MSFS X impressions

[Robert M. Gary]

I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
underwhelmed.
First, I would recommend having it installed. I wasted almost an entire
day installing it. The installation is very, very difficult. First,
there are 2 DVDs. I put both into the computer. After about an hour I
noticed it had stopped. It was looking for the 2nd DVD. Apprently both
DVDs must be in the same drive (you must switch) it will not look for
the 2nd DVD.
Then it tries to activate but MS's activiation server does not yet
work. They first had be do a complete uninstall and reinstall. That
look about 3 hours. When that didn't work they had me do a bunch of
stuff to the registry. This is all on a newish higher end Dell computer
with DSL.
Finally MS bounced me around to 6 people on one call until they got me
to someone who said I must do the activation at the same time she
authroizes it. Apparently you can't activate the software w/o being on
the phone.

So after all that I finally brought it up. First, it takes forever to
start. My system is almost twice what MS recommends but it still
requires more than a bathroom break to start. Once its up, I can't see
much difference vs. MS FS 2000. Nothing really seems any different.
I took the Mooney up to spin it. It took awhile but it finally seemed
to enter what appeared to be a spin. However, the airspeed indicator
was bouncing around a lot, as high as 100 mph, not what I'd expect in a
spin. Since no one has ever spun a Mooney more than the one turn the
FAA did I'm not sure what proper behavior is but I'd not expect to gain
airspeed.

So, I probably wouldn't buy it again, but if I did, I'd pay the $50 to
have the Geek guys at BestBuy do the installation professionally. I
easily spent many times that in my time.

-Robert

[Buck Murdock]

All that work just to *install* the damn thing? So onerous that you're
seriously considering PAYING someone just to install it?

Good lord, why do people put up with Microsoft's BS?

[Jay Honeck]

> I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
> sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
> underwhelmed.

You're not alone. Check out alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim to see many
opinions on FSX -- most of them not good.

FSX does run on our new "uber-Computer" (for our Kiwi flight sim), but
suffice it to say that I'm sticking with FS 2004 (AKA: FS9) for now, at
least until Microsoft releases a patch or some configuration
work-arounds.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
>> sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
>> underwhelmed.
>
> You're not alone. Check out alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim to see many
> opinions on FSX -- most of them not good.
>
> FSX does run on our new "uber-Computer" (for our Kiwi flight sim), but
> suffice it to say that I'm sticking with FS 2004 (AKA: FS9) for now, at
> least until Microsoft releases a patch or some configuration
> work-arounds.

FWIW, the SDK was just recently released, as well as an
'update' of sorts. The DirectX 10 patch for it will not be made
available until Q2 2007, because of lack of hardware and various other
reasons. That has been documented on many forums and developer blogs.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFmf2MyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhbMAKDesVZCVHQTWsABFhdHmT z9PiryxgCfQuBj
WmwXuDZkCCw2k41s5MTmR9Q=
=x3Y5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Blanche]

I, too, spent the money for MSFS X (fortunately, slightly cheaper
at Costco). Spent far too much time doing the install -- but then
what do you expect with a Microsoft product? Didn't like the
poor performance. Removed it. Found a copy of MSFS 2004 for $9
at one of the Big Box Computer Stores.

[The Old Bloke]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
> sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
> underwhelmed.
> First, I would recommend having it installed. I wasted almost an entire
> day installing it. The installation is very, very difficult. First,
> there are 2 DVDs. I put both into the computer. After about an hour I
> noticed it had stopped. It was looking for the 2nd DVD. Apprently both
> DVDs must be in the same drive (you must switch) it will not look for
> the 2nd DVD.
> Then it tries to activate but MS's activiation server does not yet
> work.

*Yes it does.

>They first had be do a complete uninstall and reinstall. That
> look about 3 hours. When that didn't work they had me do a bunch of
> stuff to the registry. This is all on a newish higher end Dell computer
> with DSL.
> Finally MS bounced me around to 6 people on one call until they got me
> to someone who said I must do the activation at the same time she
> authroizes it. Apparently you can't activate the software w/o being on
> the phone.


*No, that's not correct. Installation was smooth for me and the activation
occurred automatically on line, with no phone needed.

>
> So after all that I finally brought it up. First, it takes forever to
> start. My system is almost twice what MS recommends but it still
> requires more than a bathroom break to start. Once its up, I can't see
> much difference vs. MS FS 2000. Nothing really seems any different.
> I took the Mooney up to spin it. It took awhile but it finally seemed
> to enter what appeared to be a spin. However, the airspeed indicator
> was bouncing around a lot, as high as 100 mph, not what I'd expect in a
> spin. Since no one has ever spun a Mooney more than the one turn the
> FAA did I'm not sure what proper behavior is but I'd not expect to gain
> airspeed.

*It needs an extremely fast PC, probably faster than what's been yet made.
>
> So, I probably wouldn't buy it again, but if I did, I'd pay the $50 to
> have the Geek guys at BestBuy do the installation professionally. I
> easily spent many times that in my time.

*All the people I know have not had a problem with installation. The first
two installations are activated on line. Subsequent installations need a
phone up. like XP. Not sure why you had such a problem.

But I agree. For now the previous version, FS2004, is better.
>
> -Robert
>

[John T]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com
>
> First, I would recommend having it installed. I wasted almost an
> entire day installing it. The installation is very, very difficult.

This statement should be modified with something like "...very difficult
[for me]." I've heard of few installation problems (other than taking a
while to load the many GB's of data onto the local hard drive). Installation
and activation went very smoothly for me.


FWIW, my specs are:
CPU - Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 @ 2.66GHz
RAM - 2 GB
HDD - SATA @ 7200 RPM
Video - nVidia GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB

> So after all that I finally brought it up. First, it takes forever to
> start. My system is almost twice what MS recommends but it still
> requires more than a bathroom break to start.

Yes, it does take longer than FS9 to launch, but not enough for me to get
frustrated. It might be good to set up a default flight to use real-world
weather from your home field, then surf over to your favorite briefing site
to review the weather while FSX loads. :)

> Once its up, I can't see much difference vs. MS FS 2000. Nothing
> really seems any different.

Can't argue that point. The only differences I have seen between FS9 and FSX
are little things like slightly more accurate landscapes, traffic running on
the highways (OK, maybe the roads are a bit more accurate), and ATC that is
more "human".

It was many reports like yours that gave me significant pause in purchasing
FSX, but it turns out my trepidation was unwarranted. I've turned all
display settings to High with a target frame rate of 20 and the worse
volatility I've noticed was a very momentary drop to 16 fps (press "shift-Z"
a few times to display your fps). That's not enough for me to have noticed
any "stutter".

So far, I'm not disappointed to have bought the game (especially since I
couldn't locate my FS9 discs recently), but I also don't see a compelling
reason to upgrade from FS9.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Jay Honeck]

> It was many reports like yours that gave me significant pause in purchasing
> FSX, but it turns out my trepidation was unwarranted. I've turned all
> display settings to High with a target frame rate of 20 and the worse
> volatility I've noticed was a very momentary drop to 16 fps (press "shift-Z"
> a few times to display your fps). That's not enough for me to have noticed
> any "stutter".

On the Kiwi, with its 104" screen, 20 FPS is absolutely awful. Sadly,
I've seen FSX drop below that for a moment or two, so it's really not
usable in every flight regime.

I've found that 30 FPS is the minimum for realistic landings, and 50
FPS is the minimum for realistic formation flying. In FS9 I've got
the Kiwi "locked" at 55 FPS, which results in an absolutely perfect
rendition of flight, with instantaneous control input/reaction.

If I set the realism a bit lower in FSX, it is acceptable. This allows
us to fly the cool new aircraft and "missions", which are quite fun.
However, for realism, we'll be sticking to FS9 until Microsoft figures
out a way to make FSX run faster.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steve Foley]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> However, for realism, we'll be sticking to FS9 until Microsoft figures
> out a way to make FSX run faster.

Sounds like they're getting better with the aviation simulation.

Wanna go faster? Just add cash!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay you have to add this to the Kiwi.

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com
>
> On the Kiwi, with its 104" screen, 20 FPS is absolutely awful. Sadly,
> I've seen FSX drop below that for a moment or two, so it's really not
> usable in every flight regime.

I'm still experimenting to find the breaking point on my system and haven't
tried setting a higher target fps, yet. Also, I'm running it on a much
smaller screen so lower fps values are more tolerable. :)

What are the specs for the Kiwi (CPU, RAM, video)? I don't see them on your
Kiwi home page.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay you have to add this to the Kiwi.
>
> http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/

I know -- isn't that cool?

I may add it, eventually, to our Kiwi . But, for the time being,
remember the Kiwi is a prototype of several more that we want to
install at the Iowa Children's Musuem. As such, we're trying to
evaluate different aspects of the design for use in a museum setting,
with no one "running" it, and kids jumping on it.

The TrackIR would last about two minutes in the hands of a five year
old. Thus, they're not going to be considered at this time.

But when we're done evaluating... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Stan Singer]

On 1 Jan 2007 20:14:30 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
>sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
>underwhelmed.

How much disk space does it require once installed. As I recollect when I saw it in the store it
said 15GB, but I couldn't tell if that was just required for the install process, or that was the
minimum for the final installed product.

Stan

[Jay Honeck]

> What are the specs for the Kiwi (CPU, RAM, video)? I don't see them on your
> Kiwi home page.

Funny you should ask -- I just wrote this page, this morning:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RomeoMike]

I don't know, but I downloaded the demo, and that alone was almost 1.5 GB.

Stan Singer wrote:

> How much disk space does it require once installed. As I recollect when I saw it in the store it
> said 15GB, but I couldn't tell if that was just required for the install process, or that was the
> minimum for the final installed product.
>
> Stan

[R. Gardner]

From my old days in USAF Flight Sim, 30 FPS is as slow as you can go and not
see the flicker or effect, some can even pick it up here.

I installed it on a system for a local CAP unit, my first impression is that
it is an absolute system hog, and I will stick with FS2004, even though I
now have a to end duel core AMD with a near to end graphic card. I can't
imagine it will be enough to run it the way I would like to see it.

Since it was designed for the new Vista I wonder if that might help? I am
not going to waste the money to see, MS has burned to meny people with there
poorly designed programs....

Ron Gardner

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> It was many reports like yours that gave me significant pause in
>> purchasing
>> FSX, but it turns out my trepidation was unwarranted. I've turned all
>> display settings to High with a target frame rate of 20 and the worse
>> volatility I've noticed was a very momentary drop to 16 fps (press
>> "shift-Z"
>> a few times to display your fps). That's not enough for me to have
>> noticed
>> any "stutter".
>
> On the Kiwi, with its 104" screen, 20 FPS is absolutely awful. Sadly,
> I've seen FSX drop below that for a moment or two, so it's really not
> usable in every flight regime.
>
> I've found that 30 FPS is the minimum for realistic landings, and 50
> FPS is the minimum for realistic formation flying. In FS9 I've got
> the Kiwi "locked" at 55 FPS, which results in an absolutely perfect
> rendition of flight, with instantaneous control input/reaction.
>
> If I set the realism a bit lower in FSX, it is acceptable. This allows
> us to fly the cool new aircraft and "missions", which are quite fun.
> However, for realism, we'll be sticking to FS9 until Microsoft figures
> out a way to make FSX run faster.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com
>
> Funny you should ask -- I just wrote this page, this morning:
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm

Coupla questions:
1. How much memory on your video card?
2. Do you have a pic of the "instrument panel" in bright light? I'm
interested in how you attached it to the frame.
3. Do you have casters or wheels on the rig to make it easy to put away?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[John T]

"Stan Singer" > wrote in message

>
> How much disk space does it require once installed. As I recollect
> when I saw it in the store it said 15GB, but I couldn't tell if that
> was just required for the install process, or that was the minimum
> for the final installed product.

The full install on my system ("Standard Edition") is 12.7 GB.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[john smith]

John T wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com
>
>
>>Funny you should ask -- I just wrote this page, this morning:
>>
>>http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm
>>
>>
>
>Coupla questions:
>1. How much memory on your video card?
>2. Do you have a pic of the "instrument panel" in bright light? I'm
>interested in how you attached it to the frame.
>3. Do you have casters or wheels on the rig to make it easy to put away?
>


Q: Is there a memory limit as to how much RAM Windows XP will use?

ie: The specs on my computer say "up to 2GB". It came with 2x256 (512mb)
and I just purchased 2x1GB and installed them. The computer says that it
has 2.49GB RAM, but will it actually access that additional 0.5GB and be
able to use it?

[Jay Honeck]

> Coupla questions:
> 1. How much memory on your video card?

Hmmmm... I seem to have omitted that important detail. The video card
is 512 MB.

> 2. Do you have a pic of the "instrument panel" in bright light? I'm
> interested in how you attached it to the frame.

Right now it's sitting on a plastic patio table. My A&P is working on
creating a bracket for the monitor that will bolt to the Kiwi's frame
-- but he's been too busy with real work lately. He's recovering a
couple of Taylorcraft, and has just put the wings on his homebuilt P6
Hawk replica -- so he hasn't been able to fire up the torch.

> 3. Do you have casters or wheels on the rig to make it easy to put away?

Yep. The whole contraption can be wheeled like a wheel-barrow whenever
we actually have a meeting in the meeting room.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
>I don't know, but I downloaded the demo, and that alone was almost 1.5 GB.
>
> Stan Singer wrote:
>
>> How much disk space does it require once installed. As I recollect when I
>> saw it in the store it
>> said 15GB, but I couldn't tell if that was just required for the install
>> process, or that was the
>> minimum for the final installed product.
>>
>> Stan

The demo had only a fraction of the landscape and if I remember correctly
only 2 aircraft.

[RomeoMike]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> The demo had only a fraction of the landscape and if I remember correctly
> only 2 aircraft.
>


Correct.

[John T]

"john smith" > wrote in message

>
> Q: Is there a memory limit as to how much RAM Windows XP will use?
>
> ie: The specs on my computer say "up to 2GB". It came with 2x256
> (512mb) and I just purchased 2x1GB and installed them. The computer
> says that it has 2.49GB RAM, but will it actually access that
> additional 0.5GB and be able to use it?

Generally, if the PC recognizes the RAM, it should be able to use it. Be
aware, though, not all memory is compatible. If you have memory using
different clock cycles, for example, you may experience instability. Also,
if you get memory that is too slow or too fast for your system, instability
may result.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[The Old Bloke]

"Stan Singer" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 Jan 2007 20:14:30 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>>I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
>>sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
>>underwhelmed.
>
> How much disk space does it require once installed. As I recollect when I
> saw it in the store it
> said 15GB, but I couldn't tell if that was just required for the install
> process, or that was the
> minimum for the final installed product.
>
> Stan
..
My FSX program files folder is 13G. And there will be some more elsewhere.

[Chris Wells]

When I was at the Niagara Aerospace Museum, I finally got the change to try FSX, in a nifty "cockpit mockup"...I was impressed at the better quality of the landscape, and seeing the traffic moving along the roads. That was it. I'd already heard that the flight physics were pretty much unchanged from FS 2004, and an attempt at a spin pretty much verified that.

I wish Ubisoft would make a flight simulator using the engine from Sturmovik...that would kick some serious behind.

[Anno v. Heimburg]

John T wrote:

> Generally, if the PC recognizes the RAM, it should be able to use it.

Well, yes an no. Windows XP in its standard incarnation is able to manage up
to 4GB of RAM, however, it will assign a maximum of only 2GB to a single
application. So, if you only run one memory-hungry app at a time, more than
2GB won't do much for you.

Anno.

[Peter Duniho]

"Anno v. Heimburg" > wrote in message
...
>> Generally, if the PC recognizes the RAM, it should be able to use it.
>
> Well, yes an no. Windows XP in its standard incarnation is able to manage
> up
> to 4GB of RAM, however, it will assign a maximum of only 2GB to a single
> application. So, if you only run one memory-hungry app at a time, more
> than
> 2GB won't do much for you.

That's not true, for a couple of reasons.

First, there is a way to configure Windows to allow processes to use 3GB of
virtual address space, rather than just 2GB. This is done with a switch in
the boot.ini file (and may only be available on the server editions of
Windows...I don't recall if they added it to XP).

Secondly, the 2GB (or 3GB if enabled) per process limit is for the processes
*virtual* address space. It has little to do with the physical RAM in the
computer. It's true that any individual process still won't be able to
access all 3GB or 4GB of RAM if that's what you have installed; they will be
limited to 2GB. But a) in reality no process is ever going to be using a
full 2GB of *physical* RAM even if they have completely allocated their 2GB
quota of *virtual* memory, and b) the full amount of physical RAM is usable
by all the processes combined. So you could have three different processes,
all of which want 1GB of RAM, and they could all theoretically have all of
their data resident in physical RAM if 3GB or more of RAM is installed.

Of course, even there you run into the fact that lots of other processes
need some of their data resident in physical RAM in order to work as well.
The 1GB x 3 scenario is simply theoretical. But the fact is that having
more physical RAM can always provide a benefit, assuming you've got enough
processes to take advantage of it. You don't even need all of those
processes to be memory hungry. You just need enough other processes
competing with one memory hungry process (and Windows certainly has plenty
of other processes)...lower-footprint processes can all share what's left
over after the memory hungry process gets its chunk.

It's sort of like having multiple CPUs (multi-core, multi-package, whatever)
when you're playing a video game that has only one thread (which is nearly
all the video games so far). Sure, the one process that the game is in
doesn't get to directly take advantage of the extra CPUs, but because of the
extra CPU all the other processes on the computer don't wind up competing
with the game for one of the CPUs, and the game can still run somewhat
faster.

The bottom line: because of the fact that Windows has lots of processes that
generally have nothing to do with whatever your one (or few) memory-hungry
process is doing, having more than 2GB (or 3GB as appropriate) of physical
RAM can still be very useful, as it allows that one memory-hungry process to
not have to compete with all the other processes for the same physical RAM.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Generally, if the PC recognizes the RAM, it should be able to use it. Be
> aware, though, not all memory is compatible. If you have memory using
> different clock cycles, for example, you may experience instability. Also,
> if you get memory that is too slow or too fast for your system,
> instability may result.

I've never heard of memory that was rated *faster* causing incompatibility
problems. I guess I can't rule it out, but it would certainly surprise me.
I would guess that even when it *appears* that it's a case of the memory
being too fast, it may turn out to be actually related to access timings for
the memory being incompatible instead.

Of course, you're right that "too slow" is definitely an issue...all sorts
of bad things can happen if the RAM is rated slower than what the
motherboard is using it at (noting, of course, that on some motherboards the
memory controller can be underclocked to compensate for too-slow memory).

Also, on most motherboards, matching memory sticks (DIMMs, SIMMS, whatever
your computer is using) is mainly important when the sticks are on paired
channels. For dual-channel memory controllers, these are the pairs of
channels that run the sticks in parallel, and for other controllers, there
are still usually just pairs of slots that are dependent on each other. The
motherboard manual (or PC documentation, if it's a prebuilt system) will
generally describe the matching requirements. You can often get away with
unmatched memory, as long as the unmatched memory isn't paired up in
mutually-dependent memory slots.

Pete

[Anno v. Heimburg]

> Secondly, the 2GB (or 3GB if enabled) per process limit is for the
> processes
> *virtual* address space. It has little to do with the physical RAM in the
> computer.

Yes.

> It's true that any individual process still won't be able to
> access all 3GB or 4GB of RAM if that's what you have installed; they will
> be limited to 2GB.

Which is what I said.

> But a) in reality no process is ever going to be using a
> full 2GB of *physical* RAM even if they have completely allocated their
> 2GB quota of *virtual* memory,
> and b) the full amount of physical RAM is usable by all the processes
> combined.

Naturally, that's my point.

> But the fact is that having
> more physical RAM can always provide a benefit, assuming you've got enough
> processes to take advantage of it.

Right, assuming we have enough processes, but we are talking about a PC
doing little else but running MSFSX. I think I made the mistake of writing
as if I was talking about the general case, but really was talking about
dedicated MSFSX-gaming.

> You don't even need all of those
> processes to be memory hungry. You just need enough other processes
> competing with one memory hungry process (and Windows certainly has plenty
> of other processes)...lower-footprint processes can all share what's left
> over after the memory hungry process gets its chunk.

If all you're doing is running MSFSX, most of the windows-process-forest can
be paged out. More than 2GB/3GB of RAM will then not give you a much faster
MSFSX, it becomes a case of rapidly diminishing returns.

> Sure, the one process that the game is in
> doesn't get to directly take advantage of the extra CPUs, but because of
> the extra CPU all the other processes on the computer don't wind up
> competing with the game for one of the CPUs, and the game can still run
> somewhat faster.

Again, if all you're doing is running the game, the extra core will gain you
very little, because the rest isn't doing much. The second core will be
pretty bored. As soon as you're doing something else on the side, yes, I
agree wholheartedly, especially because the cache of the MSFSX-CPU stays
hot, but we are talking about a dedicated MSFSX-machine here.

Anno.

[Thomas Borchert]

Stan,

> or that was the
> minimum for the final installed product.
>

That's it. 15 Gig. Unbelievable!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[601XL Builder]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Stan,
>
>> or that was the
>> minimum for the final installed product.
>>
>
> That's it. 15 Gig. Unbelievable!
>

It really is considering I just checked and MSFS 2004 takes up just
2.67GB. I don't have MSFS-X but I do have the demo and it takes 1.21GB.

[Mxsmanic]

601XL Builder writes:

> It really is considering I just checked and MSFS 2004 takes up just
> 2.67GB.

Since 1 gigabyte is enough to hold almost two complete encyclopedias,
one must wonder exactly what the extra 13 gigabytes contain.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 20:14:30 -0800, Robert M. Gary wrote
(in article . com>):

> I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
> sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
> underwhelmed.

Eh, I have a MacBook Pro, so no MSFS. Even if I install Windows I probably
don't have the resources to run MSFS on a laptop. Now, if I had an eight core
Mac Pro with NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 and about 16Gb memory and Vista, well,
maybe I could run all the features on MSFS X. But so far my understanding is
that there are no computers capable of taking advantage of all the features
of this program, short of spending $10,000 on the above system. Or at least
that was the rumor I heard from a guy in Sun City who calls himself "The
Colonel." And if I had a system like that, you can bet it wouldn't be running
MSFS. I would be too busy playing with Aperture, Photoshop, Adobe Premiere,
Final Cut Studio and Shake.

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> Eh, I have a MacBook Pro, so no MSFS. Even if I install Windows I probably
> don't have the resources to run MSFS on a laptop. Now, if I had an eight core
> Mac Pro with NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 and about 16Gb memory and Vista, well,
> maybe I could run all the features on MSFS X. But so far my understanding is
> that there are no computers capable of taking advantage of all the features
> of this program, short of spending $10,000 on the above system. Or at least
> that was the rumor I heard from a guy in Sun City who calls himself "The
> Colonel." And if I had a system like that, you can bet it wouldn't be running
> MSFS. I would be too busy playing with Aperture, Photoshop, Adobe Premiere,
> Final Cut Studio and Shake.

You can always try running FS 2004. I've seen it run just fine on
laptops.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Skywise]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1167711270.750093.242860
@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

<Snipola>
> Then it tries to activate
<Snipola>

Oh well. Guess I won't be getting this program. I will not
willingly submit to this nazi-like crap of getting permission
from some corporation to wipe my ass. :)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 08:34:50 -0800, Mxsmanic wrote
(in article >):

> C J Campbell writes:
>
>> Eh, I have a MacBook Pro, so no MSFS. Even if I install Windows I probably
>> don't have the resources to run MSFS on a laptop. Now, if I had an eight
>> core
>> Mac Pro with NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 and about 16Gb memory and Vista, well,
>> maybe I could run all the features on MSFS X. But so far my understanding
>> is
>> that there are no computers capable of taking advantage of all the features
>> of this program, short of spending $10,000 on the above system. Or at least
>> that was the rumor I heard from a guy in Sun City who calls himself "The
>> Colonel." And if I had a system like that, you can bet it wouldn't be
>> running
>> MSFS. I would be too busy playing with Aperture, Photoshop, Adobe Premiere,
>> Final Cut Studio and Shake.
>
> You can always try running FS 2004. I've seen it run just fine on
> laptops.
>
>

So have I. But actually MSFS bores me to tears.

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> So have I. But actually MSFS bores me to tears.

Of course. My other plane is a 747.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-01-06, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Since 1 gigabyte is enough to hold almost two complete encyclopedias,
> one must wonder exactly what the extra 13 gigabytes contain.

It's not that hard to guess -- higher resolution scenery can account for
huge gobs of hard disk space.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de