Search the archive:
 YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
  Simviation Forum › Current Flight Simulator Series › MS Flight › November update!
(Moderators: beaky, ozzy72, Fly2e, Bob70, JBaymore, BigTruck)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
November update! (Read 2294 times)
Nov 16th, 2011 at 2:00am

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 266
 *****
 
Still Hawaii...

They've got 13 new screenshots and some news. The minimum and recommended system requirements have been listed.

www.microsoftflight.com
 
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 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 2:11am

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 2296
 *****
 
Beautiful screenshots!  Shocked

And a relief to know that I should actually be able to run Flight with decent display settings.  Cheesy
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 10:17am

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

Posts: 603
 *****
 
So, an i7 960 with 6GB and Gefo 560 as minimum requirements? Comforting. Undecided

I KNOW the above one is the SUGGESTED, not the MINIMUM configuration, but HISTORY TEACHES, and you should know already by the way, that when at M$ they talk about minimum configurations, they mean the bare minimum to make the program START with NO ERRORS, not to the minimum configuration that allows you to USE it, and that the REAL minimum configuration if you want to USE the program is the SUGGESTED one. Angry

REEEEEEEEALLY comforting. Sad
 
There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 1:26pm
Faildozer.   Ex Member

 
Intel Core i5-2400 3.1GHz $190 (a bit faster than the i7-960 in anything that doesn't use hyperthreading, like FSX and all games).
Mushkin Enhanced Essentials 8GB $40 (RAM is cheap)
ASRock Z68 PRO3 GEN3 $115 (nice mobo, solid caps and supports PCI-E 3.0 with a supporting processor)
Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB $60 (this SHOULD be the price of this hard drive when the manufacturing capability is restored after flooding in SE Asia).
MSI GeForce GTX 560 1GB $190 (non referance cooling Smiley )
SeaSonic M12II 520 Bronze 520W $87 (modular and rated at 40 or 50C)
Antec 300 $55

So in other words, the recommended system requirements are pretty common for todays software and only describe a $737 (prices from newegg) system, probably closer to $1000 if you need to purchase things like windows, a screen, a mouse, dvd drive, or keyboard. Of course, by the time MS Flight comes out, the processor I suggested will be obsolete with new processors coming out early next year, so will the videocard with new graphics cards at the start of next year, all of which will knock off a bit of the price.

Not surprising at all.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 5:02pm

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 2296
 *****
 
Strategic Retreat wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 10:17am:
So, an i7 960 with 6GB and Gefo 560 as minimum requirements? Comforting. Undecided

I KNOW the above one is the SUGGESTED, not the MINIMUM configuration, but HISTORY TEACHES, and you should know already by the way, that when at M$ they talk about minimum configurations, they mean the bare minimum to make the program START with NO ERRORS, not to the minimum configuration that allows you to USE it, and that the REAL minimum configuration if you want to USE the program is the SUGGESTED one. Angry

REEEEEEEEALLY comforting. Sad


You seriously read their news item wrong. The specs you posted are what you need for HIGH settings. The absolute minimum requirements are:

    CPU: Dual Core 2.0 GHz
    GPU: 256 MB card capable of shader 3.0 (DX 9.0c compliant)
    HD: 10 GB Hard Drive space
    OS: WinXP SP3
    RAM: 2.0GB
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 6:45pm

Steve M   Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender: male
 Posts: 4097
 *****
 
Those panel pics are awesome.
But look what we get with minimum specs. Like I alluded to in another Flight thread, We'll have to spend money to get all the hardware we need to enjoy Flight to its fullest. This is still reminding me of FSX..   

The dreaded jaggies,


          ...

 
...
Flying with twins is a lot of fun..
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 7:57pm

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 2296
 *****
 
Steve M wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 6:45pm:
Those panel pics are awesome.
But look what we get with minimum specs. Like I alluded to in another Flight thread, We'll have to spend money to get all the hardware we need to enjoy Flight to its fullest. This is still reminding me of FSX..   

The dreaded jaggies,


          [img]



AA isn't even turned on in that shot and the screen resolution setting in the sim is lower than the monitor's resolution. Those are LOW settings, not normal settings. I can run FSX with AA turned on and settings at medium-high, and still get 15-30 fps, depending on location. We don't know if the settings showing "high" are all the way up or not. But the "high specs" are what you need to get the most out of Flight. Doesn't mean that your current computer isn't good enough. We have to wait and see, although I bet our current hardware is fine.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 8:18pm

Steve M   Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender: male
 Posts: 4097
 *****
 
BrandonF wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 7:57pm:
Steve M wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 6:45pm:
Those panel pics are awesome.
But look what we get with minimum specs. Like I alluded to in another Flight thread, We'll have to spend money to get all the hardware we need to enjoy Flight to its fullest. This is still reminding me of FSX..   

The dreaded jaggies,


          [img]



AA isn't even turned on in that shot and the screen resolution setting in the sim is lower than the monitor's resolution. Those are LOW settings, not normal settings. I can run FSX with AA turned on and settings at medium-high, and still get 15-30 fps, depending on location. We don't know if the settings showing "high" are all the way up or not. But the "high specs" are what you need to get the most out of Flight. Doesn't mean that your current computer isn't good enough. We have to wait and see, although I bet our current hardware is fine.



I agree, but I'm not sure how you know anti alaising isn't turned on.  I'm not complaining about Flight already because that would be useless, it is of course, a wait and see situation. 'Current hardware' can be an oxymoron at times though.  Wink 
 
...
Flying with twins is a lot of fun..
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 8:25pm

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 2296
 *****
 
I don't know for sure that AA isn't turned on. But the sharp jaggies on the plane in the low settings shot suggests that either AA isn't turned on, or the full screen resolution in Flight is set lower than the monitor's display setting, therefor causing jaggies. You'll notice that in the High settings shot, there are no jaggies.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #9 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 9:02pm

Steve M   Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender: male
 Posts: 4097
 *****
 
BrandonF wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 8:25pm:
I don't know for sure that AA isn't turned on. But the sharp jaggies on the plane in the low settings shot suggests that either AA isn't turned on, or the full screen resolution in Flight is set lower than the monitor's display setting, therefor causing jaggies. You'll notice that in the High settings shot, there are no jaggies.




It's sort of my point. High settings require better hardware.  Smiley
Not that I'm overstressed about it, however.
 
...
Flying with twins is a lot of fun..
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 1:47am
Faildozer.   Ex Member

 
The screenshot definitely doesn't have AA. AA adds a slight blur to the edges making them appear smooth.

You shouldn't need a high end system for anti-aliasing.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #11 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 7:33am

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

Posts: 603
 *****
 
BrandonF wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 5:02pm:
You seriously read their news item wrong. The specs you posted are what you need for HIGH settings.


And now tell us all please WHO, and we want names and surnames, will content him/herself with minimum settings.

Thank you. Tongue
 
There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #12 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 4:45pm

jetprop   Offline
Colonel
A freeware addict!
a chair infront of a monitor.

Posts: 1523
 *****
 
it looks better then fsx on low settings.(both on low)
and these are MINIMAL settings,normal settings would look way better then fsx so. Wink
 
...
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #13 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 5:26pm

Steve M   Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender: male
 Posts: 4097
 *****
 
It's unclear to me why some of us think MS team would elect to turn AA off to get a worse screenshot. If a low end graphics card doesn't have an option for AA, then the game most likely does. I have to admire the honesty in that low end shot though.

(I never saw AA as a big performance killer but I could be mistaken.)
 
...
Flying with twins is a lot of fun..
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #14 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 6:16pm

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 2296
 *****
 
Steve M wrote on Nov 17th, 2011 at 5:26pm:
It's unclear to me why some of us think MS team would elect to turn AA off to get a worse screenshot. If a low end graphics card doesn't have an option for AA, then the game most likely does. I have to admire the honesty in that low end shot though.

(I never saw AA as a big performance killer but I could be mistaken.)


AA can have an affect on FPS. My friend who uses FSX can run default scenery with AA turned on, but if flying in PNW, has to turn it off as it seems to have a bigger affect, since PNW is already a big performance killer. So, it can have an affect depending on the system. Maybe not much, but it can. Having the option to turn it off is something common on other games that I've seen as well.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #15 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 6:43pm

Steve M   Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender: male
 Posts: 4097
 *****
 
BrandonF wrote on Nov 17th, 2011 at 6:16pm:
Steve M wrote on Nov 17th, 2011 at 5:26pm:
It's unclear to me why some of us think MS team would elect to turn AA off to get a worse screenshot. If a low end graphics card doesn't have an option for AA, then the game most likely does. I have to admire the honesty in that low end shot though.

(I never saw AA as a big performance killer but I could be mistaken.)


AA can have an affect on FPS. My friend who uses FSX can run default scenery with AA turned on, but if flying in PNW, has to turn it off as it seems to have a bigger affect, since PNW is already a big performance killer. So, it can have an affect depending on the system. Maybe not much, but it can. Having the option to turn it off is something common on other games that I've seen as well.



Thanks for the clarification Brandon. I wasn't aware of that.
Then again I don't use much add on scenery.
 
...
Flying with twins is a lot of fun..
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
  « Home ‹ Board Top of this page

Simviation Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge