It has to do with copyright issues. We can't post copyrighted material without the permission of the owner, in this case, ORBX.

 

I just noticed the minimum requirements are updated. Other than DX9 being corrected to DX11 (finally, and I'm surprised nobody pointed it out), the memory is updated to 8GB. Also, 4GB of VRAM is required for the GPU (the GTX 970 (sort of) and the Fury X listed falls under this category).

3 hours ago, JSilva said:

I just noticed the minimum requirements are updated. Other than DX9 being corrected to DX11 (finally, and I'm surprised nobody pointed it out), the memory is updated to 8GB. Also, 4GB of VRAM is required for the GPU (the GTX 970 (sort of) and the Fury X listed falls under this category).

That's good news about the system RAM bumped to 8 GB minimum. I was wondering how they were going to run the kind of sim they were promising, and people are expecting, in a 4 GB RAM space... even with minimal settings.

14 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

That's good news about the system RAM bumped to 8 GB minimum. I was wondering how they were going to run the kind of sim they were promising, and people are expecting, in a 4 GB RAM space... even with minimal settings.

Now that I mentioned it, I realized both my GPU and the RAM are in the minimum requirements. I use 8GB DDR3 RAM, and a GTX 970. An i7 4790K at 4.5GHz (with HT off) like the one I have should still be good enough for the new Flight Sim. I'm probably thinking of upgrading the GPU (and maybe the RAM) in a few months but I'm not entirely sure at this point.

Thorough testing has shown that for gaming, 8 gb of system ram is sufficient for anything, and no improvements are measured with 16 gb.  More GPU ram doesn't hurt, however.  

1 hour ago, Griphos said:

Thorough testing has shown that for gaming, 8 gb of system ram is sufficient for anything, and no improvements are measured with 16 gb.  More GPU ram doesn't hurt, however.  

That may be true for general PC gaming, but a flight sim can be designed to use more. The minimum RAM for XP11 is 8 GB, but the recommended amount is 16-24 GB or more. That's mostly for HD and UHD scenery mesh, so it's optional, but the RAM can be used if you have it.

We'll have to see how FSW uses RAM, but as flight simmers I don't see why we wouldn't want software using the full capacity of modern hardware. And RAM is cheap these days!

Yes, I understand recommendations and the fact that developers can design to take advantage of more, but thorough testing has shown very little if any difference in frame rates or speed of loading or other performance parameters between 8gb and 16gb even for flight sims. This is counterintuitive, and I would have expected a different conclusion myself, but the data is pretty conclusive.  

Of course, if you're building a new system, I certainly would get 16 gb.  Why not!  But if you have 8 gb, as JSilva does (and I do) I'm not sure it's worth the cost to upgrade.  And if you have an older mb, using DDR3, as I do, 16gb isn't all that cheap, really.  That's why responded to him.  

A MUCH more significant improvement will be seen with a GPU upgrade.

7 hours ago, Griphos said:

Yes, I understand recommendations and the fact that developers can design to take advantage of more, but thorough testing has shown very little if any difference in frame rates or speed of loading or other performance parameters between 8gb and 16gb even for flight sims. This is counterintuitive, and I would have expected a different conclusion myself, but the data is pretty conclusive.  

Of course, if you're building a new system, I certainly would get 16 gb.  Why not!  But if you have 8 gb, as JSilva does (and I do) I'm not sure it's worth the cost to upgrade.  And if you have an older mb, using DDR3, as I do, 16gb isn't all that cheap, really.  That's why responded to him.  

A MUCH more significant improvement will be seen with a GPU upgrade.

More RAM won't bring more performance to the 64-bit table once the simulator stops taking info from the harddrive. That sort of bottleneck is easily cleared even for a 32bit sim. x64 really only solves OOMs and permits higher LOD radii without OOMs. The key to better framerates is again, efficiency in the CPU and GPU management.

1 hour ago, Narutokun said:

More RAM won't bring more performance to the 64-bit table once the simulator stops taking info from the harddrive. That sort of bottleneck is easily cleared even for a 32bit sim. x64 really only solves OOMs and permits higher LOD radii without OOMs. The key to better framerates is again, efficiency in the CPU and GPU management.

