Anything for the like of me?

For all topics that don't fit into another category. Note that we cannot promise that any of these posts will be responded to by our development team.
Anxu
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:45 pm

Postby Anxu » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:00 pm

Hi all,



I apologize if this has been asked before, if the answer is somewhere please point me to it.



I am a current user of FSX, I am also on a budget, and despite tweaking FSX and seeing that others more endowed spending money on i7 based system to run the existing FSX, I am now thinking that instead of spending more money on hardware running old software, I would rather spent on getting Prepare3D that could run decently on limited hardware for budget conscious enthusiast like me. My current system is a Core 2 Quad (q9550) overclocked to 3.4 Ghz, 8 GB of system RAM, ATI HD 5850 in Eyefinity mode, run of the mill 7200RPM SATA drive. I am using win7 64 bit. I read from the forum post somewhere that the Prepare3d team has been pushing and tweaking FSX code for more performance, with my system spec, am I getting better software, or the quoted hardware is not going to cut it?



I was very disappointed in MS decision to kill Aces and any further performance support beyond SP2. Now that Prepared3D is taking up the torch, I am hoping that I will now have to break the bank to have a decent hobby. Any comments? I am sure that the team has been asked, but certainly not from my perspective of not having unlimited budget for the hobby. I guess I am somewhere in between a dedicated enthusiast and a casual flight simmer. So anything for the like of me?



Thansk



Vu

FSMP
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:38 am

Postby FSMP » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:22 am

On a Budget ?



The Prepar3D™ application is priced at US$499. FSX is like US49.90



I do not wish to speak out of turn, but it is my understanding that Perpar3D is not really for the gamer consumer.



BTW: Your PC is far faster than mine, ( 2.6 Ghz Dual core), and I find I can run FSX very well on it. ( Make sure you have updated to the FREE SP2 service pack, or have installed the ACCELLERATION addon). Also, make sure you have defragged your HD, after installing FSX. -- you should be able to get good results using your current hardware.



Geoff




Anxu
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:45 pm

Postby Anxu » Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:45 pm

Geoff,



I would not call FSX a game if I were you. No offense, but it's Flight Simulator X. It is priced for the casual market, but if you scan any forum and the shear amount of commercial add-on and dedicated FSX user add-on speaks to its popularity. The one thing that many of us was upset at is the perceived bad coding that were done, and so many have invested heavily in hardware to get it to well, perform. The question that I asked was simple, given the work that the Prepar3D team has done, is the product performing reasonably well. Obviously, running well means different thing to different people, if I turn down level of details and so on it will perform!



The bottom line is that what kind of performance Prepar3D will bring? If the software is better and is continued to be supported, then I would want to invest in a 500$ licence. It is still cheaper than the kind of money I see people spent on hardware to get FSX to perform IMHO.



Vu

Adrian Wainer
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:10 am

Postby Adrian Wainer » Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:45 am



Quote:

Quote from Anxu on October 21, 2010, 13:00

Hi all,



I apologize if this has been asked before, if the answer is somewhere please point me to it.



I am a current user of FSX, I am also on a budget, and despite tweaking FSX and seeing that others more endowed spending money on i7 based system to run the existing FSX, I am now thinking that instead of spending more money on hardware running old software, I would rather spent on getting Prepare3D that could run decently on limited hardware for budget conscious enthusiast like me. My current system is a Core 2 Quad (q9550) overclocked to 3.4 Ghz, 8 GB of system RAM, ATI HD 5850 in Eyefinity mode, run of the mill 7200RPM SATA drive. I am using win7 64 bit. I read from the forum post somewhere that the Prepare3d team has been pushing and tweaking FSX code for more performance, with my system spec, am I getting better software, or the quoted hardware is not going to cut it?



I was very disappointed in MS decision to kill Aces and any further performance support beyond SP2. Now that Prepared3D is taking up the torch, I am hoping that I will now have to break the bank to have a decent hobby. Any comments? I am sure that the team has been asked, but certainly not from my perspective of not having unlimited budget for the hobby. I guess I am somewhere in between a dedicated enthusiast and a casual flight simmer. So anything for the like of me?



Thansk



Vu




My guess is and it is only a guess is that the initial version of Prepar3D will have a very similar loading on computer hardware to that of FSX and that your system which should run FSX well, should give very similar frame rates with Prepar3D. What happens in the near future is anybody's guess. A point of issue is that Prepar3D is now supporting submarine vehicles. I would presume in the original release of Prepar3D, that no attempt will be made to realistically model sea floor elevations but if Lockheed Martin is going after a low cost professional maritime simulation, they will start to realistically model the sea floor with elevations, obviously if they do that, they would create a potential new operational loading on hardware. If they do that they might modularize it, so that users who have no requirement for sea floor modeling can turn the feature off and reduce the loading on hardware. Also another point of issue is sea states, and if one was to see the sort of detailed sea states one can witness in virtual sailor, that would presumably create additional hardware load.



[embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGZb-fn01hk[/embed]



My best guess it that Lockheed Martin will aim to have Prepar3D geared to run on top of the range single processor multi-core workstations, which was not substantially different to what FSX was when it was first released, since nothing was available at the time when FSX was first released, which could run FSX with detailed scenery and detailed aircraft combined at high frame rates with the all the options set to max quality and realism. The big issue at a programming level for Lockheed Martin will be multi-core support, as my impression is that FSX even in its most up to date release, has quite modest multi-core support. My feeling is that Lockheed Martin will probably be reluctant to provide substantive multi-core support due to military security reasons and that the big change which Lockheed Martin will make in a near future edition Prepar3D, ( if they take this product seriously ), will be to code it as a native 64 bit system.

Adrian Wainer
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:10 am

Postby Adrian Wainer » Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:12 am



Quote:

Quote from Anxu on October 29, 2010, 19:45

Geoff,



I would not call FSX a game if I were you. No offense, but it's Flight Simulator X. It is priced for the casual market, but if you scan any forum and the shear amount of commercial add-on and dedicated FSX user add-on speaks to its popularity. The one thing that many of us was upset at is the perceived bad coding that were done, and so many have invested heavily in hardware to get it to well, perform. The question that I asked was simple, given the work that the Prepar3D team has done, is the product performing reasonably well. Obviously, running well means different thing to different people, if I turn down level of details and so on it will perform!



The bottom line is that what kind of performance Prepar3D will bring? If the software is better and is continued to be supported, then I would want to invest in a 500$ licence. It is still cheaper than the kind of money I see people spent on hardware to get FSX to perform IMHO.



Vu




The idea of using Prepar3D in an attempt to have an equivalent of FSX run in a high fidelity mode at high frame rates, whilst saving money on hardware versus FSX, doesn't make sense to me, in that FSX when it was first introduced could run reasonably well, though not with both high detail and high frame rates combined, with what was then an expensive high end but not of the range crazy money AMD Athlon Dual Core processor, a mid range graphics card, 4 Gigabyes of standard RAM and a good quality hard-drive, with modest over-clocking or no over-clocking of the processor. Since then, one has seen the introduction of the Quad Core Conroe, a single core of which is much more capable than a single core of even the top of the range crazy money AMD Athlon dual cores of the time of the FSX release.


Return to “Miscellaneous”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests