Looks beautiful, could be fun. My problem? My Ryzen 5 dx12, 300Mbs net connection isn’t enough to run the program due to the GPU requirements. (mini box - not upgradable)
The problem I see is that you’ve designed a game/sim that eliminates a good chunk of the simmers who aren’t gamers. I know, it’s a whine but on the one hand you made accommodations to low bandwidth while on the other, require a gaming machine. I wonder how often that combination of gamer and low bandwidth really exists?
Oh well, I would have spent $100 on this but I’m not really wanting to chunk in $500 just for this use…
When you say, “mini box”, what does that mean exactly? Is it a mini-ITX case? It’s certainly not an NUC since i haven’t seen any NUC sized Ryzen systems. Does the motherboard have a PCIE slot on it?
Oh, yeah, way too small to house a GPU. That’s not really intended for any type of gaming, much less gaming the most demanding title ever made. You could do an eGPU like EMkayCorleone suggests. All you need to be happy is a 1660 super, which runs about $250. An eGPU enclosure is pretty expensive though, usually about $250 as well. For that kind of money it would be smarter to just build another system.
I wasn’t blaming anyone, just pointing out that there is a (possibly large) part of this market that wouldn’t have a gaming machine. A lot of FlightSimulator potential customers aren’t wired for playing GTA V or Quantum Break or pick your favorite.
Your basically saying they should design the sim to work on hardware that isn’t suitable, if people aren’t willing to buy the correct hardware then that is their own problem.
They can design it however they want; they can require an RTX 2070 if they want.
You’re pretty much ignoring what I said and neither addressed the market or my thought on bandwidth. As an SA, I’m going to look at the market. Sure, there is an intersection of Gamers/Simmers. But it’s a smaller intersection from the sample that I know. At $60-$120 a shot, you have to sell a lot just to recover costs.
It really isn’t that their requirements are crazy, though I’m curious about how it runs on min specs. My thought is that the specs are a potential limitation to a much larger audience.
At the end of the day, you’re right. It’s my choice and I’m not willing to spend $700ish dollars for a computer that’s going to collect dust except for a short time each week. And no, I don’t want to triple the power (at 20 cents/kwh) on a computer that I work on about 9-10 hours a day and is on 24/7 that is fully capable of running two instances of Visual Studio, streaming hd video, excel, word, outlook, teams at the same time while connected to an RD.
What can they do old spec hardware will eventually become obsolete.
Well bandwidth only effects the downloading of streamed data from servers the game is still playable without with less detail aslong as your specs are good enough.
Your literally asking for the impossible. Like expecting your car to run using the wrong fuel.
I’ll say no more.
Mate, that’s your choice. The problem is that Flight Simulation pushes hardware. If you want the graphics plus smooth control, you need decent hardware, no if’s, buts or maybes. I’ve been playing Flt Sims for over 20 years and have spent buckets upgrading every 18mths or so. It is what it is and I’m sorry but catering for the lowest common denominator wont happen!
I agree. I was thinking from an audience and sales POV, and probably looking as if it were the “old times” when MS FS was the FS for the masses.
Ironically, I was thinking I could put it on my office computer and run an RD to it but even with an I7/24GB/900Mbs spec, I’d have to upgrade the video card. While I don’t develop for the least common denominator, I do develop for the typical PC and don’t do any interactive graphics.
Oh well, I’ll just keep using FlightGear until this box dies or needs an upgrade.
All flight sim versions have always required top notch hardware at launch for a good experience… it’s not a casual arcade game.
In 5 years mid level hardware will run it fine. But without a GPU forget it even then.
I also didn’t really get your point there. “gamers” and “simmers” generally share one thing: the need for high performance computers. If your PC can’t handle GTA V, it indeed will have a hard time to provide decent fun in any sim. This is not specifically true for MSFS. Not really different for DCS, P3D, FSX or xplane as well.
I guess after thinking about it, that I’m thinking that MS FS was historically more of a “mass appeal” program.
The simple answer is to accept the change in market strategy and move on.
When the first MS Flight Simulator came out, many years ago, PC manufacturers used it to demonstrate the power of their offerings, and I know, because I used to work for one. A company called Ferranti, who were based really close to EGCC, as it happens.
They’re long gone now, but i suspect that this latest iteration will also be used in the same way.
Interesting note from John Peddie Research: “Based on the assumption of a sale of 2.27 million units of Flight Simulator 2020 selling over the next three years, JPR estimates that in that time frame $2.6 billion will be spent on hardware with the specific intent of improving the game’s experience. Much more will be spent over the title’s complete sales cycle”.
The problem is people need to be able to install it first to drive upgrades and generate 2.27 million units of sales
