FSX Panel pic update 16.5.06

[alphaone]

I want this right now... I don't care that it will take a while for addons and stuff to come out. I'm preordering this...

[jetdude43]

i have a computer with everything i need so im willin to do almost anything to get FsX, problem is i live in argentina and it comes out 6
months after it comes out in the states

[Navymmw]

do they know, the system requirments for FSX yet?

[alphaone]

AFAIK they haven't released them yet...

But I'm pretty sure a good high end computer that's out right now will run it just fine at high settings. Here's why I think that, I have a high end
late 2003 computer. It has a 2.4GHz Athlon XP and a 9800pro (top of the line for then). It runs fs2k4 just fine with the settings maxed out for me
with 4xAA and 8xAF and 1280x1024 resolution. I usually get around 15fps which I can deal with because I like having the better graphics. Now if I
were to upgrade to the current high end right now I bet I would get the same results with FSX. Who knows? Maybe they did a little more optimization
work in FSX. (FS2k4 is optimized like poop.)

[Navymmw]

I have a Dell Deminsion 8400, with Intell Pentium 4, CPU 3.00GHz, 1022MB RAM, Direct X 9. a RADEON X300 Series with 128.0MB,
Disply mode 1024 x 768(32 Bit) (75Hz) Is that a good comp for FSX, it is a year and a half old.

[captain_crunch]

That should be fine for FSX except you'll need a better graphics card. The X300 will probably only be able to handle low detail levels in
FSX, not even medium

Of course, it depends on how well M$ optimise it for hardware acceleration but given their track record, I'd say you'll need at least an X600
to get medium detail and a really top notch card like an x1900 for everything maxed.

At least your computer is good enough, you've only got to upgrade the GPU! Another 1Gb of RAM might come in handy as well, but in your
case it's less essential than the graphics card.

[lightrail]

From what I've read about FSX, it seems to be focussing on eye candy. I'm more interested a a much more realistic ATC, for example, than framrate
eating birds and animals and realistic water. Give me a break. All the added effects need DirectX10 - which means MS Vista. My graphic card was having
a meltdown just reading about it. Not all of us have PCI-e graphic cards.

Back to FS9.

[xhado13]

Well im sure mine can handle it!! I just recently got a dell xps 400, two gigs of ram dual core processor free 19 inch flat screen update!!
160 gp hard drive!! Thats all I need! lol But man it actually shows traffic, man I cant wait!!

[samiranks]

im thinking about changing from a pent4 to a AMD i just now found out they are much better for gaming. I had no idea they were. and
maybe a nvidia latest? or maybe the ATI x850 PCIE (if I can find it)? (if not the x800pcie)

[Sovek]

you all are morons in thinking your outdated computers are going to be able to handle FS-X, It barely handles FS9.

The LEAST you will need (and the RAM depends on how bloated VISTA is) is like an Athlon X-2 4200+, if not more. About 1-2 gigs of RAM. A decent sized
HDD, And last but not least, a Direct3D 10 graphics card, which doesnt exist yet. While you may think your going to be able run FS-X in medium to high
settings, Think long and hard about that one.

Im sorry but your lousy Athlon XP and P4 3.0 Ghz CPU's just WILL NOT CUT IT. Nor will those lousy graphics card like the X-300 (its a beginners card,
not a gamers card)

[samiranks]

Sovek wrote:
you all are morons in thinking your outdated computers are going to be able to handle FS-X, It barely handles FS9.


Im sorry but your lousy Athlon XP and P4 3.0 Ghz CPU's just WILL NOT CUT IT. Nor will those lousy graphics card like the X-300 (its a
beginners card,
not a gamers card)

Are you okay? Its a forum to ask questions. Everyone is kind a hype about the new product and NO ONE (im sure within this forum)
knows what the outcome would be on a CP UNIT so we ask questions. Calm down Sovek. No need to sound hostile (and if youre not Im
sorry to assume)

[captain_crunch]

you all are morons in thinking your outdated computers are going to be able to handle FS-X, It barely handles FS9.

