Well I run an AMD64 3800
                     2 gig ram
                     with my 6800 ultra 256mb which comes next tuesday, I 'M READY FOR YA BABY!!!!

Great...yet another M$ Flight sim that will kick almost every computers a$$ and wont run worth playing unless you shell out another couple grand for upgrades...and then you MIGHT be able to max it out

I'm still running on good ol FS2002 and am perfectly happy with keeping it for a few more years...then i might consider getting FS2004

Its just disgusting that even with my system specs i cant even get 2002 to run smoothly with the settings at slightly less then half   I'm slowly gathering parts to build a new system to the way i want it.  Maybe one of these days i can at least get it maxed out even with addon scenery

I just dont see a point in getting all excited untill it is out and tried.  As usualy greatly detailed games will run smooth on a computer but the FS with half the detail wont without more power.  They shouldnt even bother putting system requirements on the box "ya...it will run on this system.....like a slideshow"

What is wrong with pre-rendering in the FS world.  Ide rather wait 5 minutes before flying and get a smooth and scenic flight over mountains insted of seeing the frame rate drop to the single digits when i get remotely close to a "detailed" area or even worse...clouds   FS imho is one of the most demanding games out there when it comes to system specs.  Ive had plenty of games maxed out with quality and run perfectly smooth on this system even areas that are more detailed then my FS world

Triple_7   

Triple_7, Here, Here! There are probably going to be alot of disapointed people out there when they get FSX. It's going to SUCK the power right out of your PC. There are many here that get excellent frame rates on high settings who will find that they'll have to turn them down on FSX. The 'minimum' specs quoted so far aren't the half of it. Here's the 'min' spec for FS9, my spec is shown in italics next to it,

OS- Win 98- 64mb RAM, W2k/XP- 128mb RAM XP sp2, 608mb RAM

CPU- 450Mhz AMD 1400Mhz

H Drive- 1.8 GB Seagate 80Gb

Video/Graphics card- 8mb, Direct X 9.0+ Built in 64mb

To the layman with my spec PC, it would appear that FS9 will zip along at full detail as all the minimums are exceeded by some margin. However, I actualy average 8-10fps with some AC like POSKY and Meljet being unusable. Basicaly, the 'minimum' spec is what you'll need to install and open it with, not get any satisfaction from. However, this is all speculation, we'll see when it comes out.

Its not that we dont want those stunning visuals and great additions and scenery etc...Its just a matter of getting those with a nice and smooth performance that is what we hate.  Just like already mentioned by simonmd...even with a pretty good system FS9 cant run very smooth even though the "min requirements" for it are a lot lower...Same with FS8 that im running.  My system blows them away and yet unless its a low quality aircraft i have to set the graphics low to keep a decent 18-20 FPS.  In a Posky im lucky to see 12-15 FPS and with a Meljet 7-10.  Its nice that they come up with new sims and better upgrades but they advertise like everyone will be getting these unbelievable graphics.  When in reality most of us will probably see a slide show.  I found that with FS9...I had to return it because even with every graphic setting to its lowest i got a whopping 1-2 FPS or the amazing 4 i saw for a couple seconds  

I love flight sim and MS is one of the better ones.  But i like to spend $70 on a game and thats it....Not have to spend that $70 and then $200+ to upgrade the computer to get it running the way it should.

Right now i hold a nice 25 FPS once in the air (FS2002) and thats fine and dandy.  But when i start decent and landing procedures i would really like to keep that liquid 25 and not drop to the 15-18 when i get within a couple miles of touchdown.  Its not BAD but still a little bit jumpy to me.  And thats with settings pretty low...

I guess im just one of those nuts that would rather enjoy a smooth but not highly detailed flight (though that would be great) as apposed to running a jumpy framerate with insane scenery

We will see when it comes out...but i aint jumpin and buying it even if i get my new system built

And when i said something about the preload i didnt mean the whole world.     but at least a nice distance around the airport your starting at...that way it could concentrate more on loading the scenery ahead insted of whats already behind you

Quote:


Exactly. The release is still almost a year away, and we simply don't know a lot. Speculation and unconfirmed rumours won't help

Triple_7, can't understand how you got such low performance with your system specs. Most of it is better than mine and that's the sort of fps' that I get sometimes and I don't even have a graphics card!

Quote:
On SimV? Surely not!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for upgrades and development and i'm very much looking forward to hearing about what FSX is like 'in reality' when it does eventualy come out. My point was just trying to calm down some of the frenzied "Oh, Oh, I want it now, looks great!" stuff because they may well be dissapointed.

Oh and Gunnerman, it does not have a new engine, otherwise it would not be backwardly compatible. MS has confirmed this already.

Quote:


*Katahu opens his case of syringes*

Already ahead of you.