Y'all are still missing something. It's possible to create scenery elements like the base mesh with much higher resolution -- think more detailed mountain ridges and finer detailed coastlines -- that requires tons 'o RAM, simply because it's more data being loaded. Nothing to do with OOMs in the base sim, or LOD radii, or CPU and GPU management.

That's exactly what the free/optional HD and USD terrain mesh for XP is, and why you need 16 GB to run it. Higher res mesh and more detailed land class just means more data to load. 

It's simply not true, as a general statement, that frame rates are unrelated to RAM, because there are many ways to use RAM to enhance the flight simulation experience. 

I'm not saying frame rates are unrelated to RAM.  In a 64-bit system, the difference in frame rates on a board with 4 gb of RAM and one with 8 gb is significant.  It's just that testing shows that on that same system, with the same GPU, and the same simulation, the difference in frame rate between 8 gb and 16 gb is negligible or non-existent.  If your simulation needs more than 8 gb, it can use Windows page system and as long as you have 8 gb RAM, there is no appreciable difference.  You can load as much data as you want without much performance difference once you're at 8 gb ram.  

I can't find some of the research I'm referencing at the moment, but here's one interesting article that tests across a range of applications.  

http://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/

 

Okay. I've read almost every post here and on the Steam forum regarding FSW. I've watched all the videos including the Twitch stream from yesterday. And, for what it's worth (I know, I know, not much), here's what I think.

I love the detail in the aircraft. I mean, I really love it. The eye candy and attention to detail tied in with Accu-feel will be outstanding. I really can't wait to see what DTG and the 3rd party developers do in the future. Seeing rain on the windscreen? I love that too. I will often switch from my virtual cockpit view to the 2D just to see the admittedly poorly rendered rain drops in FSX:SE.The new approach to lighting effects looks promising as well. The UI definitely looks like a step in the right direction. I'm intrigued by DTG's hints as to what's to come in the future, however, that is tempered by the fact that I've been promised a lot of things from a lot of developers that never came through, so yeah, there's that.

Overall, I do believe DTG has good intentions here to both satisfy the fickle sim community and of course make loads of money BUT...

(...there's always a but,..in my case, a big one...both in regards to FSW and my personal body shape ...)

Until popup, blurries, radius, improved ATC (this was touched on, I know, but I haven't actually seen/heard a example), and all of the other things that have plagued us simmers over the years are fixed (you're welcome to talk about it all you want DTG, but I mean until I SEE it FIXED0, it's really all just lipstick on a pig.

Until DTG can overcome these things, I'm going to stick with FSX and all the money I've got tied up in it. Unless they do something that compels me to make the jump, I'll just keep on flying the same 4 payware aircraft I have for almost a decade (3 GA and one helo) because I'm pretty sure I'll never see a FSW version of at least couple of them and I only ever fly these 4 aircraft.

I'm going to remain optimistic though and will follow the development of FSW very closely. I eagerly await the day the virgin riding the unicorn comes along and  coerces me to ride off with her into the simulated FSW sunset!

That day, for me at least, is not May 18th. As usual, I want to thank DTG for allowing me to once again enjoy FSX since my boxed Gold Acceleration stopped working years ago.

All the best, and good luck DTG!

Regards,

Barry

1 hour ago, BEARlyThereCDN said:

Okay. I've read almost every post here and on the Steam forum regarding FSW. I've watched all the videos including the Twitch stream from yesterday. And, for what it's worth (I know, I know, not much), here's what I think.

Well Barry, I think you said that so well, that I believe DTG will be asking you to become their new communications director. (-:

6 minutes ago, N1G said:

Well Barry, I think you said that so well, that I believe DTG will be asking you to become their new communications director. (-:

Okay, I'll do it. But only if I get a free copy of FSW, a rig that can run it (my craptop barely runs the Avsim forum)!

6 minutes ago, N1G said:

Well Barry, I think you said that so well, that I believe DTG will be asking you to become their new communications director. (-:

Woah there. You better not be putting me out of a job 

Seriously though, thank you for the kind words... and cheers everyone for all the feedback you've given so far, whether it is constructive criticism or complimentary, every little bit gets us closer to the goal of making the flight simulation platform that you want!

1 minute ago, DTG_Aimee said:

Woah there. You better not be putting me out of a job 

If that's the case Aimee, I won't accept the offer. But it's going to cost you a free copy of FSW and a rig that can run it! LoL