johnclift Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 I never got used to glass screens in FSX. They slowed everything down so much. Glass screens in 2020 aren't a problem at all. And I have only a medium system. Runs great. Even at 120 kt at 500ft. The program tells me I haven't got an adequate system to run it, I run it fine. I am set on medium settings. It looks awesome enough for me that's for sure. Can't take my eyes off it. Win 10 Home 64 bit. i7-3770 16Mb RAM GTX 670 (very slightly overclocked). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnclift Posted August 21, 2020 Author Share Posted August 21, 2020 Be prepared for a 16 hour download though ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEIRascal Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 I am about 18% done at 45 minutes from start. I think I will be about 4 hours, maybe a little longer. Hal Alienware Aurora R13, I7-12700KF, 16g DDR5 4400 memory, 256g NVMe boot drive, 1 - 2t NVMe m.2 drive for Apps, 2 - 1t SSD for Data, GeForce RTX 3080 TI 12g, Windows 11 Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiloWatt Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 16MB ram, eh? This is one optimized game... (Sorry, couldn't help myself :-P) Ryzen 5 3600X, 16 GB 3733 MTs RAM, Radeon RX5700 OC, 2560 x 1080 Ultrawide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnclift Posted August 22, 2020 Author Share Posted August 22, 2020 16MB ram, eh? This is one optimized game... (Sorry, couldn't help myself :-P) My son just pointed out that this is probably 16Gb. Sorry. I am new to such capacities, when I first got my Commodore 64 it had 2 Mb of RAM. And that was more than the combined capacity of my local council at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugdozer Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 My son just pointed out that this is probably 16Gb. Sorry. I am new to such capacities, when I first got my Commodore 64 it had 2 Mb of RAM. And that was more than the combined capacity of my local council at the time. 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. I love the smell of napalm on my cornflakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnclift Posted August 22, 2020 Author Share Posted August 22, 2020 Yeah your probably right. Long time ago now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babyboomerboy Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 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. If you wanted to run any game or in my case a Bulletin Board, you needed an external hard drive. That really gave you a lot of memory because each floppy (5 1/4") held 170K ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiloWatt Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Haha, I hear you. In comparison, I guess I'm quite young. My first computer was a Pentium 1, with something like 12MB ram and a whopping 750MB (ish) hdd. That computer started a long and proud tradition of my computers running FS badly (FS95, in that case). My current one, eager to continue the tradition, won't be any different as it's barely above the minimum spec. I'd be quite pleased if I get 20 fps (not even kidding). Ryzen 5 3600X, 16 GB 3733 MTs RAM, Radeon RX5700 OC, 2560 x 1080 Ultrawide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnclift Posted August 23, 2020 Author Share Posted August 23, 2020 Haha, I hear you. In comparison, I guess I'm quite young. My first computer was a Pentium 1, with something like 12MB ram and a whopping 750MB (ish) hdd. That computer started a long and proud tradition of my computers running FS badly (FS95, in that case). My current one, eager to continue the tradition, won't be any different as it's barely above the minimum spec. I'd be quite pleased if I get 20 fps (not even kidding). LOL. You're a funny guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugdozer Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 Haha, I hear you. In comparison, I guess I'm quite young. My first computer was a Pentium 1, with something like 12MB ram and a whopping 750MB (ish) hdd. That computer started a long and proud tradition of my computers running FS badly (FS95, in that case). My current one, eager to continue the tradition, won't be any different as it's barely above the minimum spec. I'd be quite pleased if I get 20 fps (not even kidding). 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. I love the smell of napalm on my cornflakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsfanforever Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 It does run much better than FSX, Kennedy International with much better frame rates on 1440. Love this simulator, it's Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiloWatt Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) I've seen people say this, but I assume there are some caveats. For example, I'm sure FS2020 with every single setting on minimim and 640x480 resolution runs better than than FSX on 4k with every setting turned up to 11. But that's a meaningless comparison. So does your statement mean like-for-like settings? And does like-for-like settings even give the same visual fidelity (I.e. an fsx scenery complexity setting on high may look like a fs2020 scenery complexity setting on medium)? So could you please give us some more context about what you mean by "runs better than FSX"? Edit: I also have to add that I disagree when people say even low settings look great. Nearby buildings look like mud structures and far-off buildings look like alien prism towers. I find this quite distracting. Edited August 23, 2020 by KiloWatt Ryzen 5 3600X, 16 GB 3733 MTs RAM, Radeon RX5700 OC, 2560 x 1080 Ultrawide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsfanforever Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 Runs much better 20 or better FPS better for me on same system. I run an I7 8900K, GTX 1080ti, 32GB DDR4 Ram, 31" 1440 monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob5568p Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 Have to report far better performance from the new sim. I always saw som artifact in fax and more in complex scenery areas. In Msfs 2020, it's been smooth as silk with settings just below ultra. Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now