I understand where you blokes are coming from. I know a "half decent" graphics card would make it possible for me to run the game.
But my point was this. I have run the game on other P.C.'s (my brothers, one at the office) and they were capable of running at 3 or 4 settings.
But even when I had it running at this level I didn't see that the grapgics quality was all that good. In fact, I don't think, at that level, the quality is AS good as CFS2 as far as the planes and scenery are concerned.
So my real question is: Am I the only one who doesn't see CFS3 as an improvement in graphics at all, regardless of the performance of the game.
I just don't think that the planes and scenery (particularly) are any less "cartoony" than CFS2.
I think everyone is pretty much over the "CFS3 bashing" stage, and those who have managed to get the game running well enough are enjoying it and those who have not, have probably given up till they manage to get a higher end PC. (Although, Oz, I wouldn't call your set up all that "low end". It's bigger and more powerful than what most simmers have at their disposal today.)
I suppose that M$ did make allowance for the fast way in which this particular technology progresses, but at the same time, to sell a Sim that will only work at it's best on a machine that doesn't exist yet (except in the fewest of places) is moronic, to say the least.
I suppose the upshot is: I am yet to see a pic of a plane or scenery from CFS3 which looks to me to be superior in detail and realism to CFS2. (as I said before, except for the ships - they are quite an improvement).
Pages: 
