View Full Version : See the most comprehensive coverage of FSX on the planet
01-05-2006, 12:03 AM
No other media has more detailed coverage of FSX than FlightSim.Com. 34 screenshots (more than any other FS site), commentary and analysis by Andrew Herd, Nels Anderson and yours truly. You won't find more on FSX anywhere else.
Check out the full story here:
Watch for FSX videos coming soon the the Flightsim Cineplex at http://cineplex.flightsim.com
01-05-2006, 01:41 AM
Look at the water... *drool*
01-05-2006, 02:57 AM
Wow, look at the scenery.
01-05-2006, 11:12 AM
Stunning! Simply stunning! It will be hard to wait one more year...
On the other hand, it gives more time to save money for a new comupter! :)
01-05-2006, 06:05 PM
Wow, look at those graphics.
Looks like the same graphics engine since FS2000, groundbreaking!
Unless you have some insider information (or a very good crystal ball) I think you need to rethink the hardware recommendation section. The fact is we have no idea what the requirements will be for FSX and I find the recommendations you make misleading at best and possibly totally wrong. You've ignored AMD, assumed that HT will both work and be beneficial, decided that PCIE will suddenly dramatically surpass AGP, assumed that 1GB physical RAM is marginal, somehow made a RAID array a gaming must, etc, etc. And, none of those recommendations is going to make "a spectacular improvement" in FS2004 for anyone whose present system is a reasonably satisfactory performer.
Anyone who would buy hardware based an what we now know and those recommendations could well be making a very expensive mistake.
I'm kinda wondering about the hardware recommendations too. It's very heavy on the Intel side, even though the Pentium CPUs are having trouble keeping up with the Athlons. Now Intel's next generationg of processors (Yonah, Monroe and Cerom to start with) look much better and will finally give AMD a run for their money, but they are only now starting to show up. AMD is movng to DDR2 this year so they're not sitting around either. Which ever company you go with, waiting until FSX is out will probably do you better.
Also, in every review I have seen, including one done by a forum member here, RAID 0 has only shown a 10-15% performance boost for games. Nothing anywhere near a 50% boost.
The screenshots do look nice, but I can't wait to actually here some details about the internals of the program. Things like does it support 64 bit processing? What about dual core support?
01-06-2006, 07:17 PM
Did not say RAID 0. Please read it again more carefully. We wrote in general terms about RAID and were specifrically referring to RAID 1 which is optimized for gaming performance. Most readers do not know the difference and this was an article about FSX, not the merits of RAID for flightsiming. That will come later.
As you may already know, RAID 0, is like a big drive with two heads. This does make HD access faster. Not going to get into it with you about how much faster. Faster is faster. However, some use RAID 1 which is like 2 drives with all the same info. This is where you get the performance pop approaching 50%. Also, if you have a disk crash, you simply take out the bad drive, put in a new drive and auto rebuild for a fast, painless system recovery. When a RAID 0 drive goes bad, you are SOL and would have to start from scratch.
Also, we did not snub AMD. AND WE NEVER HAVE! I really am tiring of repeatedly pointing this out.
We gave an AMD-64 Aurora system from Alienware our Top Gun rating in a review. And, yes, we are aware that AMD-64 Atlon is smoking Intel Pentium 4 now on raw performance comparison. Athlons have an internal CPU memory bus (hyper transport) which is not limited like the Intel FSB. Intel's processors have to interact via the FSB. However, we do have an excellent crystal ball plus a direct hotline to The Almighty and are looking beyond the horizon to the brave new Windows Vista world. Any more than that, I am restricted by NDA from revealing. You sound like a savvy guy who can connect the dots.
Since Dell is using only Intel processors, you can't buy an Athlon system from them if you wanted to. Dell is our top recommendation for gaming systems right now on a pure price-performance-support-brand basis. Alienware comes up a distant second as a gaming PC companty that offers excellent value and decent tech support. That's why we gave the Athlon 64 Aurora Top Gun status. But, this was not a hardware article and the mass market of flightsimmers will probably be buying Dell as they already have in the past. Cogito, ergo sum.
01-07-2006, 09:22 AM
>But, this was not a hardware article
>and the mass market of flightsimmers will probably be buying
>Dell as they already have in the past. Cogito, ergo sum.
I'll be updating my system soon and was suprised to see that the "mass market of flightsimmers will be buying Dell." I'm not at all questioning that statement, but I've never considered Dell before and, after being in flight simming since the Commodore days, was suprised to hear that Dell was the system of choice.
I typically upgrade my "no name box" until it has passed its useful stage which is were I am now. While I'm seriously considering a number of custom builders such as Puget and Monarch, I have not looked closely at Dell or any other name brand....maybe I have been wrong in that?
I've also always had AMD's, but if there is something on the horizon from Intel that is better, we'll see. My plan is to wait until Vista is released before doing anything. So, there's time to do research and to see what develops.
01-08-2006, 01:29 PM
people seriously buy Dells as a gaming machine? in the UK serious hardware review magazines always rate other machines much higher than Dell, who get solid marks but always lose out somewhere. in my experience Dell is great for business use and non-savvy users, but others should be looking elsewhere to get the most bang for their buck.
01-09-2006, 02:20 AM
CAP, you stated the following:
"RAID 1 which is optimized for gaming performance."
Where did you get your information about RAID 1 being optimized for gaming?
I in no way want to start an argument over RAID. I just want to point out what I know and can document because I think your statement is incorrect.
Here are some characteristics of a RAID 1 array...One Write or two Reads possible per mirrored pair. Twice the Read transaction rate of single disks, same Write transaction rate as single disks.
Here is a disadvantage of a RAID 1 array...Highest disk overhead of all RAID types (100%) - inefficient.
Recommended applications are accounting, payroll, and financial applications.
RAID 0 on the other hand has the advantage of the I/O performance being greatly improved by spreading the I/O load across many channels and drives. It is recommended for applications such as video production and editing, image editing, and any application requiring high bandwidth.
That being said, RAID 0 is the choice for gaming, not RAID 1 as you stated.
My information can be found here: http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html
01-17-2006, 12:57 AM
It was an unfortunate typo. I meant RAID0 for performance and RAID 1 for mirroring and easy recovery. Sorry about that.
Hi, my only real disagreement with the FSX artical/comentary is the part about gearing up early. Take a more disciplined approach, and instead of gearing up early, SAVE up early, then buy what you need when the prices are 30-40% lower on the same stuff you would buy now, plus use the time to research hardware until you know your future rig inside and out before you even build it.
There's a lot going on right now with dual core cpu's, ddr2 ram, etc. You need to learn what is best compatible with what, and which technologies and even which brands compliment eachother.
01-18-2006, 06:58 PM
very well put kc10. I was going to gear up early and then figured he!! I might as well save early and get it after a few months after the debut so i know what best to get and save some $ as well!
01-23-2006, 10:10 PM
I absolutely agree. I can't imagine why anyone would put together a new system now for FSX. A year from now, that top of the line system you buy today for top dollar will be sucking wind compared with the new stuff that just came out. And the stuff you paid top dollar for now, will be nicely discounted by then. I'm going to start saving up for that new system and doing my research. By the time "the holiday season" approaches, I'll be ready (and hopely more well informed about what FSX will appreciate) to put together my new system.
03-06-2006, 02:41 PM
I have to agree, AMD was snubbed in this review of FSX, the review mentions "Intel" "Intel" "Intel". I just built a new AMD x2 (dual core) with all the latest whistles and bells, and I have to say it completely blows away anything Intel has to offer. Funny this midrange AMD machine even beats Intel Extreme edition and the new Intel "D" (dual core can't hold a stick to AMD). By the way this is the first AMD I have ever built, I was an "Intel" guy, but after much thought and research I thought I would give AMD a try, I can say that at this point I will most likely never go back, AMD's price and performace is just too GOOOOOOOD! Also would like to mention (I have not searched the threads...sorry in case this is redundant)but Dell will now be building AMD machines due to customer demand, so now you can recommend Dell & AMD. I disagree that most simmers have Dells anyway...Most home computers come from retail stores such as Best Buy, CompUSA etc, which offer many choices for Intel or AMD. I must also mention that everything I have researched says that AMD will scream on the new Vista platform, I doubt that Microsoft would exclude AMD from running correctly on their new OS, as even Dell is starting to see the light! Anyway other than the serious plug for Intel, the article was great! I will be sure to checkin after the release of FSX and Vista to report my findings, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will be the first to recommend Intel if this is the case. My wife is using my old Intel machine with a 3.2 p4, 1gig ram, 6800gt video card, which still screams with alll of the latest games to date, so I will have an average Intel machine to compare to the new AMD.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.