Simviation Forum - Do you think Flight will be more CPU hungry than FSX?

Aug 13^th, 2011 at 6:59pm

F35LightningII Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!
Auckland, New Zealand

Gender:
Posts: 266

Place your votes.

i5 3570K @ 4.3GHz, ASRock Z77 Pro3, EVGA GTX 670 FTW, 8GB DDR3, 128GB Samsung 830, 500GB Seagate Barracuda, Thermaltake Armor A60, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro, Logitech K800, Logitech M510, Windows 8 Pro x64, FSX Acceleration

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Aug 13^th, 2011 at 7:35pm

hyperpep111 Offline
Colonel
You'll Never See Me Coming.
93 million miles from sun

Gender:
Posts: 1328

Too bad there is a limit on how many times you can push yes Cry

Most people think that flying a plane is dangerous, except pilots because they know how easy it is.
Arguing with a pilot is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you begin to think the pig likes it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Aug 13^th, 2011 at 7:39pm

F35LightningII Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!
Auckland, New Zealand

Gender:
Posts: 266

Quite the results I expected.

So do you guys think a quad core (eg. i5) will be enough to max out its settings, or do you think it will need a hex-core (eg. i7-3930K)?

i5 3570K @ 4.3GHz, ASRock Z77 Pro3, EVGA GTX 670 FTW, 8GB DDR3, 128GB Samsung 830, 500GB Seagate Barracuda, Thermaltake Armor A60, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro, Logitech K800, Logitech M510, Windows 8 Pro x64, FSX Acceleration

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Aug 13^th, 2011 at 8:33pm

skoker Offline
Colonel
Jordan never wore his
safety goggles...
1G3

Gender:
Posts: 4611

F35LightningII wrote on Aug 13^th, 2011 at 7:39pm:

Quite the results I expected.

So do you guys think a quad core (eg. i5) will be enough to max out its settings, or do you think it will need a hex-core (eg. i7-3930K)?

My quad i5 can run fsx @17-24 in rural areas, Im sure it will struggle just as much with flight unless they finally figure out how to develop games that are like just cause or AVA, tons of detail, great FPS.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 12:13am

Travis Offline
Colonel
Cannot find REALITY.SYS.
Universe halted.
Dripping Springs, TX

Gender:
Posts: 4515

I hold firm to the belief that one of the main reasons FSX hogs so much mem and CPU time is that the legacy software it was built on had too much goofy code that was left over from previous versions. I still think Flight will work better with current tech than FSX did with the systems available upon its release.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 10:15am

SamYeager Offline
Colonel
Where am I?

Posts: 22

I voted no - but I think a better question would have been "Do you think Flight will be as CPU bound as FSX?". After all who cares if Flight uses more CPU as long as it is responsive and delivers decent frame rates?

Maybe I'm naive but I believe a large part of existing processing will be offloaded to the GPU. In my view Flight will be designed for multi-core and optimised for dual core. I also believe the system requirements will mandate a minimum of Vista and DX11, possibly DX10.

IMHO Microsoft's definition of 'existing PC' means Vista or better. IE9 already offloads processing to the GPU and I find it inconceivable that Flight won't do the same thing.

I can't point to any sources for my beliefs so I may be completely wrong. Grin

However the logic seems reasonable to me.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 2:09pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

What's wrong with you people that voted yes? Grin

There's no way anything will be more CPU hungry than FSX. If anything, it should be somewhat less hungry, or at least take advantage of multicore processors to the fullest. Like the team has said, it needs to run on today's hardware, not tomorrow's. Well, not everyone has a i7, especially not your everyday users/casual gamers. They are pretty much forced to write something that runs well or they really will screw themselves again, which doesn't seem likely will happen. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 5:56pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 2:09pm:

What's wrong with you people that voted yes? Grin

There's no way anything will be more CPU hungry than FSX.

Damn it, that's it! You just jinxed us all! You underestimate the POWER of the dark side of M$, young padawan. Angry

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 2:09pm:

Like the team has said, it needs to run on today's hardware, not tomorrow's.

That would be a first, coming from M$. For real. Roll Eyes

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 2:09pm:

Well, not everyone has a i7, especially not your everyday users/casual gamers. They are pretty much forced to write something that runs well or they really will screw themselves again, which doesn't seem likely will happen. Roll Eyes

Remember FSX. They DID NOT feel forced to code something that ran, run or, five years down the line, will run smoothly on any hardware today's available. Tongue

And, for the short of memory, remember FS2000. THAT was maybe a lesser mess-up if compared to FSX, seen that with hardware from 2005 you CAN actually use it. Roll Eyes

Those who DON'T WANT to learn from their errors are doomed to repeat said mistakes... and call it a philosophy of life. Tongue

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

Why is it that you just HAVE to look at what FSX was, and then say what Flight is going to be? That makes absolutely no sense and is not logical. I don't think ACES ever went on and on about how FSX would have amazing performance on today's hardware. Well, guess what? The Flight team (Not "M$"....call them MS) has said in pretty much every news release/article about how the approach to flight simulation in the past was not right...and that the goal was to have the end user go through a few computers in a few years time and gradually be able to get better performance as they upgraded. Even the Flight team realizes that. It was a bad bad approach, AND THEY KNOW IT. There's no point in saying all this just to disappoint. Why do you think they've been so secretive about Flight's details? They don't want to promise what they can't deliver like they did with FSX. They are only saying that they know for sure. You may not think so, but the Flight team are people that know what they are doing. The Microsoft marketing team, well that's a whole different story. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 10:18pm

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Is there any chance that you two guys (Strategic Retreat and BrandonF) will ever agree on anything? Wink

best,

.................john

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 8:42am

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

Why is it that you just HAVE to look at what FSX was, and then say what Flight is going to be? That makes absolutely no sense and is not logical.

Please explain in this instance WHY it doesn't not make sense, by YOUR point of view. Huh

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

I don't think ACES ever went on and on about how FSX would have amazing performance on today's hardware.

I seem to remember EXACTLY THE CONTRARY... you know... marketing reasons and all that jazz... paramount is TO SELL, customer satisfaction comes for last... if then.... this has ALWAYS been M$ philosophy. Roll Eyes

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

Well, guess what? The Flight team (Not "M$"....call them MS)

Is there a rule on how to call THEM, now? Huh

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

has said in pretty much every news release/article about how the approach to flight simulation in the past was not right...and that the goal was to have the end user go through a few computers in a few years time and gradually be able to get better performance as they upgraded.

And in fact, the first thing they did was to EJECT the "simulation" part even from the title... not to start about the closed market thinghy they have thought for their "new software". Angry

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

Even the Flight team realizes that. It was a bad bad approach, AND THEY KNOW IT. There's no point in saying all this just to disappoint. Why do you think they've been so secretive about Flight's details? They don't want to promise what they can't deliver like they did with FSX. They are only saying that they know for sure. You may not think so, but the Flight team are people that know what they are doing. The Microsoft marketing team, well that's a whole different story. Roll Eyes

If you read my past posts in this area, you'll see I'm still a hopeful, but a cynical one. Words are just that, and the FACTS that follow, when M$ is concerned, almost never have followed the promises, in the past. You may be a M$ staunch believer, but where I live, a chronical and historical liar remains a LIAR that CANNOT be believed only on a word basis, his/her actions MUST be controlled and monitored cautiously and s/he MAY be believed only on the base of the end results. Tongue

JBaymore wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 10:18pm:

Is there any chance that you two guys (Strategic Retreat and BrandonF) will ever agree on anything? Wink

Is there any chances of a gas guzzling eight liters V8 engine of the sixties stopping being such, even in modern day petrol crisis? Or M$ stopping behaving like M$? Huh

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 8:54am

NNNG Ex Member

I voted no, but I think it will be. Here's why.

FSX doesn't take proper use of multiple cores, Flight undoubtedly will take better advantage of multiple core processors. So even if it requires more CPU power, it still could run better on the same hardware. If however, Flight is anything like FSX in terms of its hardware requirements relative to current hardware, then it will not be purchased by myself and instead the next DCS will.

I never set any expectations for the next release of any computer software or hardware release. That way I can not be disappointed. I don't see the point in moaning about what MS did or did not say in the past, it will be what it will be and there's no changing that.

Quote:

So do you guys think a quad core (eg. i5) will be enough to max out its settings, or do you think it will need a hex-core (eg. i7-3930K)?

Who knows. I would say that very high end hardware is required for highest settings, which would likely be a Sandy Bridge-E processor by the time Flight is released.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am

Club508 Offline
Colonel
I like repainting aircraft!
Planet Earth

Gender:
Posts: 1528

If they don't follow atleast a few of the following suggestions I think it will. If they do, I think it will be perfectly frame rate and CPU friendly.
Number 1 and number 4 are the biggest.

1. One of the big probloms is all the bitmap and Direct Draw Surface images. those things use whopper amounts of data. I'm talking about around 1,500 Kb per bitmap. I would suggest using jpeg images instead if possible. Even on some of the larger ones, I have never seen a jpeg image exceed 300Kb. They are slightly lower quality than bmp and DDS, but they use about five times less data.

2. Don't use as many water effects as FSX. I bet they only need about 1/2 to 2/3 of the effects they put in to make it look as good as it does.

3. In the textures, try to use less colors. I beleive that with less colors, it uses less data. and a 1-3 difference on the RGB scale barely makes a diffrence. And also, it might make it easier on some repainters.

4. THIS ONE IS VERY IMPORTANT
Bring back the 800x600 screen resolution ability! I had the ability to use 800x600 resolution in FS9, but not in FSX, and in FS9, I found that if you increase the resolution, it takes a HUGE amount out of your frame rate. I'm talking about 50 fps.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 4:51pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

1. One of the big probloms is all the bitmap and Direct Draw Surface images. those things use whopper amounts of data. I'm talking about around 1,500 Kb per bitmap. I would suggest using jpeg images instead if possible. Even on some of the larger ones, I have never seen a jpeg image exceed 300Kb. They are slightly lower quality than bmp and DDS, but they use about five times less data.

An image, NO MATTER how compressed on disk, to be used in memory MUST be decompressed, so it's ALL MOOT. Tongue

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

2. Don't use as many water effects as FSX. I bet they only need about 1/2 to 2/3 of the effects they put in to make it look as good as it does.

I can already hear the mob approaching... RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!! I'll try to cover your escape. Shocked

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

3. In the textures, try to use less colors. I beleive that with less colors, it uses less data. and a 1-3 difference on the RGB scale barely makes a diffrence. And also, it might make it easier on some repainters.

You DO know you can use 16bit colors (which coincidentally is the MINIMUM color depth for 3D acceleration... if you go below, you return to software rendering territory) on FSX already, don't you? Huh

Not that it makes all that difference under the performances point if compared to 32bit depth. Roll Eyes

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

4. THIS ONE IS VERY IMPORTANT
Bring back the 800x600 screen resolution ability! I had the ability to use 800x600 resolution in FS9, but not in FSX, and in FS9, I found that if you increase the resolution, it takes a HUGE amount out of your frame rate. I'm talking about 50 fps.

Personally never found any particular delta of performances between 800x600 and 1042x768 EVER SINCE FS2002... at 800x600 though the problem becomes the UNGODLY amount of Antialias needed to make it look good, making MOOT of this suggestion, too. Tongue

Sorry, but this is NOT the way. Turn back and switch on your GPS. Wink

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:52pm

Club508 Offline
Colonel
I like repainting aircraft!
Planet Earth

Gender:
Posts: 1528

Strategic Retreat wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 4:51pm:

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

1. One of the big probloms is all the bitmap and Direct Draw Surface images. those things use whopper amounts of data. I'm talking about around 1,500 Kb per bitmap. I would suggest using jpeg images instead if possible. Even on some of the larger ones, I have never seen a jpeg image exceed 300Kb. They are slightly lower quality than bmp and DDS, but they use about five times less data.

An image, NO MATTER how compressed on disk, to be used in memory MUST be decompressed, so it's ALL MOOT. Tongue

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

2. Don't use as many water effects as FSX. I bet they only need about 1/2 to 2/3 of the effects they put in to make it look as good as it does.

I can already hear the mob approaching... RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!! I'll try to cover your escape. Shocked

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

3. In the textures, try to use less colors. I beleive that with less colors, it uses less data. and a 1-3 difference on the RGB scale barely makes a diffrence. And also, it might make it easier on some repainters.

You DO know you can use 16bit colors (which coincidentally is the MINIMUM color depth for 3D acceleration... if you go below, you return to software rendering territory) on FSX already, don't you? Huh

Not that it makes all that difference under the performances point if compared to 32bit depth. Roll Eyes

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

4. THIS ONE IS VERY IMPORTANT
Bring back the 800x600 screen resolution ability! I had the ability to use 800x600 resolution in FS9, but not in FSX, and in FS9, I found that if you increase the resolution, it takes a HUGE amount out of your frame rate. I'm talking about 50 fps.

