the ATI Radeon HD5450 has some known hardware bugs

 

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Will try googling it.

I'd love to see the results of that test myself.

 

I suspect that on a wide screen, you may see some differences at the edges of the screen between the two frame rates.

 

How many of us remember having to do any 3D stuff in wireframe at 2 to 3 frames per second? Does that influence how you feel about super high frame rates today?

 

Hook

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Will try googling it.

 

Didnt we go over this the last time you posted that Flight sucks? Your $30 video card cant handle it.

Didnt we go over this the last time you posted that Flight sucks? Your $30 video card cant handle it.

 

Except that the minimum specs for Flight are listed as a GPU with 256 MB card, capable of shader 3.0 (DX 9.0c compliant). Moreover, the recommended spec is a GPU equivalent to an ATI Radeon HD 5670 or 1024 MB NVIDIA GEFORCE 9800 GT, so the ATI Radeon HD5450 is well within what is claimed to be sufficient.

 

Incidentally, I have Flight running okay on a PC with an ATI HD 4500.

 

Al

Again, video card makers dont name there products linerally. 5450 is a VERY VERY slow video card, and slower then a 4500 or 4800 series. This is not MS's fault, but ATI/AMD for using a stupid naming convention.

 

Im not saying you need a $300 video card to enjoy Flight, even an old 8800GTS will run it well. But the 5450 is just a REALLY REALLY cheap card and you cant expect much out of it, and you cant blame Flight for a cheap video card.

Except that the minimum specs for Flight are listed as a GPU with 256 MB card, capable of shader 3.0 (DX 9.0c compliant). Moreover, the recommended spec is a GPU equivalent to an ATI Radeon HD 5670 or 1024 MB NVIDIA GEFORCE 9800 GT, so the ATI Radeon HD5450 is well within what is claimed to be sufficient.

 

Incidentally, I have Flight running okay on a PC with an ATI HD 4500.

 

Al

 

http://www.techspot....radeon-hd-5450/ Looking it up, that card seems barely capable of 3D at all. Essentially its a card for a HTPC system, and that's about it.

Didnt we go over this the last time you posted that Flight sucks? Your $30 video card cant handle it

 

Well, excuse me, but I do not believe I have ever posted that Flght sucks. My actual words that started this thread were:

 

"Hey, I am not knocking Flight. I am impressed with what I have seen but it does not play well on my rig and FS9 does".

 

And yes, you have pointed out previously that my video card is not up to the job.

 

I had hoped to make do with it for a while but the recent trip back to FS9 settled it for me. This low end video card plays FS9 just fine.

The truth is, and always has been, that inexpensive lower end PC systems and flight simulators have never been something which go well together. Flight sims have pretty much always demanded fairly decent computers to run them on; I wish it were not so, but I've been using flight sims long enough to know that it is, probably more so than with high end games of other kinds in fact. This is why PC stores used to use MS Flight Simulator in kiosk mode to demonstate shiny new PCs.

 

Al

The truth is, and always has been, that inexpensive lower end PC systems and flight simulators have never been something which go well together.

 

Too true Al, as I have discovered.

 

I bought an inexpensive system, very common in all the major retailers, that runs every application very nicely - that is except for the latest flightsim game.

 

But, at least I can now play FS9 with all the sliders maxed and, hey, FS9 is a great sim.

 

I would say that Flight is good provided that you have better than average hardware and that you are prepared to upgrade frequenty to keep up with future developments.

Of course, placing the graphics burden more on the GPU helps a lot of people, since all that may be required for a major experience upgrade is a new graphics card rather than a whole new system.

I'm the opposite. Flight runs perfectly on my 3 year old PC (albeit with a 4 month old graphics card). However I find myself a little bored of the limited area and aircraft available. I'm trying P3D now, as FSX really doesn't run well at all now for some reason. I think it's time for a reinstall!

 

Ditto. Flight runs nearly flawless on my system but unfortunately I've grown bored with the Hawaii limitation and no signs of active life where I'm flying. Don't get me wrong, the scenery is gorgeous but right now I need more variety & purpose. Which is why I've installed FSX and purchased a few add ons. I really missed AI, ATC, and a larger variety of available aircraft and geography. All of this FSX offers.

 

Flight has tremendous potential but for me, and for now, I need more than Hawaii. Alaska will help but I see it as only a short term remedy. Eventually Alaska and Hawaii won't be enough. And if MS decides to separate those regions making them (and future areas) mutually exclusive in Flight, then forget about it. I knew it at the time & kept my mouth shut but looking back at the release of cockpitless warbards, for me it really solidified the pace, direction, and intent of Flight. So many people on the forums stood tall saying they wouldn't purchase the Zero - as if to show MS we don't want these planes, yet in game half the equipment I see being flown now are Zeros, which I think also sparked some interest in the P51.

Active life? Like cows, sharks in the seas, birds flying ?

 

Try Vehicle Simulator !!!

 

Then, get back to FLIGHT for the daily aerocache hunt!!!

 

I've grown bored with the Hawaii limitation and no signs of active life where I'm flying

Active life? Like cows, sharks in the seas, birds flying ?

 

AI aircraft and ATC mainly.

 

Then, get back to FLIGHT for the daily aerocache hunt!!!

I like the Aerocahces but since the patch the last few Aerocaches of the Day I tried have been broken. That hasn't helped matters in a positive way.

Im back to FSX and X-Plane too, after play Flight for a month the missions are always the same, take a cargo, take a passenger, then take a cargo again, take a passenger again, etc... etc... Even the missions of FSX (a 6 years old game) are better than that!

 

Maybe in the future M$ improve this, and I will try again.

But that's what a pilot's life supposed to be!!!! Don't you enjoy it? I do!!!! ;-)

 

Im back to FSX and X-Plane too, after play Flight for a month the missions are always the same, take a cargo, take a passenger, then take a cargo again, take a passenger again, etc... etc...

 

Maybe in the future M$ improve this.