bugdozer

Or no, depending on whether your post is correct or the one above it. The ACTUAL answer is "it's impossible to know because people are not getting consistent results from adding more memory."

Lots of people have reported Zendesk works intermittently at best. The whole process is designed to make it a total chore to use in order to put off all but the most determined bug reporters.

Ladies and gentlemen, a perfect example of how this question cannot be given a definitive answer.

I can't even play it at the moment (turns out due to hardware issue) and I am not even thinking of getting a refund. I know one day soon I will upgrade my hardware, MS will fix the major bugs, it takes time but we'll see it. They have too much to lose if they don't. Give it a chance.

I think I win in the primitive Flight Sim stakes. Sinclair Spectrum, 48k, flying the Melbourne House flight simulator. Still got higher frame rates than some people are reporting for FS2020.

The Commodore 64 had 64k (that's kilobytes) of RAM, which is why it was called the Commodore 64 and not the Commodore 2000, which is what it would have been if it it had 2Mb. I think you are mistaken.

It gets to the loading screen with the back view of the Cessna over the Alps and then crashes about 5 seconds after that appears. I have seen at least 3 other users on Reddit reporting a crash at the exact same point.

I just installed this from disk, it then downloaded 16gb of updates, then took me through control set up with my joystick, preliminary graphics settings, then a loading screen with a blue bar increasing underneath. Halfway along this bar's progress, it crashes to desktop. I have tried restarting, and it always does the same thing (except without giving me the initial set up options). I don't even get as far as the screen to select an aircraft or location etc. Any help?

Obsidian Ant has now put up a video showing exactly what happens on a low spec PC, which is pretty enlightening.

I am not going to part with that much cash to get airports I might never fly to or planes that don't interest me. I spend very little time at airports in flight sims, and I can't tell if they are accurate or not, so it doesn't feel like I am missing out.

I have actually found a video now that does some comparison with different settings on lower end specs.

Thank you Plainsman for your link. Kapitan, I wasn't asking what would be the main priority in terms of performance affect. I was curious to see what the whole combined low spec definition from Microsoft looked like. However, as others have indicated, it's a self selecting sample at the moment with the only flyers generally being those with nuclear powered gaming rigs. And I can't stay with FSX because I'm one of those Windows 10 users who can't make it function. So for me at the moment, even FS2020 on its lowest settings with a poor frame rate is likely to be an improvement.

I do hope you objected this vehemently to people referring to "FS9" then, which isn't called that either...

I understand that. I'm talking about the minimum specs as referred to by Microsoft, which covers things like processor power, system RAM, graphics memory etc. Get a computer that at least approximates those specs to do a test on, and put a video up showing what it's like. I'm aware that the separate components cannot be entirely separated in terms of contribution to performance, but it would be helpful for someone whose specs are close to what's given. For example, someone with a computer with close to the minimum specs but with a much more powerful CPU could reasonably guess that they'd see better than minimum performance. Nobody is asking for an exact framerate count to be predicted or anything, just ballpark. Or does nobody have ANY curiosity for how FS2020 will run on anything less than a top-whack machine?

Did you read my post?