gojozoom wrote:QUOTE (gojozoom @ Oct 13 2010, 09:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That's what I call a nice and clean overview/explanation, and it's human readable too!
Well done Peter!
Thanks! I spent 6 month's teaching an Access Course in 1993: a great experience which gave me a real appreciation for how important it is to convey computer-ese in a manner than can be digested more readily...
Charl wrote:QUOTE (Charl @ Oct 13 2010, 10:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>But you need to consider how much to spend on hardware for a game with relatively limited remaining life.
I wouldn't be spending a lot, $ per hour doesn't work any more...
Glad you found a bit of meat in there. A couple of questions:
- Why do you think getting a good rig for FSX won't help with the next sim? Do you not think the next one will be as hungry on resources as FSX?
- Not sure what the reference to the $ per hour related to?
I think there may come a time when software is written more efficiently, and computers get sufficiently fast and powerful to handle whatever comes there way. I don't see either of those things happening inside the next 5 years, probably not in the next 10, maybe within 20. I keep a very close eye on computer hardware, software, trends and practices, and the signs aren't encouraging. The next sim should be either the latest version of OpenGL or DirectX 11, with lots of bells and whistles. As we all know, though, bells & whistles come at a price. FSX is certainly poorly written (from what Mike, Timmo & Robin have said to me in various conversations), but I think the next sim - either from MS or someone else - will leverage all the latest technology as best it can regardless of how well or efficiently it is written, with more eye candy, necessitating better computer hardware. I believe that the better graphics available via both new versions of OpenGL & DirectX will leverage the CPUs, RAM & hard drives as well as graphic cards to best effect for the day. Therefore, if one purchases a cranking rig for FSX, that can't help but be a good step for the next sim - true?
I'd be more than a little surprised - in fact I would put good money on it not happening - if the next sim required a more modest PC to run it well than what is required for FSX. And as the client I've just built an FSX rig for noted before he said "let's build it", one can keep waiting for the next thing until the cows come home - at some point one just has to dive in and go for the best ride one's money can buy at the time. And in 1, 2 or 3 year's time, one does it all again or stays pat. I find it interesting that there are plenty of people at NZFF still using FS9 - despite it's age - and are having a ball: the sim is 'good enough' for them, they can use modest hardware to get excellent results (in terms of best effort by FS9 / addons), and they are happy clams. Myself, I think using FS9 is using something obsolete, but why would I tell someone they have to use FSX if they are happy where they are? The same will be true of FSX: people will either be happy to stay with it despite the advances of the next sim, or they will pony-up the cash and start again. Despite the fact that I've spent $300-$400 on add-ons for FSX, I intend to avail myself of the next sim at some point - not in the 1st 6 months, but probably within the 1st year. And since the next sim is still vapour-ware at this point, I could well be on FSX for another 2 years. Think of the hardware and performance on FSX we'll have in 2 years!
Just so you know, that's not a rant against you Charl: this is probably another one of those 'positional' things like Intel vs AMD - I thought it was worth exploring the concept for Pete to mull over as well.
Charl wrote:QUOTE (Charl @ Oct 13 2010, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Five years ago I bought FS9 for $99, a computer for $4,000 and played with them for maybe 1,300 hours in that period. Probably more.
Whatever, that shakes out at
Flightsim ROI = $3.15/hour
Coffee, donuts, electricity, new chair (old one gave way), day off work to fly new scenery..........
Flightsim ROI = $13.15/hourRegards always
Pete
Rotordude wrote:QUOTE (Rotordude @ Oct 13 2010, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Interesting to say the least.
FSX it runs in DX9, to be honest - big deal as a platform has a long way to go before retirement I believe, that is if you are in it for the simulation and not bragging rights. With developers, not modelers who tack on a generic flight file but developers (I use that word very tightly) out there to name a few like A2A with acusim and VRS with their external flight engine and not to forget the likes of ppl like Holger making high resolution mesh's, Tim with VLC and then with the hardware improving, FSX has just hit puberty. MS in the long run built in longevity into FSX not redundancy.
Like Windows is for Photoshop, FSX is just a platform for the high quality addons that are the real simulation.
Just like FS9, it is old but who says it is redundant? the candy may not be up to par with DX11 and crysis but if you are in it purely for the simulation then whats wrong with that. Why upgrade just because someone whom sells gear says you should.
(PS: on a side note, don't you think some of your remarks are a tad condescending?)
I never said FS9 is redundant - obsolete, yes - but I have no prob with people still using it. The problem I had was that this post started with a request for a computer to run FSX on from Pete. For Charl to suggest Pete just buy an older rig and be happy with FS9 and wait for the NG sim to come out wasn't the correct advice - Pete wants FSX, and I don't believe Charl's argument stacks up. To that end, I explained my position in which I believe FS9 is old - which it is - but at no point did I say that others should not run FS9. I'm saying that going with FS9 and an older-style rig is a waste of money - and it is: Pete wants FSX, not FS9.
Why upgrade just because someone whom sells gear says you should.
I never said that - please read Pete's original post carefully - he wants a new computer for FSX.
And in what way are my remarks condescending? Please elaborate. I believe I have been fair and reasonable in my arguments, and you lot get the benefit of FREE advice from someone whose been working on computers for 25 years, builds them now, has a finger on the pulse of computer as a whole, and builds FSX rigs to boot. What great value!
I have noted that many people on NZFF have very entrenched positions, though, and don't like them being challenged - even with logic and sound arguments. You will find I am not a great respector of 'fortified positions' that are wrong...Last edited by IslandBoy77 on Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IslandBoy77 wrote:QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Oct 13 2010, 05:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...For Charl to suggest Pete just buy an older rig and be happy with FS9 and wait for the NG sim to come out wasn't the correct advice - Pete wants FSX, and I don't believe Charl's argument stacks up...
