New Microsoft Flight Simulator Question

[dfuze]

Does anyone know what the system requirements are going to be for the upcoming
Microsoft Flight Simulator? Their website doesn't say, but I wasn't sure if some info
had been leaked.

 

[Luckyboy1]

One of the frustrating things about games in general, but more specifically flight sims is determining the system you'll need to run it. Even if they give you a minimum spec, it usually is a system that won't give you much of a game at all. I go closer to recommended as the minimum, but not quite that harsh.

By the way, I did like Centeury of flight, but ever try this one?...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=33&threadid=1829024&enterthread=y

 

[dfuze]

I don't play flight sims. I'm asking because I'm building a pc for my father
who likes them. Can you tell me the min requirements the new one is looking
for? I like to play other games (BF2), so I know what you mean about not
using the mins. But with knowing the mins, I can make sure I am way beyond
what they require.

 

[professor1942]

I'm sure to crank it up with AA etc. you'll need at minimum a quad processor, a 1 GB GeForce 9 card and 8 GB of system memory.

That may sound like a joke, but since you need a GF7, a 3 Ghz cpu and 2 GB RAM to max out IL2 I bet I'm not too far off.

 

[Luckyboy1]

Professor overstates it, but not by much!

Look, before you get into what it will take, let us help you decide on which game he'd like the best and then we can decide what it will need to run, ok?

How old is your Father?

What did he do to get such a great son?

 

[dfuze]

Thanks for the flattery, but I'm building it with his money! LOL

My dad is 59. He likes the MS Flight Sim stuff because for him it is all about the
scenery and flying. He's not into the dog-fighting stuff.

So far I've got him 2gb ram, an AMD64 3000+, NEC burner, ASRock mAtx mobo
and onboard sound & video (video scored a dismal 634 in 3dmark05, so that is
why I started this thread). I was thinking of giving him my old bfg 6600gt oc but
wasn't sure if it would cut it.

 

[Luckyboy1]

Well, the fact that you are willing to think of him and put in your time, that's what I'm talking about and what I'm sure he appreciates... although young man, I think there's at least an ordinance that says you can't ever show approval to your Son!

As far as the system goes... not a chance in the world! Let me explain...

On top of all the tricks a flight sim has to do that all the other games do, it has extra duties, like keeping track of,

1) Temperature

2) Humidity

3) Barametric Pressure

4) Altitude

5) Wind direction including updrafts, downdrafts and crosswinds.

6) Control surface potitions and I mean all of them.

7) Fuel load.

8) Passenger load

9) Cargo load


and the list goes on and on and it is trying to mimmic reality. It does this mostly with math formulas for every parameter. This makes for a very CPU intestive game. You add to that all the graphics stuff that is very demanding and sound that's not easy either, and large files and the game isn't so small in the first place if you haven't noticed yet. Add it all together and there's nothing, and I mean nothing harder to do at all much less well on a PC.

I'll tell you what is needed minimum for decent play in Intel terms and you can convert to AMD if you like...

3.2 GHz PIV or better
1 Gig of RAM all on two cards or better, but still all on two cards.
125 MB, 256 Bit 9800 Pro or better.
Audigy 2 card.
7,200 rpm SATA drive with 8 MB of cache or better, but going better on that one gives little in return.

 

[NanoStuff]

My experience with previous MS Flight Sims is that they are very CPU bound. I tried running FS2004 on a GF2 and P4 1.6 and it was reasonable at best. Playable but the framerate was uncomfortably low regardless of graphics settings. Swapping that GF2 for a Radeon 9700 allowed for enabling of various 'luxury' graphics features, but even without them the framerate wouldn't budge. Then I put in an Athlon XP 2800+ and the game was let loose. At maximum settings or otherwise it just "flew".

If that's any indication, I would recommend a strong processor as a priority if both cannot be had.

Could very well differ for FSX, I think the 'offcial' minimum specs will be announced in the summer.

 

[Sniper82]

is there a web site for the new flight sim? I am just finding 2004.

 

[NanoStuff]

http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx

 

[Tu13erhead]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx

Uh, there are no recommended specs there.

 

[NanoStuff]

No specs indeed

 

[Sniper82]

Q: What type of computer hardware will I need to run ?Flight Simulator X??
A: While we are still determining exact hardware requirements, we do know that it will run on a wide range of configurations because we want to make ?Flight Simulator X? accessible to a wide range of fans.

