Quote:


Well I think the people out there is not stupid.
I mean, if my rig cannot run FS9 maxed out, and I see that FSX looks even better and much more detailled than FS9, then I will not expect to run it maxed out.

Else what ? FSX maxed out should run better than FS9 maxed out ?  ??? Who could seriously expect such a thing ? 
There's more stuff displayed, so you need more ressources. That's all, and I don't think one must be an IT expert to understand that.

FSX Loves ram, I put another gig in, and it ate it all (Well I put 2048 in and 512 for the video card, it still ate the remaining 1.6 gigs) And that was with the demo! I overclocked my 7300LE from 400/648 to 563/769 and I can run it fine at medium high settings, min frames 13.3 highest with unlimited is about 19.7 and its fairly smooth, but those ocasional stutters...... Cheers, Gunny

EDIT: AMD athlon 3800 64 bit Venice core, Socket 939 at 2.4Ghz, 6100K8MA-RS Foxconn Motherboard, 2 gigs (4X512MB) PC3200 Ram, 128MB Nvidia 7300LE PCI-E (Takes some system ram) 250 gig SATA Hard drive,300W PSU, This is my setup

Thanks Daube, glad you agree with that.

The fact that we are all members of a FS forum probably means that we are all genuinely interested in FS and we must all be excited about the release of a new version (even the crabby ones who say they'll never ever buy it not even in a million years  8) )

But I think we deserve to be told what hardware is realistically needed to run it. Turning all the 'goodies' off or down so it loooks just like its predecessors just isn't an option in my book.

If we decide to go out and buy it with the hope that it will either (a) run on our existing kit or (b) on some new kit that we intend to invest even more money in to get the kind of results that the developers have been demonstrating and talking to us about over the last weeks and months, it is only fair that in return we are given some proper advice by the developers (who are really the only ones who know, as they tested it themselves and also collated all the results from the beta testers) on the kit we are likely to need.

After all, a car manufacturer would never be able to get away with saying his model X will achieve average MPG of 25 if it will actually only do 10, or will have zero exhaust emissions when it really belts them out.

There's no difference in my book - but that's just my opinion.

Look, I want to be able to run FSX and I want to know realistically what kit I'll need to do it. I don't expect to have to pick this info up piecemeal from around the Internet and elsewhere when it's readily available in someone's desk drawer.

I think that's pretty reasonable, don't you?

You may want to consider that some in the development team are as flummoxed as we are....

Some with great setups are getting less than expected performance, and some with lesser setups are just peachy....

http://blogs.technet.com/p-12c_pilot/default.aspx

I updated my video drivers (ATI Radeon 9000 64M memory) and FS-X doesn't run.  I rolled back and it does.

Sensible, unemotional comments from people whose opinions I value and appreciate. Thank you.

I think that some old video cards, because there are not able to handle some of the graphical effects (like bump-mapping, this kinf of things) may run faster than some newer video cards that are more powerfull, but overloaded by the new effetcs they have to compute.

See what I mean ? Older video cards produce less quality, but faster. Playing with the video quality setting of your card drivers (for example NVidia, this slider that let you choose 'performance' or 'quality' or 'Best quality' etC...) may have an important effect, since this slider simply disable some of the graphic functionnlities of your cards.

Quote:


..........could be right there D.........we all have heard the old sayings  "there's many a good tune played on an old fiddle"  and "there's life in the old dog yet"...........commoner:P