krje1980
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:06 am

Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:44 pm

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/notams06/fsx0104.htm

Wow! I'm already so excited. I don't know if I can wait another year. Argh! I just really hope, in addition to all the upgraded scenery features, the time zone problem will be fixed once and for all. I mean, in flight simulator 2004, Singapore is two hours behind what it is supposed to be in the real world!
 
jamesbuk
Posts: 3712
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 11:52 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:53 pm

WOW i can't wait for this to come out. if you open up the link and scroll 2/3s of the way down to were the 747 house colours are and open that screenshot up you might notice there is no nose wheel yet all the other aircraft are completed so whats up with that.
I rate the graphics and world from those screenshots 9.5/10

Rgds --James--
You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
 
aircanada333
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:16 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:17 pm

I'll also say WOW! Because the graphics are just great and also the views of the city and the sun setting. I just can't wait for it.

Thanks for posting this link mate!

Benjamin wave 
De-icing RULZ!!!
 
GSM763
Posts: 573
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:35 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:32 pm

Sounds great. My only problem is I don't have £500 to upgrade my system to play FSX. I currently have a 1 year old system that play FS2004 fine on fairly high settings. The idea of forking out huge amounts of money to buy Vista more RAM and whatever other cr*p Micro$oft wants us to buy is painful at best.
 
EZYAirbus
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 4:57 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:01 am

Nice to see Airbus involved in this one, one of the aircraft included is the A321  
Its a shame that the 747 doesnt have any nose gear, i thought this gonna be the most realistic sim yet.

Glenn

[Edited 2006-02-14 18:03:11]
http://www.glenneldridgeaviation.com
 
malaysia
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:35 am

I wonder if once I get this simulator will it start saying, some of your aircrafts features are incompatible with FSX such as my latest project opensky aircraft and now I click accept and voila! the 767-200 works, but without gears and the flaps wont animate!

you know how that was when some planes from FS2000/FS2002 could not import well to FS2004.
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
 
LawrenceMck
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:45 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:43 am

FSX looks amazing! The graphics look so sharp! One problem though is (like some people have already stated) that you will probably have to buy a new PC to get the best performance.

Lawrence  Wink
Love It To Live It
 
ac21365
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:07 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:44 am

Quoting www.flightsim.com (Reply 7):
To gear up properly for FSX, I'm recommending a fast CPU starting at least with a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 processor and 533 FSB. My best recommendation is a system with an Intel Pentium 4 Processor 670 that runs at 3.8 GHz with an 800 MHz front Side Bus (FSB). You'll also want hyperthread technology (HT), 2MB cache and Intel PCI Express graphics for maximum performance and mind-blowing results. It's a good thing that PC prices are dropping lower every day. Best of all is the fact that if you gear up now, you'll also enjoy a spectacular improvement in your FS2004 experience.

Commentary: Thanks, for the memories...
Gear up with a minimum of 1GB dual channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533 MHz. Best would be 2GB at 667 GHz.

Although the screenshots look absolutely incredible, I am severely dissapointed in Flightsim.com. I could understand a large corporation being sold out to one brand, but the information provided is extremely misleading and wholly intel-biased.

Fact of the matter is: AMD chips are more efficent with both electricity draw AND thermal output, better at their job computing-wise, as well as cheaper for the performance output compared to intel. It is widely known in the gaming community that AMD systems outpreform Intel systems in most cases.

Another dissapointed read:

Quoting www.flightsim.com (Reply 7):
Commentary: Get PCI Express and double your GRAM
You'll want an Intel PCI Express capable video card with minimum of 128MB of GRAM. You'll also want a minimum NVIDIA 6800 or ATI Radeon X850. Best would be NVIDIA 7800 with 256MB GRAM. But, save your money on the 512MB models. That's probably overkill and over-spending.

The ATI X850 chipset is sub-par by today's standards. Why they're reccomending that for a game that will be released 10 months from now, we shall never know. As a minimum, I would have an ATI X1900 or an Nvidia Geforce 7800GTX 512mb card (mabye even two running SLI for those extra frames).

Here's the deal: Windows Vista will undoubtedly be Multi-threaded, which means those with dual-core processors will have an OS that will actively use both cores. I expect FSX to do the same since it's 'optimized' for Vista. A 64bit processor is basically a MUST if you want playable framerates at max settings.

Am I saying buy this stuff now? No, because the items I listed here are still top of the line currently. By the time the game is released, these items will be relatively cheap due to new stuff being released.

Don't let www.flightsim.com lead you on, if you want FSX to run at the settings they ran to get the preview screenshots, you'll need a computer with at least the hardware I've mentioned here.

-Aaron
 
malaysia
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:27 am

awww I have to trash my 6800GT AGP and my Athlon 3200+ Barton with 1Ghz 400 FSB and get a dual core 64bit AMD.....

But is FSX going to be 64Bit format or still 32Bit?

sometimes its hard to make the commitment on whether to run your windows at 64 or 32 bit on a 64bit CPU cause some valuable 32bit programs dont run right on a 64bit windows.
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
 
Delboy
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:26 pm

I'm not going to be smug, arhh f**k it, I am.

I said ages ago that when MS finally get FS10 out there , simmers would need to have upgraded PC's. Everyone said rubbish, FS10 would run on existing systems...well this is crap and you're gonna find out you will need to spend a shed load of cash to get decent results out of FS10. Forget 2000/XP, revisit CPUland, upgrade graphics card and add extra memory.

So there, told you so.

p.s. I wouldn't expect to see this much before the very end of 2006/early 2007 earliest. My sources are still satying this is more realistic that MS's statement of Summer 2006.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:45 pm

Quoting AC21365 (Reply 7):

Fact of the matter is: AMD chips are more efficent with both electricity draw AND thermal output, better at their job computing-wise, as well as cheaper for the performance output compared to intel. It is widely known in the gaming community that AMD systems outpreform Intel systems in most cases.

Intel are the 'owners' of the x86 instruction set, therefor its prudent to benchmark your requirements against their offerings.

And AMD have lost nearly all their crowns with the release of hte new Core series of chips, with Intel coming in better performance wise, cheaper, cooler and less power usage at all but idle, so its better to buy a Core chip than an AMD chip now.

Quoting AC21365 (Reply 7):
Here's the deal: Windows Vista will undoubtedly be Multi-threaded, which means those with dual-core processors will have an OS that will actively use both cores. I expect FSX to do the same since it's 'optimized' for Vista. A 64bit processor is basically a MUST if you want playable framerates at max settings.

All OSes are 'multithreaded', its the application itself that has to be specifically written to be multithreaded for it to benefit from a multicore processor setup. Its not magic, its programming, and multithreading is pretty damn hard to do properly with no bugs. As it stands, Windows 2000, XP home and pro will handle a multiple core processor fine (all versions can handle up to 2 physical CPUs, and an unlimited number of logical processors fine - and a dual core system counts as logical processors).

And having a 64bit processor doesnt necessarily mean its faster. The bit count in a cpu simply means it has larger registers with which to handle larger data sizes, it wont simply run code faster just because it has double the bit count.
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:42 pm

Quoting Delboy (Reply 9):
Everyone said rubbish, FS10 would run on existing systems...well this is crap and you're gonna find out you will need to spend a shed load of cash to get decent results out of FS10.

Well, I may have missed that thread but it's not quite what I remember from the threads I did see. Some said FSX wouldn't run at all without Vista and quite a few said that was very unlikely to be the case. Some wanted FSX to run like lightning on three-year old systems and quite a few (including me) said it would be exactly the same situation as FS9 - you'd need a top end system to get the full benefits.  Smile

I just don't see how anyone can be surprised that you'll need a top end machine to run FSX with all the sliders at maximum. The only way that could be done would be to limit its capabilities.
 
ac21365
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:07 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:14 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 10):
And AMD have lost nearly all their crowns with the release of hte new Core series of chips, with Intel coming in better performance wise, cheaper, cooler and less power usage at all but idle, so its better to buy a Core chip than an AMD chip now.

Even though this didn't make much sense, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Even though Intel's newest chips are fast, they don't really obliterate AMD's latest offerings. AMD and Intel are still pretty close as far as top end performance goes. I'm not completely sure where you got your information, but AMD chips are still using less power AND putting off less heat compared to their Intel counterparts. Read around, you'll find proof of my words in many places.

-Aaron
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:44 am

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...pentiumm-vs-turion64/index.x?pg=12

Have a read of that and see what you think. Infact have a read of the entire report, its quite eye opening.

I dont trust THW, theyve been proven to significantly skew their results in the past to benefit a vendor that is 'sponsoring' them.
 
ac21365
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:07 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:52 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
I dont trust THW, theyve been proven to significantly skew their results in the past to benefit a vendor that is 'sponsoring' them.