I forgot a golden rule about forums...two actually.
1. You assume everyone understands your intent when you post
2. You assume people actually read what you post!
Here's what I said:QUOTEThere are now machines capable of munching the revised FSX version, sure.
But you need to consider how much to spend on hardware for a game with relatively limited remaining life.
I wouldn't be spending a lot, $ per hour doesn't work any more...[/quote]
So to paraphrase all my rambling:
Don't spend a lot of money on a bells and whistles FSX machine now, it will be obsolete no matter what, in no time at all.
Spend just enough to make it run to your satisfaction, whatever that may be.
All the rest about FS9 was incidental to illustrating where my thinking was coming from.
But since you raise the issue, I wonder if it wouldn't be really smart to buy an old rig for next to nothing, and load it to the gills with FS9 stuff.
You'll get a brilliant sim at next to no cost...Last edited by Charl on Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charl- NZFF Pro
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 8:28 am
- Posts: 8639
- Location: Auckland
Charl wrote:QUOTE (Charl @ Oct 13 2010, 06:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I forgot a golden rule about forums...two actually.
1. You assume everyone understands your intent when you post
2. You assume people actually read what you post!
Here's what I said:
So to paraphrase all my rambling:
Don't spend a lot of money on a bells and whistles FSX machine now, it will be obsolete no matter what, in no time at all.
Spend just enough to make it run to your satisfaction, whatever that may be.
All the rest about FS9 was incidental to illustrating where my thinking was coming from.
But since you raise the issue, I wonder if it wouldn't be really smart to buy an old rig for next to nothing, and load it to the gills with FS9 stuff.
You'll get a brilliant sim at next to no cost...
Thanks for posting the clarification. Perhaps it might not seem like it, but I often read replies twice to make sure I think I've understood what the poster is saying.
I think our positions are closer than I first gleaned from your original post: I agree that getting the be all and end all of a PC is a waste of money - I'd say that period, never mind for FSX: there simply isn't enough value for money in the very expensive CPUs, graphic cards and top-end RAM to justify it.
Yes, I'd agree that Pete should purchase a PC that is to his satisfaction: we both agree on that, and it would appear we've both been trying to say that same thing in our different ways. My small caveat to that is that Pete, or any other purchaser looking to buy now, needs to have an eye on the future. I think that way for all my customers, regardless of whether their PC is for gaming (FSX or FPS), video editing or just "everything". I believe firmly in the "at least one step up from bottom" principle - and I practice this myself (for computers, TVs, cameras - whatever).
Pete expressed a specific interest in FSX and a rig to run it well. If you think he will get at least as good a simulation from FS9 'loaded the gills' with extras, perhaps you could start another thread and extol the merits of FS9. For myself, despite the winning entry for last month's compo looking outstanding 'even in FS9' (and it was outstanding - I voted for it), overall all the images I see of FS9 look flat and less realistic than FSX - I've yet to see any tricked-out FS9 setup that would convince me to move away from FSX (which is why I stopped using FS9 and sold it on TM), even with all of it's glaring flaws. Again, I reiterate that if you or others love their FS9 and think it looks the bomb, more power to you and them. I find it an odd thing, though, to 'encourage' someone to go backwards in software (and FS9 is a step backward, with no offense intended to those that love it) on the one hand, but also suggest for them to wait for 'the next great thing' to come along. If FS9 is excellent, why would one ever want to upgrade?
load it to the gills with FS9 stuff
If one were to trick-out FS9, surely the cost of all the add-ons to achieve such would be substantially more than 'at next to no cost'. FS9 'in the nude' looks worse than FSX (NZ desert notwithstanding) in the same state, so if one is going to spend money on add-ons, would those wanting a great looking sim not be better to go with a more modern product with better eye-candy - and have a great PC that is a lot more ready to run the NG sim than an intermediate 'will have to chuck it away later' FS9 rig?
When you say old rig, are you thinking that Pete buy something 2nd hand - that might die at any time? Even a 2nd hand rig that will run FS9 very well is going to cost, what - $700-$800 or more (without a screen)? That seems a lot of money to sink into old hardware with no warranty - I certainly wouldn't go that path, seeing the state of 'old hardware' that passes through my door every week...Last edited by IslandBoy77 on Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IslandBoy77 wrote:QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Oct 13 2010, 05:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>And in what way are my remarks condescending? Please elaborate.
I was not going to continue, but since you asked.IslandBoy77 wrote:QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Oct 13 2010, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>rather than pandering to the simmers who always say they are too poor to buy a good rig?IslandBoy77 wrote:QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Oct 13 2010, 05:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I've seen people post pics here and have others rave at how fantastic they look, and I'm sitting here thinking "man, that's average - look at the jaggies on the edge or basic scenery or..."
Like I said, I asked a question "don't you think some of your remarks are a tad condescending?" you have answered that you dont feel you have, so all's good end of subjectIslandBoy77 wrote:QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Oct 13 2010, 05:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>and you lot get the benefit of FREE advice from someone whose been working on computers for 25 years, builds them now, has a finger on the pulse of computer as a whole, and builds FSX rigs to boot. What great value!
i must say thank you on that matter, I always thought my ASUS mobo with Intel CPU's and EVGA NVIDIA gfx card were awesome, apparently not Is the Auzentech Prelude ok? I hope soLast edited by Rotordude on Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.Regards always
Pete
- Rotordude
- Sim-holic
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:50 pm
- Posts: 508
- Location: Huntly, NZ
25 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest