Post by hanspetter on Aug 23, 2008 5:41:31 GMT -5
Since I got a new computer a lot of time has been spent re-installing applications. Since it's Vista this time several things have changed. Vista is heavy on security features that may get in the way but it hasn't stopped from doing what I want. The main thing is that you'll get warnings when you launch unknown / uncertified applications. From Vista's perspective even FS9 seems to be an unknown application. Most issues can be solved by right-clicking a program icon and assign administrator status to the operation. In fact, a lot of utilities are blocked under Vista unless you run them as administrator. Hopefully, the inconvienience of having to confirm or "force" the execution of programs will help me avoid malicious programs doing their thing in the background. The idea is sound -- nothing runs unless you really allow it to run. That's basically what a firewall does. However, unlike a firewall it seems impossible to make Vista approve good applications once and for all. I would have preferred to be able to list trusted applications and avoid future warnings.
The good part, I've got plenty of power and plenty of space. FS9 runs without any stuttering even with all sliders to the right. Previously I had to pull a lot of sliders back and be careful not to use heavy scenery addons or resource-hungry aircraft. Virtual cockpits, pretty paintjobs and detailed scenery would not mix well. Since useful scenery addons tend to be airport enhancements you'll get the poor performance when you take off or line up for a landing -- the exact situations were good performance is crucial.
Moreover, I've found that the ample power really affects the control of aircraft. Tom's flight dynamics have quite lose pitch and roll axes to avoid the unrealistic "riding on rails" that we don't want. On a limited systen I struggled quite a bit with models that tended to over-rotate. I took them to parts of the world where I have no scenery addons for test flights. That helped but I was still fighting to stay in control in many situations. Well, the same FDs fly like different planes now. The reason is simple, when the framerates run well above 30 all the time and there are no pauses or hiccups I feel what's coming the moment it's about to happen. Previously I must have been missing some frames at a critical moment and the next thing I see is a plane that's already gone too far into doing something I should have caught a few seconds ago. Hence, computer power really helps getting more realistic performance. The real world doesn't suffer from frame rate issues when the going gets tough.
So, anything flies the way the designer intended it to fly now. While looks are secondary to performance the two go together well now. Virtual cockpits can be used without creating any performance issues. This is my main point: There's a less obvious handling realism issue when you run this sim on a limited computer. You may think that the proper handling will be ensured as long as you avoid addon scenery, complicated aircraft and virtual cockpits. Further, you may think that minor hiccups don't matter. Well, I've found that "adequate" performance isn't good enough. Simple Stone/Dome planes with Goodrick FDs were a lot harder to control (even in an Arabian desert). They are way more responsive with plenty of computer power. Limited performance is likely to cause limited realism.
Then there's the "eye candy" part. FS9 looks like a different sim with most sliders to the right and no delays / compromises in loading the scenery. 3D clouds look nice. In fact, I've got a refurbished sim to explore and don't need to buy the next version. At least not now. Finally I'm in a position where the hardware isn't the limiting factor and I'd like to keep it that way.
The good part, I've got plenty of power and plenty of space. FS9 runs without any stuttering even with all sliders to the right. Previously I had to pull a lot of sliders back and be careful not to use heavy scenery addons or resource-hungry aircraft. Virtual cockpits, pretty paintjobs and detailed scenery would not mix well. Since useful scenery addons tend to be airport enhancements you'll get the poor performance when you take off or line up for a landing -- the exact situations were good performance is crucial.
Moreover, I've found that the ample power really affects the control of aircraft. Tom's flight dynamics have quite lose pitch and roll axes to avoid the unrealistic "riding on rails" that we don't want. On a limited systen I struggled quite a bit with models that tended to over-rotate. I took them to parts of the world where I have no scenery addons for test flights. That helped but I was still fighting to stay in control in many situations. Well, the same FDs fly like different planes now. The reason is simple, when the framerates run well above 30 all the time and there are no pauses or hiccups I feel what's coming the moment it's about to happen. Previously I must have been missing some frames at a critical moment and the next thing I see is a plane that's already gone too far into doing something I should have caught a few seconds ago. Hence, computer power really helps getting more realistic performance. The real world doesn't suffer from frame rate issues when the going gets tough.
So, anything flies the way the designer intended it to fly now. While looks are secondary to performance the two go together well now. Virtual cockpits can be used without creating any performance issues. This is my main point: There's a less obvious handling realism issue when you run this sim on a limited computer. You may think that the proper handling will be ensured as long as you avoid addon scenery, complicated aircraft and virtual cockpits. Further, you may think that minor hiccups don't matter. Well, I've found that "adequate" performance isn't good enough. Simple Stone/Dome planes with Goodrick FDs were a lot harder to control (even in an Arabian desert). They are way more responsive with plenty of computer power. Limited performance is likely to cause limited realism.
Then there's the "eye candy" part. FS9 looks like a different sim with most sliders to the right and no delays / compromises in loading the scenery. 3D clouds look nice. In fact, I've got a refurbished sim to explore and don't need to buy the next version. At least not now. Finally I'm in a position where the hardware isn't the limiting factor and I'd like to keep it that way.
It had the above specs except that I filled up all the ram slots before I started up (it had 2GB of DDR2 ram). I knew that Vista would "waste" about one GB of ram just by running itself. If I were to select components myself I might have gone for a dual core CPU with slighly higher clock speed. While 4 x 2.4 adds up to more than 2 x 2.7 - 3.0 you won't allocate work to four cores at the same time with older games. The video card is the least expensive GeForce 8000 series card. A GeForce 8800 with 512 MB ram would have constituted a realistic improvement. And, that card may very well be bought and installed in a year or two when the prices have dropped. By then even the 9000 series might be quite affordable. Still, I believe FSX would require more to perform well. For FS9, X-Plane 9 or anything else I've tried my current system seems to be more than adequate.