So, just wondering. Do you think computers will be able to run FSX with all settings max and 60 fps in 5-10 years?
have you seen Moore's Law?
According to him, computers 5-10 years from now will be 8-16x faster then they are now.
AFAIK top computers now a-days are able to run FSX full settings at ~60 FPS. 5-10 years from now, that kinda hardware would be the cheap $30 graphics cards we see today. By then though, FSX will be updated to like FS 11 (or whatever they name it)
Yeah, but what kind of computer today can do it? Liquid cooled quad core and quad sli? And I thought they're not making any more new FS's?
computing technology seems to double in power every 3 years or so,
Note that that chart includes both GPUs and CPUs, and the CPU clock makes a huge difference. This is why my i7 920 wasn't a great buy for FSX: With the relatively low clock rate, even with multiple cores, it just doesn't perform as well as a previous-generation quad (or even dual!) of a higher clock rate would.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-upgrade,1928-10.html
Check out this FPS comparison review of FSX.
I think anything above 40 is acceptable since right now I am running at about ~20 with med-low settings.
So by that chart, a GeForce 9800GTX $130 graphics card looks like it will do the trick. Now I just need a desktop...
It does take a powerful machine to run FSX with the settings at max, but they are out there.Yeah, but what kind of computer today can do it? Liquid cooled quad core and quad sli? And I thought they're not making any more new FS's?
As for no more FS's... If Microsoft won't make them, someone else will.
I disagree. At this point the Aerosoft Flight Sim is nothing but words on a page.Yes: Aerosoft Flight simulator 2012 is the most likeliest project for now.
http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=29444
I disagree. At this point the Aerosoft Flight Sim is nothing but words on a page.
If X-Plane can manage to step up to the plate and get to the point where FS already was six years ago, then X-Plane will take the lead. However, they've shown no signs of increasing usability or adding the noticeably absent features.
Dude, you do realise that X-Plane is used in full-motion aircraft simulators and that said simulators can have full FAA certification. Also: X-Plane works on platforms other than MS Windows (Did MSFS EVER have a mobile version, or support mac and linux?). X-Plane also makes use of the Blade Element Theory, which means that aerodynamic properties are derived from the mesh, and not a config file (However jet thrust, engine placement and piston engine power still need to be done manually AFAIK! For more see http://www.x-plane.com/pg_Inside_X-Plane.html ). Finally: the scenery and aircraft are so detailed that they need 6 dual-layer DVD's (the equivalent of about 12 single-layer DVD's!) to hold everything! I could go on, but I ran out of breath! :download:If X-Plane can manage to step up to the plate and get to the point where FS already was six years ago...
Dude, you do realise that X-Plane is used in full-motion aircraft simulators and that said simulators can have full FAA certification. Also: X-Plane works on platforms other than MS Windows (Did MSFS EVER have a mobile version, or support mac and linux?). X-Plane also makes use of the Blade Element Theory, which means that aerodynamic properties are derived from the mesh, and not a config file (However jet thrust, engine placement and piston engine power still need to be done manually AFAIK! For more see http://www.x-plane.com/pg_Inside_X-Plane.html ).
And your point is? AFAIR, FSX also has the "Basic Advanced Training Device" and "Advanced Training Device" certifications with the right hardware.
And the blade element theory means not that the aerodynamic properties are defined in the mesh, but that they are calculated as sum of single airfoil/blade properties. Orbiter can do the same, doesn't make things automatically realistic. FSX or Flightgear are actually more realistic because they get the side-effects of each "airfoil" better calculated, by using more previously calculated data.
That it can with good computers only do such calculations "15 times per second" is also no sign of automatic realism. It only means that the calculations must be only a very tiny subset of the time step. The numeric accuracy of the dynamic aspects of flight will at such low cycle times be pretty low.
Sorry, but you are victim of a typical illness of flight simulation fans. Apparent realism. What you perceive as realism, is actually surrealism - a reality that is artificially wrong for giving you the feeling of realism.
You haven't covered the mac and linux support...
Dude, you do realise that X-Plane is used in full-motion aircraft simulators and that said simulators can have full FAA certification. Also: X-Plane works on platforms other than MS Windows (Did MSFS EVER have a mobile version, or support mac and linux?). X-Plane also makes use of the Blade Element Theory, which means that aerodynamic properties are derived from the mesh, and not a config file (However jet thrust, engine placement and piston engine power still need to be done manually AFAIK! For more see http://www.x-plane.com/pg_Inside_X-Plane.html ). Finally: the scenery and aircraft are so detailed that they need 6 dual-layer DVD's (the equivalent of about 12 single-layer DVD's!) to hold everything! I could go on, but I ran out of breath! :download:
EDIT: I got my breath back, and I think I might let this do the talking
...
Funny thing is that, at least with the default aircraft, the flight model isn't 100% realistic. As a lab project in one of my classes we calculated the glide ratio of a 747 and used FS2004 to test the results. The numbers we got in the sim didn't match what we calculated at all. It's still realistic enough for most cases though.
X-Plane would have been more realistic for that test
Yeah, but what kind of computer today can do it? Liquid cooled quad core and quad sli? And I thought they're not making any more new FS's?