hello:
I did not see the list of requirements to run on the computer for this ms flight. if its anytthing like fsx I'll get it. I get good fps and everything is working fine with no glitches.  I just hope its made for use in w7. I do not know if fsx and all the planes I downloaded if fsx will work with w7. I do not know if there may be issues or errors or what ever would like to know and see what other members are saying about that and the ms flight.

please let me know thanks in advance

bombardier

Careful there, Steve: showing your age . . . some of these kids don't remember black and white TV.  Hell, I'm sort of one of them.  If my stepdad hadn't had a small 12" B&W, I would never have seen a TV show without a color TV.

As for the requirements: I'm sure "F"( ) will be compatible with Win7 (if it's still the primary version at that point) as well as Vista if it's still around.  I compare Vista to ME, which was only in use for about a year before MS decided they had screwed up badly and released XP.  As for min requirements, I would take the current system specs that can run FS9 and pretty much double it.

Quote:


1 ghz single-core, 256 megs of ram, and a 16 meg video-card? I'll take that any day! 

Quite seriously though, I certainly hope Microsoft learned from their mistakes with FSX.  I'm running a pretty recent though modest system with a near-to-top tier video card, and I still can't max out FSX sliders in some areas.  It seems that you need a custom-built gaming rig with today's technology to accomplish that... and FSX was released like 4 years ago? 

If Flight runs even remotely as horrible as FSX on a mainstream computer, I'll probably end up holding my wallet for another quarter of a decade.

I have a pretty old computer myself (Dell built in 2003).  It's good enough to run Flight Simulator 2002 but not much over that.

When Microsoft Flight is released, what would you recommend me buying to run the program?

Mike

NNNG,

Thank you very much.  How do you judge processor speeds nowdays?  I'm not that old, only 27, but I've lost track of the race for speed long ago.  I know that running muliple processors is more efficient than running just one.  That's about it.  How much do you think harware will change before Flight comes out?  There's no release date yet right?

Mike

Northwest 102 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 12:24am:


There's no real single metric to compare the speed of processors on. Comparing processors of two different designs by frequency has become practically irrelevant simply because each processor design gets a different number of instructions per clock and may also have a different number of cores. Some programs also benefit from different numbers of cores and also features like hyperthreading. Others do not. I like to look at the per-core performance in tests, the total performance in tests, then compare them in metrics like performance per dollar and performance per watt. So it's complicated.

Here's a good place to start:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/

Best processor in my opinion is the Core i7 2600K. It has enormous per core through-put (each core is really fast) highest of any processor at the moment by far. It has four cores but the total speed of all cores combined is still faster than the fastest 6-core AMD. The only processor that is faster is the 6-core Intels, but these cost over twice as much as the 2600K and are only a few percent faster usually and may perform worse in some applications that do not use all 6 cores (2600K has enormous per core throughput). It is also one of the most efficient processors in regard to power consumption. And overclocks REALLY easily to over 4.5ghz. The 2500K is similar to the 2600 but slightly slower, without a feature (hyperthreading) that FSX doesn't use, also clocks to over 4.5ghz.

$350 Core i7 2600K versus $1000 Core i7 980X: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=142
The difference is larger than $650 because the 2600K also requres cheaper memory, a cheaper motherboard, and a cheaper power supply.

The first completely new AMD desktop architecture since 2003 is coming out within a couple of months... 8 core processors that are speculated to match the speed of the current 6-core intels but at a far lower price point. Some new intel processors towards the end of the year are coming out too that are going to be eight core which means we will probably have something like the 2600K, but with twice the cores (and each core will be faster too). It might possibly be king of the hill for two years in the same way the Core i7 965 pretty much was. The 2600K will be reduced to an upper mid-range processor after these processors come out, won't be outdated or anything. Of course, this is all speculation. Radeon 7000 series might come out later this year, or next year. New SSD's will be coming out that will be nice. But anyway, it will change quiet a lot.

If you want the best hardware for MS Flight, then you're best waiting for MS Flight...

I don't think MS is dumb, they're just overzealous.  They get a project to the beta stage and can't wait to show the rest of the world, so they ship it with an annoying amount of bugs in it, but figure they can shore that leak up after the release so that they get everyone dancing on their toes for the next update.  Meanwhile, we poor saps that bought the cargo are sitting around waiting for the updates and wondering where our processor power went . . .

But that's okay.  We (sorta) forgive you, MS, since you have brought us such righteous programs in the past.  And we are fully willing to admit that we are addicted and ready to have more s(t)im in our lives, as long as you provide a quality product.

Don't make us regret this decision in the morning: deliver the goods as promised!

I often wonder if any Microsoft developers look into these forums to get ideas or feedback about their product?
Btw: 1000th POST!