Errrr, sorry but my outdated computer runs FS9 at an average of 40fps using custom scenery (including VFR photographic scenery) and
all settings maxed. It's an athlon 64 3500+, 1gig RAM and a Radeon X1800 graphics card.

The LEAST you will need (and the RAM depends on how bloated VISTA is) is like an Athlon X-2 4200+, if not more. About 1-2 gigs
of RAM

I work in the computer industry which allowed me to apply and be accepted as an official Vista beta tester. It's big? Yes. it needs at least a
gig of RAM? Yes. But it it's not bloated in the sense of being a resource hog, it's surprisingly efficient and it'll happily run very quickly on an
Athlon 2.0Ghz machine with 1gig of RAM and a 128Mb Geforce FX5200 graphics card. Of course, FSX will need more than this but
your X2 4200+ is certainly not the minumum.

And last but not least, a Direct3D 10 graphics card, which doesnt exist yet. While you may think your going to be able run FS-X in
medium to high settings, Think long and hard about that one.

DX 10, at the moment, does not require any extra graphics processing hardware than what you find in a modern high end graphics card
today. DX has always been designed to be backwards compatible with older cards so whilst you might not see some of the fancier
effects, you will still be able to make the most of your available hardware capabilities.

Im sorry but your lousy Athlon XP and P4 3.0 Ghz CPU's just WILL NOT CUT IT. Nor will those lousy graphics card like the X-300
(its a beginners card,
not a gamers card)

I agree with you on the graphics card. Maybe that's why I mentioned it in my previous post But just think about it. Why on earth would
M$ produce a game that 90% of users wouldn't be able to run at a reasonable quality level because they don't own £2000 + worth of dual
core system and SLI graphics?

I'll quote you again: 'Think long and hard about that one.'



Post Edited ( 05-15-06 20:42 )

[Sovek]

Ok, I had been up a little too long and seeing some pretty lousy suggestions just gets my blood boiling.

Im not saying everyone needs $2,000 worth of computer parts and I never said anything about SLI, its lousy as well.

A 3500 computer should manage to run FS-X to run real well in medium quality or somewhere in that area, that is not outdated technology, older but
not outdated. A P4 2.4 Ghz is outdated, as is the X300.

One more thing, before advising people to buy a $500 video card, do some research, FS-X will be optomised for Direct3D 10, which no card has been
produced using such technology. Once Direct3D cards hit the scene that video card you payed $500 is now obsolete.

And Im not talking about minimum specs, I should have specified that. Im talking max settings, or least high quality.
FS-X will be able to utilize dual core CPUs.

Im sorry I snapped but I had to say something

[captain_crunch]

Fair enough, I agree with most of what you said. But the question I tried to help with was 'WIll my PC be able to run FSX?' not 'Will my PC
run FSX with full detail?'. All I was saying is that a P4 3.0 will certainly have enough 'oomph' to run it OK, but not with an X300!

As for DX 10, again you're absolutely right. FSX will include optimisation for future fully compliant DX 10 hardware but at the moment, the
main optimisation in this respect is support for shader model 4.0. The bigest change in DX 10 is actually the API, it's been completely re-
written from the ground up with Vista in mind, even to the extent that backwards compatibility with DX9, DX8 etc. is achieved using a
software layer, almost like an emulator.

So the optimisation thing is a bit of hype really, you won't get alot more performance from a fully DX 10 capable card but you might get a
bit more eye candy. When M$ say 'optimised for DX 10' what they really mean is 'optimised for Vista, please don't forget to buy it when it
comes out'!

[andy14]

http://forums.flightsim.com/dc/dcboard.p...=2165&page=

Attachment 1 JPG file
found this on Avsim FSX fourms



Post Edited ( 05-16-06 17:54 )