18 hours ago, Chock said:

The one thing MSFS doesn't really need, is a super-duper video card.

true,

but still nice to have if you can afford it, i.e. for the pilot who has everything incl. 4K resolution or VR,  a HP Reverb G2 headset. that's when you DO want a super-duper video card. for 1080p resolution absolutely not.

Edited October 21, 20214 yr by turbomax

On 10/20/2021 at 6:48 PM, Chock said:

MSFS, which as I say, runs at breakneck speed even on a potato.

I tried running it on a potato but it kept falling off!😊

On 10/20/2021 at 1:48 PM, Chock said:

it's worth remembering too that just because you have MSFS, it doesn't mean you can't still use FSX and P3D if you like (or XPlane if you are a weirdo), although I suspect you will be inclined not to want to after you see the difference.

 

👍😄

21 hours ago, turbomax said:

but still nice to have if you can afford it,

This 

Aesop with his fox reaching out for ripe grapes and scorning them as sour as it couldn't catch them had said it all 25 centuries ago 😄

I see fellow simmers discussing about the merit of having LOD at 300 or 400 when my poor 1080 runs out of breath at 250

On 10/21/2021 at 6:48 AM, Chock said:

The one thing MSFS doesn't really need, is a super-duper video card. It's understandable that the legacy of having MS Flight Sim of old rely on the CPU rather than the GPU tends to make us think that we need a super computer to run a flight sim, but it's worth noting that in picking Asobo - a modern game developer - to make MSFS, Microsoft picked a company which was able to drag the MS franchise into the modern era wherein even a fairly modest PC can easily cope with it.

I'm sure most people will be aware that with FSX and preceding versions of Flight Simulator, the reliance on the CPU for the graphics meant that you needed a sledgehammer to crack a nut in computing terms, and even then you'd struggle for FPS despite the graphics not being anywhere near on par with modern games. As a result, we tended to find our flight sim PC which struggled with FPS in FSX etc, would run really modern PC games at a blistering pace, and this is what we see with MSFS thanks to a gaming studio being behind it, whereby it can hit really impressive frame rates with the sliders all to the right on even a fairly mediocre PC so long as one is happy with resolutions below 4K, where it still looks great anyway.

So if that notion of old is stopping anyone from taking the plunge, then trust me, it's a non-issue. Now in fairness, the one thing you do need for MSFS which is less of an issue for FSX or P3D, is a decent internet connection and a reasonably large SSD in order to cope with the streaming scenery and the install/patches, but this is something most people either do have or can get hold of without spending a fortune, especially compared to the arm and a leg GPUs we all had to keep buying for FSX and P3D just to get frame rates in double figures when the scenery add-ons started get a grip on things, whereas this is not an issue at all with MSFS, which as I say, runs at breakneck speed even on a potato.

Of course there are some aspects of MSFS which still need attention and it's still comparatively early days in regards to available add-ons, but don't let this put you off either, because development progress for it is going at a blistering pace. Consider that approximately a year after its release, it's already got a PMDG airliner available for it (the DC-6) and it has a PMDG 737 slated for release within a matter of months too. Contrast this with FSX, which came out in 2006, but it was fully five years after the main sim was released before PMDG got their 737 out for FSX, with the iFly 737 beating that only by a couple of months.

But if none of this convinces you, try this: Get hold of the XBox pass version (costs just a couple of quid to do that). Now take any GA aeroplane you like (either fancy payware or default) from FSX or P3D for a fly, and immediately following this, take any similar GA aeroplane in MSFS (either payware or default) for a fly. You will observe that the difference in having a convincing feeling of flight, not to mention the visuals, is like night and day between the two sims, with MSFS absolutely wiping the floor with FSX and P3D in this regard, and you won't have to take my word for it if you try that little test.

And at a discounted price, it's even more of a no-brainer to buy it, and it's worth remembering too that just because you have MSFS, it doesn't mean you can't still use FSX and P3D if you like (or XPlane if you are a weirdo), although I suspect you will be inclined not to want to after you see the difference.

 

Crikey Chock. You just about had me going out to buy another copy when I didn't even need it !!! 

😏

Terry

2 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Aesop with his fox reaching out for ripe grapes

what, a gamer with classic education and interest in greek philology. sure you belong here? 😀

5 minutes ago, turbomax said:

what, a gamer with classic education and interest in greek philology. sure you belong here? 😀

This is what a forum is all about, a bit of this and a bit of that 😉

Quote

it doesn't mean you can't still use FSX and P3D if you like (or XPlane if you are a weirdo), although I suspect you will be inclined not to want to after you see the difference.

that's the kicker - you try MSFS and some of it is so good you can't go back...but if you're interest is mostly in a big library of old payware aircraft not yet and probably unlikely ever to be available in MSFS then you are stuck...