I agree with you on this one, I have noticed Tom's leaning towards one direction or another from time to time, but personally I find them to be unbiased most of the time.

The reasoning I use when battling the Intel v AMD war, it's that AMD's new stuff with slower clock speeds AND the slower FSB is doing as good as Intel's new stuff which uses the better memory and higher clock speeds. All of AMD's 939 chips use DDR400, whereas Intel's newest uses DDR2 up to DDR566. Even though Intel uses the potentially faster Northbridge and FSB, AMD chips on the the Nforce4 chipset and DDR400 are still putting down competetive numbers. AMD has made major advances with their memory controllers, as well as the switch to the 90nm process for the core dies.

I don't want this to turn into a flame war, I aint got no hard feelins towards ya, I'm just putting my opinion out there.   

-Aaron

[Edited 2006-02-15 20:55:48]

[Edited 2006-02-15 20:58:15]
 
Delboy
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:30 pm

Have just got the latest issue of PC Pilot and on page 8 they feature a FAQ report on FSX.

One of the questions was when will it be available. The answer given stated "in the holiday 2006 timeframe, around November". This has to be a US holiday timeframe, no self respecting European would be taking holidays at that time of the year. My sources still maintain this is highly unlikely and it will more likely be early 2007.

Another of questions featured asked whether FSX required Windows Vista. The exact answer was "No, While FSX will not require Windows Vista, it will be optimized for the latest in Windows gaming hardware and fans will get the best experience by running on Windows Vista". So guys, you decide. I'll bet a good wedge that if you continue to use XP and lower, the performance of FSX will be 'compomised' to say the least.

Anyone heard how much Vista will cost and whether any other parts of the PC will need to be upgraded to cater for it's use??
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:02 pm

Quoting Delboy (Reply 15):
"No, While FSX will not require Windows Vista, it will be optimized for the latest in Windows gaming hardware and fans will get the best experience by running on Windows Vista"

But at least we no-one will be forced to get Vista at the same time as they get FSX... as most of us already suspected.  Smile
 
Delboy
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:49 pm

You may be 'forced' to get it if you want to achieve a good standard of simming.

It's like most of the add ons you buy. They give a minimum system requirement to run the programme, yet I've never found one so far that gives decent results with the minimum requirements.

My only fear is that this will be the case with FSX, time will tell.
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:01 pm

Quoting Delboy (Reply 17):
You may be 'forced' to get it if you want to achieve a good standard of simming.

Well, yes, obviously, and that goes for hardware too, but some people were saying you wouldn't be able to run FSX at all without Vista. Now we know people can buy FSX first and wait a few weeks or months before buying Vista if they want to or have to.

You're always going to need the best hardware and software to get the best out of something.  Smile
 
Delboy
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:04 am

David L

You are missing the point of what I am trying to say. I always suspected that FSX would run with XP but wouldn't give you the perfomance that it would do with Vista, lets face it, it has been designed with that programme in mind.

It's like buying a Ferrari with a speed limiter, the Ferrari runs ok but you never bought it to run at 50mph max!!
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:30 am

Quoting Delboy (Reply 19):
You are missing the point of what I am trying to say.

No I'm not  Smile. You're saying that to get the best out of FSX you'll need Vista and all the very best hardware. It was the same for FS9 and for previous versions and its the same for any game or application that uses a lot of resources. And that's the way it should be. Imagine the uproar if FSX wasn't optimised for Vista. A great new all singing, all dancing OS and our brand new FS doesn't take advantage of it! Think what would have to be left out if all new products had to run like lightning on older, slower machines.

I think you're missing my point - that those who said FSX could not run under XP were wrong.  Smile
 
dreamer
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:18 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:18 am

AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

Come you guys, if you want to get the inside information and everything that is known about FSX and it's hardware reqs, please visit http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=248&page=
not everything there is true either, but some of the FS developers post and reply in there AND read up on their blogs, example:
http://blogs.technet.com/pixelpoke/default.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/default.aspx
http://www.steve-lacey.com/

and many more..
They cover information on both the HW used for the demo and what it will run on.

Regarding Vista and FSX, its like chicken and the egg, both are getting developed at the same time, so what features comes where first? One of the developers also talks about this.

I can at least repeat one of the things they say, don't buy your HW for FS now, wait until it gets out. And when you do purchase get the best you can afford. FS is made to run on many different systems, and will run on both lower grade as top end, but quality will be accordingly. Hopefully low setting still will look good.

Lastly one of the developers also said that FS likes videocards with loads of memory over very fast processors. They originally wanted FS to use DirectX10, but now they say they can't get there in time.

Oh and BTW I am installing my second G of RAM tonight and a new ASUS extreme 7800GT, I refuse to upgrade my PC until I know it sucks, hopefully it'll run FSX ok, if I bother upgrading from FS9 ..........  rotfl  I bet I do
still dreaming after all these years
 
ac21365
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:07 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:59 am

Quoting Dreamer (Reply 21):
I can at least repeat one of the things they say, don't buy your HW for FS now, wait until it gets out. And when you do purchase get the best you can afford. FS is made to run on many different systems, and will run on both lower grade as top end, but quality will be accordingly. Hopefully low setting still will look good.

I agree, it's what I've been preaching for weeks.

Quoting Dreamer (Reply 21):
Lastly one of the developers also said that FS likes videocards with loads of memory over very fast processors. They originally wanted FS to use DirectX10, but now they say they can't get there in time.

Yep. Apparently FSX will use Shader Model 3, and mabye even Shader Model 4 for lighting and effects. I think DX10 will be more than out there by the time this game is releasd. That being said, Microsoft has no reason to NOT use it in FSX.


I've preached it once and I'll preach it again, when the time comes, don't expect your game to look like those screenshots AND be playable, unless you've dropped some coin into your system

-Aaron
 
dreamer
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:18 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:31 am

Quoting AC21365 (Reply 22):
don't expect your game to look like those screenshots AND be playable, unless you've dropped some coin into your system

Just to be clear, neither shader 4 nor DX10 was used in the demo... just a normal high-end system, much like what many of us simmers have right now
still dreaming after all these years
 
ac21365
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:07 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:37 am

Quoting Dreamer (Reply 23):
Just to be clear, neither shader 4 nor DX10 was used in the demo... just a normal high-end system, much like what many of us simmers have right now



Quoting AC21365 (Reply 22):
Yep. Apparently FSX will use Shader Model 3, and mabye even Shader Model 4 for lighting and effects. I think DX10 will be more than out there by the time this game is releasd. That being said, Microsoft has no reason to NOT use it in FSX.

Yep.

I was only that FSX could possibly end up using SM4 and DX10. SM3 is already going strong (as can be seen in F.E.A.R., COD2, and the FSX screenshots). SM4 should be in full swing by summer, and DX10 by the end of the year. From what we keep hearing, FSX shouldn't be on the shelves til the very end of the year, which is plenty of time to still make changes to the gaming engine.

We'll see what really happens as the time nears.

-Aaron

[Edited 2006-02-17 21:40:44]
 
Delboy
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:31 am

That's the beauty of these Forums, everyone has their own opinion which is democracy in my book.

I still maintain that FSX will suck unless you have Vista and a whole lot of other things either upgraded extensively or repaced altogether.

However, I also believe that you will be able to run FSX with current sytems with the sliders right down to the left hand side.
 
malaysia
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:06 am

I want a BattleField Addition to FSX so you can just fly the C-172 into some grass opening in the jungle in Colombia and just run out and start shootin up drug smugglers then make it for Panama.

they should put in SAMS and anti-aircraft and warnings, that bring you down if you go through North Korea or Completely restricted air-space. such as the white house, the F-16s will come out and make you come down and if you stray off, they go behind you and fire at you.
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
 
clawviper
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:42 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:59 pm

To depart from your systemspec discussion:

Didn't I read somewhere that they would use satelite pictures, like google earth, and make hyperrealistic worlds? I even read that you should be able to VFR over your hometown? If that isn't worth uppgrading your system for, I don't know what is :P.

Graphics or no graphics, feel and realism first!
"I find it hard to believe that a man who learns to fly never had a dream"
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9249
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:12 am

Quoting Clawviper (Reply 27):

hey.. I see you are still a first class member.. thats awesome! Big grin
 
dan2002
Posts: 2024
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:11 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:57 am

Quoting Clawviper (Reply 27):
Didn't I read somewhere that they would use satelite pictures, like google earth, and make hyperrealistic worlds? I even read that you should be able to VFR over your hometown? If that isn't worth uppgrading your system for, I don't know what is :P.

Thats iffy, because even if you got decent detailed sat. images for just major cities, that would suck up alot of space. It would be nice, and definately do able, but I dont think its going to happen.
A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
 
malaysia
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:18 am

Quoting Dan2002 (Reply 29):

Thats iffy, because even if you got decent detailed sat. images for just major cities, that would suck up alot of space. It would be nice, and definately do able, but I dont think its going to happen.

download from Microsoft as you fly then empty cache on exit? hehe but would need very good download speed.
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
 
B727-200
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 11:28 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:13 pm

Well that article showed and told us very little. Who gives a stuff about the fancy bits'n'pieces - let's hope they have at least fixed the real crappy bits from 2004.

For example:

- Fixed the time zones
- Improved a quite unrealistic ATC
- Major improvement in weather system visuals and physics
- Using AI instead of AS (artificial stupidity)

I do not ask for much, just simple things like clouds that cast shadows; no moon/sun reflection off water or shadows cast when it is completely overcast; no recalculating of the AI because local and GMT time has moved an hour whilst flying on Australia's busiest domestic route; default airports where the buildings and other objects are not so close to taxiways that you cannot help but wing-clip them; no gaping chasms or giant spikes in the Earth where some topographic data calculation went bunter; no sitting at the hold-short point waiting for an aircraft to exit a runway; real random failures rather than the "I'll have one engine failure and two instrument failures in the next 6 hours please" philosophy; ATC that talks faster so that you are not stuck at the gate waiting for taxi clearance because you can't get a bloody word in; etc...etc...

B727-200.
 
krje1980
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:06 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:15 am

I would also like to see areas outside the US get more details. When you fly over US cities, lots of extra and distinctive buildings and landmarks have been included, but while flying over cities in, for instance, South East Asia (Singapore, Shanghai, Manila) the scenery is extremely boring. Where the hell are the skyscrapers?!?
 
regupilot
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:45 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:24 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...pentiumm-vs-turion64/index.x?pg=12

Have a read of that and see what you think. Infact have a read of the entire report, its quite eye opening.

I dont trust THW, theyve been proven to significantly skew their results in the past to benefit a vendor that is 'sponsoring' them.

You're comparing mobile chips here. It is well known all over the world, that Intel controls the Mobile segment, and their Pentium M processor's are truly remarkable. Where AMD is king is in the desktop segment, which is basically where most people will run their flightsim. If you want a laptop, a Pentium M is your best option, but nothing in this world compares to a desktop AMD Athlon in the consumer market. Intel has lost its crown in that segment way too long ago.

-Ragu
 
regupilot
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:45 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:38 am

This article is quite interesting. Its from the the Tech Report. Try to compare Intel and AMD chips:

Intel chips:

- Have a faster clock speed (Ghz)
- Have a faster frontside bus
- Have bigger L2 caché
- Have faster memory
- More efficient waffer construction (60/90nm)
- Have Hyper-Threading (multi threaded)

AMD Chips:
- Have slower clock speeds (Ghz)
- Slower Frontside Bus (Hyper Transport)
- Uses slower type memory
- Are constructed with a less efficient waffer size.
- Have lower L2 caché memory
- Are not multi-threaded.

With all that said, it is impossible for the AMD chip to be better than the Intel! How could that be? Well.. only AMD knows. So if a product with less muscle (Athlon) can beat down the big Goliath (Pentium).. I think I stick with David (AMD)!!

-Ragu
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:40 am

Quoting ReguPilot (Reply 33):
You're comparing mobile chips here. It is well known all over the world, that Intel controls the Mobile segment, and their Pentium M processor's are truly remarkable. Where AMD is king is in the desktop segment, which is basically where most people will run their flightsim. If you want a laptop, a Pentium M is your best option, but nothing in this world compares to a desktop AMD Athlon in the consumer market. Intel has lost its crown in that segment way too long ago.

The entire Core series of processor, the newest Intel line, is all based on the same core as the PentiumM series and provide just as great a performance boost as the mobile line.
 
dan2002
Posts: 2024
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:11 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:25 am

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 31):
I do not ask for much, just simple things like clouds that cast shadows; no moon/sun reflection off water or shadows cast when it is completely overcast; no recalculating of the AI because local and GMT time has moved an hour whilst flying on Australia's busiest domestic route; default airports where the buildings and other objects are not so close to taxiways that you cannot help but wing-clip them; no gaping chasms or giant spikes in the Earth where some topographic data calculation went bunter; no sitting at the hold-short point waiting for an aircraft to exit a runway; real random failures rather than the "I'll have one engine failure and two instrument failures in the next 6 hours please" philosophy; ATC that talks faster so that you are not stuck at the gate waiting for taxi clearance because you can't get a bloody word in; etc...etc...

When you are writing code for a game, nothing is ever "simple". I do agree things need improving, but read this first before you say that stuff is "simple"

http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2006/02/11/530201.aspx

And I have done some Gmax modeling for FS, and even that was pretty hard, I cant imagine creating the whole game.
A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:38 am

Quoting B727-200 (Reply 31):
I do not ask for much, just simple things like clouds that cast shadows; no moon/sun reflection off water or shadows cast when it is completely overcast; no recalculating of the AI because local and GMT time has moved an hour whilst flying on Australia's busiest domestic route; default airports where the buildings and other objects are not so close to taxiways that you cannot help but wing-clip them; no gaping chasms or giant spikes in the Earth where some topographic data calculation went bunter; no sitting at the hold-short point waiting for an aircraft to exit a runway; real random failures rather than the "I'll have one engine failure and two instrument failures in the next 6 hours please" philosophy; ATC that talks faster so that you are not stuck at the gate waiting for taxi clearance because you can't get a bloody word in; etc...etc...

The simulator you want has already been created, but unfortunately the entry requirements are a lot more pricey and the potential endings when you crash are a lot more final than in FS9.

Its called Earth, and was created a fair while ago either by chance or by somethings will.

Its easier to demand than to do.

Your move.
 
ac21365
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:07 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:57 am

Quoting ReguPilot (Reply 34):
With all that said, it is impossible for the AMD chip to be better than the Intel! How could that be? Well.. only AMD knows. So if a product with less muscle (Athlon) can beat down the big Goliath (Pentium).. I think I stick with David (AMD)!!

-Ragu

Finally!! Someone understands why I keep preaching AMD!1

-Aaron
 
aaden
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:49 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:33 pm

nice, i'm glad to see an airbus finally even if it is only one.
 
justplanecrazy
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:26 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:05 pm

FSX looks great.A Better world for my virtual passengers to crash and burn.  Sad
your pilots today on this 747 flight are captain oliver hardy and assisting will be FO stan laurel.Have a safe flight
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:53 am

Quoting AAden (Reply 39):
i'm glad to see an airbus finally even if it is only one.

It'll be interesting to see how they implement the autoflight systems. But no-one should be surprised if you have to go to a third party for top quality aircraft.  Smile
 
louA340
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:19 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:51 am

It looks great and I cant wait until its out. I hope they upgrade the ATC system on the game. It somtimes gets annoying how it handles takoffs and landings when you have alot of traffic.
RyEng
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:18 am

I wonder if the Windows Vista delay will affect FSX...
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
trekster
Posts: 4319
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:47 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:20 am

Cant wait. Thnak god im getting a new comp next week.

Looks like i will need it
Where does the time go???
 
Viper911
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:29 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:42 am

Glad i have new PC Big grin i cant wait for FSX Big grin, i hope ill see some Airbuses there, anyway it looks Great.
 
GSM763
Posts: 573
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:35 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:38 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 43):
I wonder if the Windows Vista delay will affect FSX

I would think they would want to avoid that as FSX is a product that would do quite well out of the Christmas rush.
 
goinv
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:16 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:50 am

The UK magazine "Micro Mart" has recently featured an article on Windows Vista and suggests that at least 1Gb of RAM and at least a 4Ghz processor are required - also 4GB of available hard drive space.

If this is just to run Vista I dread to think what FSX will need. Looks like I'll have to work a little extra overtime  Smile
Be who you are, The world was made to measure for your smile. So Smile.
 
KDTWflyer
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:51 pm

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:07 pm

Quoting Goinv (Reply 47):
The UK magazine "Micro Mart" has recently featured an article on Windows Vista and suggests that at least 1Gb of RAM and at least a 4Ghz processor are required

Thats insane! Microsoft would never release a OS with such drastically higher base requirements than its predicesor. But then again anything could happen. Speaking of FS X... just look at the latest edition of www.x-plane.com Its scenery alone is about 60gb.
NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Microsoft Flight Simulator X

Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:51 pm

Quoting KDTWFlyer (Reply 48):
Microsoft would never release a OS with such drastically higher base requirements than its predicesor.

But those may be recommended requirements rather than base requirements. Compare the "recommended" specs for FS2004 with the specs you need to get decent performance!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests