vortex681

Many people don't seem to understand what "minimum requirements" means for a game (or OS). It's the absolute minimum needed to get it to run at all, usually with all settings on their lowest and without any bells or whistles. It doesn't mean it will run well, it just means it should run in a basic way. For games, I've lost count of the number of posts I've read (not just in these forums) where people say "my system meets the minimum specs but I still only get (insert very low number) FPS with almost all the sliders off. This game is rubbish!". Firstly, MS have already said that Windows 10 will be a requirement. Secondly, "recommended" requirements are usually those needed to get good performance with most features active. As much as I rate my 6700k, I think it will be in the low to mid range bracket, at best, for the new sim. I'd probably put the GTX 1070 more towards the minimum requirements as well. Apart from the OS, I think that you'd be able to run the new sim on the system quoted above but not with the best features active. That said, we're all just guessing at the moment.

"Current model year OLED TVs from LG Electronics will receive a firmware update starting this week allowing for enhanced gameplay via NVIDIA G-Sync Compatible technology. NVIDIA G-Sync Compatibility will be available on LG’s 2019 OLED TV models E9 (65 and 55 inches), C9 (77, 65 and 55 inches) as well as B9 (65 and 55 inches) and will arrive first to LG customers in parts of North America followed by markets in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, etc. before the end of the year." https://advanced-television.com/2019/11/01/lg-oled-tvs-receive-nvidia-g-sync-upgrade/

The 6700k is still a good processor, but if you're on a budget I'd consider the AMD Ryzen 7 3700x. It's a similar price to the 6700k but is generally a faster processor - https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x-review.html

Running smoothly at 30 FPS or less seems to be a feature peculiar only to some current flight sims. 30 FPS with a modern game engine looks like a slide show.

We wouldn't have even close to 43 pages if everyone had used the facility earlier. No one needs to say "I agree with ...", they just need to use the up-vote option. It would also save MS from having to trawl through the whole thread adding up matching requests (if you believe that they actually do that!).

No smell-o-vision, no buy!

Surely that's what the like/up-vote feature is for at the bottom of each post? If you agree with a post (unless you want to add something specific that's not in the post) just up-vote it and then everyone knows exactly how many people like the suggestion without having to add identical posts to the thread.

They said it was speeded up so that probably accounts for the choppiness.

I think we're straying away from the original question (so rare here) which was "is 4k really necessary?" and the answer is almost certainly no. Whether it would look better in 4k depends on your current resolution and monitor size and is another matter.

As long as the sim supports the FF2, that's job done for me as far as controls are concerned.

I don't think that's correct. My understanding is that Natural Point supply the driver/library but the game devs need to integrate support for it into the game. Please post in this thread to give them an idea of how popular TrackIR/head tracking is so that they may reconsider their decision. Head tracking has virtually no performance impact so is usable with even the most lowly of machines which is one of the things which makes it so popular. Also, there are TrackIR-compatible options (Opentrack, FaceTrackNoIR) which can cost as little as nothing if you already have a webcam so it really is accessible by almost everyone. Finally, a plea from me to help maintain my sanity - please lets not make this thread a TrackIR vs VR competition.

Unless they're actually lying (and why would they?), it seemed pretty clear from their original statement that they knew nothing about the new sim until it was officially announced. If that's the case then it's impossible that they were working on aircraft for it before the announcement, particularly as Randazzo himself said in the statement posted earlier "We always have the next five years planned out" - that means their current plans must have been made a long time before they knew anything about the new sim.

I think it's definitely an upgrade with those improvements. Leaving aside the new weather system for a moment, X-Plane, or any other sim for that matter, doesn't even come close to the scenery we've seen in the new sim. The flight model could well also be better. As to the weather, if it's delivered as advertised, it will be a huge improvement over anything (including payware add-ons) available at the moment. I would certainly buy it with just those improvements.

Whilst that may well work for AI generated within the game, it's difficult to see how you could selectively delete live traffic other than by imposing a distance limit on it. However, for the example I gave earlier of aircraft in a hold or the landing/departure patterns, because they're all in a small area how would you get rid of just some of them?

Perhaps because if you're using a live air traffic feed around busy airports, that would include everything waiting in holding patterns as well as the landing and departing aircraft - all close to the airport. That could be a serious amount of traffic before you even started with whatever the sim generates (which would probably be the only traffic you're truly likely interact with).

I'm absolutely certain that we'll learn things we didn't expect and some things that we thought would be there won't! I'm going to be really radical here and say why not just wait and see rather than wasting time speculating and taking up forum space?

But you don't have to buy them, particularly if they're just ported over. It's happened in the past - ports of FS9 add-ons into FSX. They mostly worked but weren't nearly as good as native FSX add-ons. I think the same will be true of the new sim. Commercial add-ons (unlike most freeware) tend to get reviewed and if no effort was put in to utilising the new features, I'm sure that this would be pointed out and the sales would be low.

There's an awful lot of "could" and supposition going on here plus they'd potentially have to do this continuously for every airport and small airfield in the world. If this was internal feature of the sim, it would put a huge additional load on the system.

But what happens if the real aircraft is lined up just in front of you to land when you've been given in-game clearance to land on the same runway? There are numerous other scenarios where you could potentially be sharing the same bit of airspace with "real" aircraft.

That would only work in certain parts of the world. In the UK, for example, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, it's officially illegal to listen in to live air traffic radio transmissions.

But none of them interacting with you.

The bottom line with the wifi argument is that it doesn't matter how fast your wifi connection is, even if you have a router capable of 1Gbps with the fastest wifi possible (and you're the only person connected to it), you'll still be limited to the maximum bandwidth your ISP connection allows. The newest, most expensive high tech routers are all well and good but if the maximum bandwidth you pay for is 50Mbps, that's all you'll ever get from your Internet connection on the best day, wired or wireless.

I really don't think that they've had any significant involvement with the new sim up to this point. Take a look at their official response to the announcement of the sim: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/14257-12jun19-pmdg-and-the-microsoft-flight-simulator-2020-question. There's too much detail in there. If you're under an NDA, if forced you tend to come out with short, bland, non-committal statements rather than comments like: "As of this moment, nobody in our part of the marketplace is even aware if the title will allow for after-market development" and: "All of us would love to see a new, modern technology platform that remains open-world to developers like PMDG, but it is highly unlikely (given recent history) that this will happen" That says to me that PMDG had no prior involvement in the sim before it was announced.

How are you testing the speed? In the end it's all down to what deal you have with your ISP. If you had a 100Mbps plan (I wish!), then that's the maximum you're ever going to get on the best day. Connecting through wifi is only likely to reduce that - it's just not possible to increase it.

I can't remember if it's already been suggested but I'd like to see force feedback support. Lack of support wouldn't stop me buying the new sim but I'd consider it a real loss of immersion.