all, the very core of the way we use flight sim is based on stuff made with reference to an SDK.I'm really not trying to be funny or anything, I don't think everyone has quite realised what "no SDK" means. Edited January 14, 2012 by TheBFG

[aerojim 0]

Yes but.. there's no SDK. I don't see how anything else is relevant at all if there's no SDK. They can ship it with DirectX 99 compatibility and free lapdances for all I care. It's useless without an SDK. I don't think there's an overreaction at all, the very core of the way we use flight sim is based on stuff made with reference to an SDK.I'm really not trying to be funny or anything, I don't think everyone has quite realised what "no SDK" means.

So you recommend going for FSX and start buying add-ons? I don't mind the recommendation, I welcome it actually.

[TheBFG 1]

So you recommend going for FSX and start buying add-ons? I don't mind the recommendation, I welcome it actually.

That is indeed what I would recommend! I'm doing the same. I only switched to FSX about a year ago, it's now gorgeous, and we are probably living in the best couple of years for FSX addons right now. FSX still has years of enjoyment to offer, so while Microsoft Flight! looks to be pretty useless to us, I also don't see the need for all this panic running to Prepar3d or X-Plane. Why? FSX hasn't stopped working? It's the best option there is at the moment, and it will be alive and well for years. Remember also that these MS sims take a good few years to mature into the sim we want, with all the bugs ironed out and addons that make it come alive. Was the same with FS9, which was only really good 3-4 years after release, and has probably only now reached its peak. FS9 was far more enjoyable than FSX for at LEAST 2 years after FSX released. I would say FSX's peak is still coming.So despite all the news and utter panic, I see no reason to not carry on as we were :) Even if Flight! ends up being useful, somehow, as in if they change everything about it (which I doubt), it will still be 3-4 years before it gets to the point where FSX is now, so I say run FSX for a few years and enjoy it. If we get to 2015 or so and Flight! is still an arcade game, THEN I'll look at where Prepar3d and X-Plane are. I see no point in doing so now.

[Arwen 289]

so while Microsoft Flight! looks to be pretty useless to us

Not all of us on this forum feel that way. I happen to see a LOT of potential in Flight (so don't a lot of other simmers).Goodness, Flight is still in beta, It hasn't been released yet (and won't be for a few more months), yet people have already written it off as a "useless" product. There is so much that we don't even know about it at this point.Flight is a new product and, because of the way it is being marketed (and released), the initial free version is not going to draw users away from FSX (or X-Plane)in droves. But, just like with FSX, the available addon content is where the greatest appeal will end up being.There are some current addons for FSX that have been on my wish list for like a year now . . . but FSX doesn't run well on my current PC, so it made no sense to invest in them until I had upgraded my PC. But now (once my new PC arrives), I've decided to wait for Flight to be released. It just makes little sense right now for me to spend more money to enhance FSX, when I might end up being better off investing my money in Flight DLC. It all boils down to my own personal flight sim expectations and to which product is going to provide me with the best experience when I'm flying with it on my PC. And I need a LOT more solid information before I will be able to determine that. Edited January 15, 2012 by Arwen