Thats all I could find. Although it doesn't help much but look at what little minimum requirements 2004 needed. My guess would triple the CPU minmum on 2004 and a minimum of a GF4/Radeon 8500 series. Recommend 2ghz+ and a Radeon 9800/6600GT. You said you already have 2gb of memory which will be enough.

I think your specs are good but I wouldn't go any lower than a 6600GT. If he likes all eye candy I am betting a 6800 series can handle it as long as he doesn't run 1600x res. But thats all guess which is all anyone can do right now. Also if you can try to push that 3000+ to 2.2-2.4ghz if you can.

But looking at the screens. It looks good but nothing next gen IMO like Oblivion which is suppose to run real well on a 6800GT/GS at 1024x768/1280x1024 with most settings on high.

 

[Madwand1]

I predict largely marketing-driven requirements specifications for FSX -- in particular for Vista. So if you look for whatever the high-end Vista specs are going to be, you can be sure that they'll be adequate for FSX at high settings.

I further predict that magic numbers such as >= 2.0 GHz AMD processors or >= 3.0 GHz Pentium IV processors, and perhaps 1.6-1.8 GHz Conroe processors should they be available. In part, this will be determined by what the manufacturers and resellers want to sell around the time. 64-bit capable for optimal marketing compatibility (YMMV regarding actual device driver support; buy a pre-built name-brand computer and don't add anything, and you should be fine.)

Now my note this has little to do with actual performance, and everything to do with marketing, selling new hardware, OS's, other software and learned cynicism.

What would I do? One of:

(1) If I or my end user cared about marketing compatibility, I'd hold off building a system or buy one that will be "Vista ready", whatever that means. Regarding video cards, the current higher-end DX9 SM3 cards are probably going to be fine, but greater marketing compatibility will be had when D3D 10 video cards and drivers are released.

(2) Alternatively, get the most cost-effective hardware from a performance standpoint. For now, that'd probably be an AMD processor, perhaps a dual core, perhaps an Opteron, and overclock it. Some consideration regarding dual core. Will FS X be optimized for dual cores? I predict that it will, eventually at least. But if the price is very sensitive, as it generally is for older people in my experience, I wouldn't worry and chop the core down to a single overclockable one (to get more value/$).

The 6600 GT fits into plan (2). It's going to be replaced by the 7600 series over time, but if you already have one, I think it'll be fine to pass it on.

I think the OP is already commited to something like plan (2), and I think it'll be just fine; there's a lot that just cannot be judged adequately until Vista / FSX are released and tested, and at that time, final tweeks or even massive upgrades can be done if needed/wanted, however I think that'd be unlikely from a need perspective (just turn down some of the settings); wants are another matter.

 

[Luckyboy1]

http://www.airwarfare.com/


Airwarfare is easily the best, independent source for all your flight simming concerns and resources.

 

[Broadkipa]

http://www.avsim.com/

 

[Looney]

What i would do is build the best system you can right now, minus the GPU... use your 6600GT, and if it doesn't work out to well, then upgrade. But i suspect it's going to require quite a GPU. Not only does it has to render gorgeous planes... but it also has to render them in high texture out in the distance too... most games cheat by rendering distant objects in lower textures or even removing them from sight until you're closer.

 

[episodic]

Sheesh, I can't wait for that. Thanks for the link. All I do is flight sim (as far as games are concerned).

I hope they release this on DVD instead of like 5 disks or something.

I'm hoping I can just pop the latest sempron 754 in and a decent sub 100$ card and it will work tolerably.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: dph1077
Thanks for the flattery, but I'm building it with his money! LOL

My dad is 59. He likes the MS Flight Sim stuff because for him it is all about the
scenery and flying. He's not into the dog-fighting stuff.

So far I've got him 2gb ram, an AMD64 3000+, NEC burner, ASRock mAtx mobo
and onboard sound & video (video scored a dismal 634 in 3dmark05, so that is
why I started this thread). I was thinking of giving him my old bfg 6600gt oc but
wasn't sure if it would cut it.

2Gb is a very good idea,

yeah you need to drop the onboard GFX, but im thinking that even the 6600 may not be up to the job, or at least it wont be for much longer. try find a used 6800GT/U/GS ? radeaon X850's can be had for good money now too.

that processor, while good, is kinda slow....i bought a 3200 and i thought it was pretty slow just in and around windows