Personally never found any particular delta of performances between 800x600 and 1042x768 EVER SINCE FS2002... at 800x600 though the problem becomes the UNGODLY amount of Antialias needed to make it look good, making MOOT of this suggestion, too. Tongue

Sorry, but this is NOT the way. Turn back and switch on your GPS. Wink

?

I don't hear them, and anyway, it was just a suggestion. I found switching from water effects x1 High to water effects to x2 High water effects encountered a frame rate loss of about 10-15.

No Comment

I actually found 800x600 quite acceptible. I find acceptible/good visuals with a frame rate of 35-80 ten times better than wonderfull visuals with a frame rate of 2-5.

What on Earth (or Pluto) is MOOT?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #15 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 8:18pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

Strategic Retreat, I know that you say that Flight could be good, but you never really have said anything "good" about it. Is there anything at all that you think could happen that is good? If not, why not just switch to X-Plane. You seem to be holding your past experiences with Microsoft against Flight for some odd reason. I really don't see why a flight simulator enthusiast could be so sad about a new expansion to a series that lasted 28 years. Undecided

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Aug 16^th, 2011 at 12:05am

F35LightningII Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!
Auckland, New Zealand

Gender:
Posts: 266

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:52pm:

What on Earth (or Pluto) is MOOT?

"Moot" is a topic which gets debated on. I'm not sure if that's the same moot they're referring to though.

i5 3570K @ 4.3GHz, ASRock Z77 Pro3, EVGA GTX 670 FTW, 8GB DDR3, 128GB Samsung 830, 500GB Seagate Barracuda, Thermaltake Armor A60, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro, Logitech K800, Logitech M510, Windows 8 Pro x64, FSX Acceleration

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Aug 16^th, 2011 at 3:09am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:52pm:

What on Earth (or Pluto) is MOOT?

This is the reason there's a link to Dictionary.com on the forum menu bar. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Aug 16^th, 2011 at 1:00pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:52pm:

?

Whatever form of compression you can use on an image stored on a disk, for this to be used by a software, said image MUST be decompressed first in memory... or you believe perhaps that when opening a pic on Photoshop you in memory have the compressed image verbatim to the file on disk? Would be useful, but at the moment, it doesn't work like that, at least not for JPG. Cool

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:52pm:

I don't hear them, and anyway, it was just a suggestion. I found switching from water effects x1 High to water effects to x2 High water effects encountered a frame rate loss of about 10-15.

Not a good reason to take away the possibility to choose, though. Tongue

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:52pm:

No Comment

As you wish. Tongue

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:52pm:

I actually found 800x600 quite acceptible. I find acceptible/good visuals with a frame rate of 35-80 ten times better than wonderfull visuals with a frame rate of 2-5.

No one forbids you to use 1024x768 though, right? The fall of performances using 1024x768 is minimal compared to 800x600 AND the amount of Antialias filtering (if you elect not to get your eyes burned out in their sockets by the horrid aliasing of the unfiltered oblique lines) needed to have a smooth image at 1024x768 is WAY lower than lesser resolutions (4X at 1024x768 can be enough, but is too grainy on 800x600). Huh

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:52pm:

What on Earth (or Pluto) is MOOT?

http://translate.google.it/

Use it. Tongue

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Aug 16^th, 2011 at 10:54pm

Travis Offline
Colonel
Cannot find REALITY.SYS.
Universe halted.
Dripping Springs, TX

Gender:
Posts: 4515

Or you could just type:

Moot means that the idea is irrelevant to what's being discussed, for various reasons. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Aug 17^th, 2011 at 12:24pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

Travis wrote on Aug 16^th, 2011 at 10:54pm:

Or you could just type:

Moot means that the idea is irrelevant to what's being discussed, for various reasons. Roll Eyes

Well, the Google translator has yet to fail me (differently from other similar services on the net), and its translations are available in 64 different languages. It is and remains extremely useful when adventuring on a language you have no complete mastery on. The only problems MAY stem when trying to get translation from languages using an exotic char set like the Chinese or Japanese... Wink

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Aug 17^th, 2011 at 1:10pm

Club508 Offline
Colonel
I like repainting aircraft!
Planet Earth

Gender:
Posts: 1528

i've been hearing alot about 800x600 being bad, but really, what's so bad about this?
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1313074127.jpg And I know that's 800x600 because I took it.
Really. It's not that bad to me. That's why I prefer FS9.

« Last Edit: Aug 19^th, 2011 at 11:27am by Club508 »

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Aug 17^th, 2011 at 3:52pm

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Strategic Retreat wrote on Aug 17^th, 2011 at 12:24pm:

The only problems MAY stem when trying to get translation from languages using an exotic char set like the Chinese or Japanese... Wink

Google translate's Japanese is really bad. Tongue

とてもわるいですよ。

Anything other than very simple stuff is usually quite botched.

best,

............john

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Aug 17^th, 2011 at 5:04pm

BigTruck Offline
Global Moderator
Former Sergeant of Marines
Tuscaloosa, AL

Gender:
Posts: 7161

JBaymore wrote on Aug 17^th, 2011 at 3:52pm:

Strategic Retreat wrote on Aug 17^th, 2011 at 12:24pm:

The only problems MAY stem when trying to get translation from languages using an exotic char set like the Chinese or Japanese... Wink

Google translate's Japanese is really bad. Tongue

とてもわるいですよ。

Anything other than very simple stuff is usually quite botched.

best,

............john

Another classic example- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Aug 17^th, 2011 at 5:25pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

I was, of course, speaking about translation of single words. We're still WELL far away from a simultaneous translation software THAT WORKS... or at least I haven't heard about such a miracle software yet... especially one that allows correct translations of complete phrases between and across multiple languages. Wink

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Aug 17^th, 2011 at 6:56pm

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Strategic Retreat wrote on Aug 17^th, 2011 at 5:25pm:

I was, of course, speaking about translation of single words. We're still WELL far away from a simultaneous translation software THAT WORKS... or at least I haven't heard about such a miracle software yet... especially one that allows correct translations of complete phrases between and across multiple languages. Wink

They have that. I've seen it in use. Captain Kirk uses it all the time. Wink

best,

.............john

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Aug 17^th, 2011 at 8:24pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

JBaymore wrote on Aug 17^th, 2011 at 6:56pm:

They have that. I've seen it in use. Captain Kirk uses it all the time. Wink

I wish you a nice trip in that parallel dimension (if they are real and if it exist) or an even nicer trip with the ACME Time Machine, if said reality will exist somewhere in the next centuries on this timeline, then. Grin

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Aug 19^th, 2011 at 8:03am

hyperpep111 Offline
Colonel
You'll Never See Me Coming.
93 million miles from sun

Gender:
Posts: 1328

Club508 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2011 at 1:10pm:

i've been hearing alot about 800x600 being bad, but really, what's so bad about this?
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1313074127.jpgAnd i know that's 800x600 because I took it.
Really. It's not that bad to me. That's why I prefer FS9.

Club, I strongly advise you to put a space between the ".jpg" and the "and" Roll Eyes

Most people think that flying a plane is dangerous, except pilots because they know how easy it is.
Arguing with a pilot is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you begin to think the pig likes it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Aug 19^th, 2011 at 8:22am

hyperpep111 Offline
Colonel
You'll Never See Me Coming.
93 million miles from sun

Gender:
Posts: 1328

Anyway... Back on topic.
The reason I voted yes was that It's all about maximizing profit. If you buy a new Comp for that you also get new software. If you get new M$ software, They get more money solution? Linux I guess. And Windows 8 is coming So another $300 out of some poor souls pocket

Most people think that flying a plane is dangerous, except pilots because they know how easy it is.
Arguing with a pilot is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you begin to think the pig likes it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Aug 19^th, 2011 at 8:59am

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

hyperpep111 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 8:22am:

Anyway... Back on topic.
The reason I voted yes was that It's all about maximizing profit. If you buy a new Comp for that you also get new software. If you get new M$ software, They get more money solution? Linux I guess. And Windows 8 is coming So another $300 out of some poor souls pocket

Speak for yourself, please. If YOU buy a new PC... the actual hardware I own is more than enough for me. Flight will NOT work on it? Pity. It means Flight will not be bought by me. Tongue

And as about OS... it's a while now that I've stopped chasing the vastly expensive and unsatisfied point of view of the "new at all costs", and if I do not need it, I won't use it even if it's given me totally for free.

Sometimes, speaking of this and that new software, it's generally forgot that the so called "new hardware" must be paid by the end user... who pays for the new software too... in a system that grants said end user the great whole of ZERO satisfaction, and only pushes said user to fork more, and more, And More, AND MORE dough for something else... BUT almost never something MORE...

M$ has a last chance to redeem themselves in my eyes. And they have already tackled this task with the wrong foot down, striving in their task to denaturalize the very philosophy of FS, first rejecting the notion that is a simulator, then attempting to build a X-box-like close market around it they want to make us believe it's the best thing even before sliced bread...

FOR THEM!!! ONLY!!!!!

A last chance IT REMAINS. It's not like there aren't alternatives around, after all. And if they continue to go on bull headed on this unfortunate course of action... Smiley

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #30 - Aug 19^th, 2011 at 11:26am

Club508 Offline
Colonel
I like repainting aircraft!
Planet Earth

Gender:
Posts: 1528

hyperpep111 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 8:03am:

Club508 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2011 at 1:10pm:

i've been hearing alot about 800x600 being bad, but really, what's so bad about this?
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1313074127.jpgAnd i know that's 800x600 because I took it.
Really. It's not that bad to me. That's why I prefer FS9.

Club, I strongly advise you to put a space between the ".jpg" and the "and" Roll Eyes

Fixed.
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1313074127.jpg

By the way, you may have to adjust your screen brightness to see it correctly.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #31 - Aug 19^th, 2011 at 2:16pm

hyperpep111 Offline
Colonel
You'll Never See Me Coming.
93 million miles from sun

Gender:
Posts: 1328

Club508 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

hyperpep111 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 8:03am:

Club508 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2011 at 1:10pm:

i've been hearing alot about 800x600 being bad, but really, what's so bad about this?
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1313074127.jpgAnd i know that's 800x600 because I took it.
Really. It's not that bad to me. That's why I prefer FS9.

Club, I strongly advise you to put a space between the ".jpg" and the "and" Roll Eyes

Fixed.
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1313074127.jpg

By the way, you may have to adjust your screen brightness to see it correctly.

Yeah. Had to dim the display. Looks nice except for the trees. M$flight Has nice looking trees (3d). So displaywise it is allot better than the current

Most people think that flying a plane is dangerous, except pilots because they know how easy it is.
Arguing with a pilot is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you begin to think the pig likes it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #32 - Aug 19^th, 2011 at 9:13pm

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

hyperpep111 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

M$flight Has nice looking trees (3d). So displaywise it is allot better than the current

Let me get this right, are you saying that the presence of 3-D trees will make a new sim "a lot better"?

best,

...........john

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #33 - Aug 19^th, 2011 at 9:35pm

Club508 Offline
Colonel
I like repainting aircraft!
Planet Earth

Gender:
Posts: 1528

JBaymore wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 9:13pm:

hyperpep111 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

M$flight Has nice looking trees (3d). So displaywise it is allot better than the current

Let me get this right, are you saying that the presence of 3-D trees will make a new sim "a lot better"?

best,

...........john

I would say that. I REALLY miss the trees and houses in FSX, but I have to get rid of them to keep the framerate above 10. Cry

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #34 - Aug 20^th, 2011 at 1:08pm

hyperpep111 Offline
Colonel
You'll Never See Me Coming.
93 million miles from sun

Gender:
Posts: 1328

JBaymore wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 9:13pm:

hyperpep111 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

M$flight Has nice looking trees (3d). So displaywise it is allot better than the current

Let me get this right, are you saying that the presence of 3-D trees will make a new sim "a lot better"?

best,

...........john

No... I am saying that the lack of the blue haze, better trees e.t.c make it allot better especially for a low flying experience. But at what frame rates? If i want to see good 3d trees I'll Go to the park. Roll Eyes

Renè

Most people think that flying a plane is dangerous, except pilots because they know how easy it is.
Arguing with a pilot is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you begin to think the pig likes it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #35 - Aug 20^th, 2011 at 3:00pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

Yeah, I'm sure changing the blending in the sky texture has a HUGE performance impact. Roll Eyes

And with a modern engine like they are making, higher detail trees shouldn't be an issue.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #36 - Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 3:37am

hyperpep111 Offline
Colonel
You'll Never See Me Coming.
93 million miles from sun

Gender:
Posts: 1328

BrandonF wrote on Aug 20^th, 2011 at 3:00pm:

Yeah, I'm sure changing the blending in the sky texture has a HUGE performance impact. Roll Eyes

And with a modern engine like they are making, higher detail
trees shouldn't be an issue.

You never know. Name 20 games which have better graphics and options that need less specs than their predecessor.

Most people think that flying a plane is dangerous, except pilots because they know how easy it is.
Arguing with a pilot is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you begin to think the pig likes it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #37 - Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 6:27pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

I didn't say it needs less, but I'm not saying it will need more. I think the engine will better use what hardware is available to it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #38 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 5:20pm

lunitic_8 Offline
Colonel
FSX+REX= OMG!!!! :o
La Porte, Texas (T41)

Gender:
Posts: 3234

I'm just saying I didn't have the best setup on my computer for FSX (Nvidia 8800, 2gb of RAM) and I still got 20+ fps with most of my settings maxed out.
Cool

I know I'm late Grin

"Stand up for what you believe in even if your not popular" - fortune cookie I'm running a hp pavilion a1610n with a Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT OC
By the way... the name is Chad Tongue

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #39 - Nov 6^th, 2011 at 7:14pm

ArcticFox Offline
Colonel

Posts: 77

I voted yes of course. The problem is the game engine: it's antique and way overdue for retirement. Just sprucing it up is not doing anyone any good and flight seems to make the same mistake as fsx.

[ASUS P8H67]- [Intel core5 2500k]- [4gb Corsair DDR] - [Asus 560ti]

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #40 - Nov 9^th, 2011 at 8:50pm

Al_Fallujah Ex Member

Strategic Retreat wrote on Nov 8^th, 2011 at 4:29pm:

I want to believe instead that something was or will be done... though some of the new aren't really encouraging and give your words the weight of truth... one of the things I really don't get, for example is: is it that ph
***ing hard to have shadows out of the clouds? It's not like other sims do not have them, and since a long time too. Huh

Of course I am aware mine is a hope borne from desperation, but... well... Undecided

What really concerns me is not so much the engine and/or other graphical details and/or performances under existing hardware, as unquestionably important as these are, but the still not contradicted rumor about the aberrant decision to trash the once open system you could upgrade, adding what you wanted from where you wanted, when you wanted and because, in exchange for a closed architecture that will make so M$ will retain the complete control on what, from where and why you can upgrade... hearing this, I had the perception that they're trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel, where said bottom of the barrel are our wallets, and it did NOT fill me with any confidence. Angry

Remains though in our power to vote with our money, and if what they do with Flight is not good enough, we SHOULD leave it on the shelf... fact is... I have no confidence in some... for lack of a better fitting POLITE term let's call them people... doing that even if it was a complete mess and locked down in a totally blinded architecture, because there's always the "lovers of the new at all costs, even if it stinks to nirvana" out there that thoroughly ruin the environment for all the others. Sad

You know at this point, I may just commit to buying it, just for you.
In fact I may buy two.

You are saying that if the product does not meet YOUR specifications, there must be a boycott. Further you state those that do not join you in a boycott of the product are something you would rather call names.

I am sure it would be a witty insult considering your carefully crafted spelling of a bad word. How original.

"Truly you have a dizzying intellect" -The Man in the Black mask.

Personally, I am quite content with the free market deciding if the product is worth it or not.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #41 - Nov 9^th, 2011 at 10:35pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

Quote:

You know at this point, I may just commit to buying it, just for you.
In fact I may buy two.

Be my guest.

Quote:

You are saying that if the product does not meet YOUR specifications, there must be a boycott. Further you state those that do not join you in a boycott of the product are something you would rather call names.

Learn to read other's thread. Your risible attempt at a rise does not deserve other answer.

Quote:

I am sure it would be a witty insult considering your carefully crafted spelling of a bad word. How original.

It's called "going around the censorship", FYI.

Quote:

"Truly you have a dizzying intellect" -The Man in the Black mask.

Cannot say I recognize the quote.

Quote:

Personally, I am quite content with the free market deciding if the product is worth it or not.

Was there one one, I would agree. KNOWING the ease the media circus has always made mincemeat of its supposed freedom for the good of the few rich, in a sort of Robin Hood reversal role, I do despair.

P.S.
I must point out that you added nothing to the discussion, here and in the other thread, only extremely impolitely pontificated on my supposed lack of intelligence (and I don't remember having done the same towards you, so you can't claim self defense) for having dared rise doubts about M$'s work basing myself on its well known past history and philosophies, and boisterously waved around your flag for Flight to be a great success regardless and even in spite of whatever worth it will have, so forgive me but I MUST ask... where do your interests lay, exactly? Please tell us all. We cannot but be curious.

« Last Edit: Nov 10^th, 2011 at 7:18am by Strategic Retreat »

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #42 - Nov 10^th, 2011 at 8:28am

Al_Fallujah Ex Member

My interests, since you MUST ask... are actually none of your business.

But for the good of the thread I can make an exception.

My interests are aviation, and things related to it, like most others here. Flight simulation software is part of that (yes I said simulation. I do not care if others no longer think of Flight and FSX as a simulator, rather as a game). I enjoy it. When used properly, it helps further my real world flight training. I am more interested in the technical side of its performance, not the graphics. But if it happens to look good, I will be pleased.

As for reading your threads. I have read what you have written. You suggested "we vote with our money", and that that others should do the same. That's called a boycott. You also show disdain for anyone who won't go along with you.

I, on the other hand, am perfectly okay with other people spending their money on what they think is best for them. Its their money after all, and I am not going to whine if they spend it on something I don't like.
------------------------------------------------
All censorship is not bad. There are younger folk that may visit this site. That is why the censor is there. It is best for the SimViation Community as a whole not to use such language. It is also shows a lack of professionalism and decorum. You seem educated, but cannot find better words to use?

More importantly, the fact that you not only used such language, and deliberately misspelled it to "get around the censor" shows a general disdain for the SimViation forum. That disdain on your part is why I made wrote my post.

If you have a further issue with it, then feel free to PM me.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #43 - Nov 10^th, 2011 at 12:51pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

Quote:

As for reading your threads. I have read what you have written. You suggested "we vote with our money", and that that others should do the same. That's called a boycott. You also show disdain for anyone who won't go along with you.

Of course is boycott. IF the end product IS NOT WORTH, it SHOULD be boycotted, to make understand those who'd want to sell it that it's NOT the case to peddle mussel for oysters.

Or do you want people to act like an obedient and disciplined herd of sheep regardless?

Quote:

I, on the other hand, am perfectly okay with other people spending their money on what they think is best for them. Its their money after all, and I am not going to whine if they spend it on something I don't like.

Of course you have to spend your money for something you like, and in fact I never said we MUST, but we SHOULD reward well done software and boycott crap. But of course, you seem not to understand the fine differences between the two words.

If you like a thing regardless from its lack of worth, I may be sad and think it a shame, but surely will never tell you not to do it. Your money is your own. Hardly anything to say.

It's you who doesn't seem able to recognize my words, making it appear you want OTHER people to buy a thing, be it FSX or Flight or whatever else, regardless from its worth and regardless from the fact they WANT to buy it OR NOT.

Just because

IT IS

, YOU

MUST

BUY IT! ...this is what transpires from your words.

Quote:

All censorship is not bad. There are younger folk that may visit this site. That is why the censor is there. It is best for the SimViation Community as a whole not to use such language. It is also shows a lack of professionalism and decorum. You seem educated, but cannot find better words to use?

More importantly, the fact that you not only used such language, and deliberately misspelled it to "get around the censor" shows a general disdain for the SimViation forum. That disdain on your part is why I made wrote my post.

Bullcrap. "Younger folk", as you call them, that can use internet are used to WAY raunchier words and images. You just have to go on... those sites, and you'll find WAY worse thing that a way to anagram or slightly change a word to get around a censorship.

As disdain goes, I am hardly the only one to use these silly tricks... are WE ALL disdainful of whatever made you write the post? All this torrent of words to focus on HOW a thing was said instead of discussing WHAT was said is tiring and making me disdainful yes, but of your words.

We're obviously on incommunicability ground and way off topic. I will stop here for good answering these provocations. Bloody loss of time trying to make people understand what you're trying to say or share, when they don't want but to see their own only still unclear point that seems to sum up in: "WHATEVER IT WILL BE BUY IT ANYWAY". Talk about consumerism for its own sake (at best).

« Last Edit: Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:31pm by Strategic Retreat »

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #44 - Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:36pm

Al_Fallujah Ex Member

It does not matter if there are worse things on the internet.
I am not members of those other sites.
I am a member of this one.
And I would like to see this one maintain a level of decorum, as requested in the rules.

And just as I will not tell people to boycott, I have not told anyone to purchase anything at all.
You have made a totally false accusation.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: