Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 15:30:I believe it is bad programming when a game demands too high specs to be playable.
What? The system requirements for Flight Simulator actually look quite tame compared to those required by most other AAA games these days. i5-4460 and GTX 770...that's 2013 tech!
65C02 wrote on 2020-07-14, 16:19:Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 15:30:I believe it is bad programming when a game demands too high specs to be playable.
What? The system requirements for Flight Simulator actually look quite tame compared to those required by most other AAA games these days. i5-4460 and GTX 770...that's 2013 tech!
That spec does not run 4K high FPS games. And can't even run rFactor 2 at high/ultra graphics settings with +100FPS. I know, because I had a similar set up with a Haswell i7 4790K and GTX 750, and that was the last desktop computer I have ever used.
I don't want to play these AAA titles with low graphics settings, I want 4K and ultra graphics settings. But I don't want to throw away my money to build another desktop computer either, I'm fed up of desktop computers. My definition of playable does not mean being able to play a game on low graphics settings. It's like buying a Ford Mustang GT500 to drive at 40 kph when you know that this car can reach more than 250 kph.
"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 17:12:65C02 wrote on 2020-07-14, 16:19:Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 15:30:I believe it is bad programming when a game demands too high specs to be playable.
What? The system requirements for Flight Simulator actually look quite tame compared to those required by most other AAA games these days. i5-4460 and GTX 770...that's 2013 tech!
That spec does not run 4K high FPS games. And can't even run rFactor 2 at high/ultra graphics settings with +100FPS. I know, because I had a similar set up with a Haswell i7 4790K and GTX 750, and that was the last desktop computer I have ever used.
I don't want to play these AAA titles with low graphics settings, I want 4K and ultra graphics settings. But I don't want to throw away my money to build another desktop computer either, I'm fed up of desktop computers. My definition of playable does not mean being able to play a game on low graphics settings. It's like buying a Ford Mustang GT500 to drive at 40 kph when you know that this car can reach more than 250 kph.
In their defense, Flight Sim X was just as heavy when it launched. It’s just hard to remember that because that’s 14 years ago.
BetaC wrote on 2020-07-14, 17:31:Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 17:12:65C02 wrote on 2020-07-14, 16:19:What? The system requirements for Flight Simulator actually look quite tame compared to those required by most other AAA games these days. i5-4460 and GTX 770...that's 2013 tech!
That spec does not run 4K high FPS games. And can't even run rFactor 2 at high/ultra graphics settings with +100FPS. I know, because I had a similar set up with a Haswell i7 4790K and GTX 750, and that was the last desktop computer I have ever used.
I don't want to play these AAA titles with low graphics settings, I want 4K and ultra graphics settings. But I don't want to throw away my money to build another desktop computer either, I'm fed up of desktop computers. My definition of playable does not mean being able to play a game on low graphics settings. It's like buying a Ford Mustang GT500 to drive at 40 kph when you know that this car can reach more than 250 kph.
In their defense, Flight Sim X was just as heavy when it launched. It’s just hard to remember that because that’s 14 years ago.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/9257 … em-requirements
Looks like they don't outline a single graphics card model, just "DX9 compatible" some shader level version and "32MB/128MB of VRAM". So probably a NVIDIA Geforce 6800 or better as minimum?
Current high end graphics card required by AAA titles to give 4K ultra graphics quality are so expensive for me to even reconsider building another desktop pc, no matter how good a game can be. They cost more than half of a budget for a desktop computer here in Brazil. Hence why I gave up on this and resorted to playing old games on my laptop for nostalgia and even more fun than I'd have headaches building a desktop computer. Older FIFA titles are much more fun than current ones. I have FIFA Mobile on my phone, but after a few minutes playing it I deleted it because it had a series of things I'd have to do before I could even play a friendly match with the teams I wanted to. Now, I hate this. I just want to fire up the game and play the match, like I do with FIFA RTWC 98.
In F1 2020 you have to be signed by a team, do the interviews, and all that bullshit before you can even jump into the car and actually drive. And when you drive, you are required to press several buttons or change a series of switches to control fuel mixture, DRS, KERS, and all that sort of bullshit of current modern F1 or else you will not be able to win a race in F1 2020, you'll break your car in the middle of the race because you did not follow your engineer instructions. I'd rather just jump into the car and go flat out with Grand Prix 4 and old 90's season mods.
I had fun with desktop computers in the 90's before these the developers skyrocketed prices of graphics card and game requirements for high quality graphics.
"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!
even though I don't like those games personally, that's probably because old FIFA titles are not glorified slot machines :p
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 18:50:https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/9257 … em-requirements […]
BetaC wrote on 2020-07-14, 17:31:Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 17:12:That spec does not run 4K high FPS games. And can't even run rFactor 2 at high/ultra graphics settings with +100FPS. I know, because I had a similar set up with a Haswell i7 4790K and GTX 750, and that was the last desktop computer I have ever used.
I don't want to play these AAA titles with low graphics settings, I want 4K and ultra graphics settings. But I don't want to throw away my money to build another desktop computer either, I'm fed up of desktop computers. My definition of playable does not mean being able to play a game on low graphics settings. It's like buying a Ford Mustang GT500 to drive at 40 kph when you know that this car can reach more than 250 kph.
In their defense, Flight Sim X was just as heavy when it launched. It’s just hard to remember that because that’s 14 years ago.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/9257 … em-requirements
Looks like they don't outline a single graphics card model, just "DX9 compatible" some shader level version and "32MB/128MB of VRAM". So probably a NVIDIA Geforce 6800 or better as minimum?
Current high end graphics card required by AAA titles to give 4K ultra graphics quality are so expensive for me to even reconsider building another desktop pc, no matter how good a game can be. They cost more than half of a budget for a desktop computer here in Brazil. Hence why I gave up on this and resorted to playing old games on my laptop for nostalgia and even more fun than I'd have headaches building a desktop computer. Older FIFA titles are much more fun than current ones. I have FIFA Mobile on my phone, but after a few minutes playing it I deleted it because it had a series of things I'd have to do before I could even play a friendly match with the teams I wanted to. Now, I hate this. I just want to fire up the game and play the match, like I do with FIFA RTWC 98.
In F1 2020 you have to be signed by a team, do the interviews, and all that bullshit before you can even jump into the car and actually drive. And when you drive, you are required to press several buttons or change a series of switches to control fuel mixture, DRS, KERS, and all that sort of bullshit of current modern F1 or else you will not be able to win a race in F1 2020, you'll break your car in the middle of the race because you did not follow your engineer instructions. I'd rather just jump into the car and go flat out with Grand Prix 4 and old 90's season mods.
I had fun with desktop computers in the 90's before these the developers skyrocketed prices of graphics card and game requirements for high quality graphics.
You can easily play FSX on a Pentium 4 at 2.4GHz with an Fx 5200 128MB, but you're going to be at a really low res if you want anything near 30 fps anywhere but the open plains of North Dakota. But if you wanted to actually have the game look as good as possible, you needed a Core 2 Duo and at least a 6800/7800 class card, and even then you wouldn't get all that great a framerate if you went too high detail.
You will probably be able to find, at some point, a used GTX 1050Ti, and that will most likely run Flight Sim 2020 at a perfectly fine amount of detail and at 1080p. This game is also eventually going to run on the Original Xbox One, so you will be able to get it running on even some older hardware than their minimum.
Well, if they are going to get it on Xbox One, then if they release FS 2020 for ARM Macs in the future, I might buy the game if the graphics are good enough and buttery smooth, exactly as seen in FS2020 marketing videos.
Otherwise I won't buy it. My days of building a PC gaming desktop are long gone; I also do not have interest in buying a video game console either, they are also expensive.
"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 17:12:I don't want to play these AAA titles with low graphics settings, I want 4K and ultra graphics settings. But I don't want to throw away my money to build another desktop computer either, I'm fed up of desktop computers. My definition of playable does not mean being able to play a game on low graphics settings. It's like buying a Ford Mustang GT500 to drive at 40 kph when you know that this car can reach more than 250 kph.
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 18:50:Current high end graphics card required by AAA titles to give 4K ultra graphics quality are so expensive for me to even reconsider building another desktop pc, no matter how good a game can be. They cost more than half of a budget for a desktop computer here in Brazil. Hence why I gave up on this and resorted to playing old games on my laptop for nostalgia and even more fun than I'd have headaches building a desktop computer.
Bruninho wrote on 2020-03-01, 02:16:Can't wait for the macOS version.
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-13, 21:39:I guess that I will still be playing FS98 for the years to come....
Man, your comments are completely absurd; "I don't play new games because I DEMAND 4K on ULTRA settings for CHEAP, so instead I play Flight Simulator 98 and buy overpriced Mac laptops". You can't make this shit up.
antrad wrote on 2020-07-14, 21:07:Man, your comments are completely absurd; "I don't play new games because I DEMAND 4K on ULTRA settings for CHEAP, so instead I […]
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 17:12:I don't want to play these AAA titles with low graphics settings, I want 4K and ultra graphics settings. But I don't want to throw away my money to build another desktop computer either, I'm fed up of desktop computers. My definition of playable does not mean being able to play a game on low graphics settings. It's like buying a Ford Mustang GT500 to drive at 40 kph when you know that this car can reach more than 250 kph.
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 18:50:Current high end graphics card required by AAA titles to give 4K ultra graphics quality are so expensive for me to even reconsider building another desktop pc, no matter how good a game can be. They cost more than half of a budget for a desktop computer here in Brazil. Hence why I gave up on this and resorted to playing old games on my laptop for nostalgia and even more fun than I'd have headaches building a desktop computer.
Bruninho wrote on 2020-03-01, 02:16:Can't wait for the macOS version.
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-13, 21:39:I guess that I will still be playing FS98 for the years to come....
Man, your comments are completely absurd; "I don't play new games because I DEMAND 4K on ULTRA settings for CHEAP, so instead I play Flight Simulator 98 and buy overpriced Mac laptops". You can't make this shit up.
Your comment is the kind of comment that comes from absurd people and that doesn't even deserve a %$*%$*#@ reply. But here you go and that will be the only time I will do so so don't expect me to reply again to you:
Look at where I am posting from. BRAZIL. You have no f*$#ing idea of how expensive the things (especially imported tech) are here, don't you? For that argument alone I could (and should) tell you to shut up. But I'll explain, being a good guy I am:
The graphics cards and every PC part is much more overpriced than any other country. Mainly because of import taxes practiced by our government in the last 13 years. And all that money just to play ONE game. The cost benefit of it is just not worth it so no, I am not building another PC desktop. And yes, I am going to play Flight Simulator 98 because a) is more fun and b) I don't have to bother upgrading a machine or have a headache setting up a dual boot hackintosh, because I use macOS to work as a web designer (but even that part of my work you ignored, right?) and unfortunately need a Windows VM or boot partition to play games.
"I demand 4k and ultra settings for cheap" that was not my argument. My argument was: I demand a BETTER PROGRAMMING so the games can provide 4K and ultra graphics in any platform, be it low or high end requirements. Today's games are POORLY programmed. Take for example Grand Prix 4. It was a game released in 2002. The game has an enormous community and is still going strong with mods for 2020 season that are much better than Codemasters F1 2020. And for a $#*%$ cheap cost, almost free. I'd be an idiot if I weren't considering that instead of buying F1 2020.
"... and buy overpriced Mac laptops"
If you were reading well my posts instead of being an idiot trying to look like an awesome arrogant prick, you'd realize that I mentioned to have bought a second-hand 2013 rMBP 13-inch, (emphasis on SECOND HAND) not the latest powerful Mac for a much more cheaper price. That Mac had two blown speakers, a few keyboard issues and required a new SSD. I upgraded it all, fixed all the issues and now it is just as good as the newer Macs and can even run macOS Big Sur for the years to come. The only reason for me to buy a new mac now is a switch to ARM Macs, but even that decision has a number of factors that need to happen in order to convince me as of now, and so far I am being convinced to do so.
And if you were smart enough you'd realize that even Dell laptops are overpriced too. The best Dell laptops (and "best dell laptops" are a subjective opinion) are on the same price (at least high-end Dell XPS are) as the newer MBPs although they provide a better hardware, they can't run the best operating system ever made - macOS - without any hacking. I can't buy a Dell XPS, and I can't buy the new MBPs, so I bought a second-hand MBP for a very cheap price and restored/upgraded it myself.
Apple is not the only brand in the world being greedy; I am not a fanboy either, for the reasons mentioned above (work and games) I had even resorted to Hackintoshes between 2013-2017 but that move wasn't worth the headache because maintenance of hackintoshes is a nightmare and more expensive than buying a full genuine Mac. I don't agree with the prices Apple practice for their Macs but even Dell does that, so you can't really attack Apple for that when others do the same. Also, with their transition to ARM Macs, I expect them to have better prices because they have to be, to convince people to switch from x86 to ARM. I don't think Apple would be stupid enough to sell an overpriced ARM Mac for that reason.
You get that (expletive word) reply you deserve, for the kind of aggressive comment you made to attack me gratuitously from nowhere and for nothing.
Try to be nice next time instead of acting like a troll, then I'll reply you politely. And oh, that was the last reply you'll get from me. You had a nice attempt at trying to throw a flame war here, but that did not work.
"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!
imi wrote on 2020-07-14, 20:57:the question is if you'll be willing to pay a 5-figure sum for that ARM mac it might run smooth on :p
If they are THAT good, I'll happily pay for one. =P
The only thing I don't want to do anymore is build a desktop computer and keep updating its parts every year because a game A or game B requires this or that to give me good graphics and fun.
Unlike the previous poster did to me, there's nothing wrong in playing old games because I think the newer ones are not good enough, and nothing wrong in using a Mac for that, be it overpriced or not. The focus of my critics were never the price of a computer but yes how poorly programmed the games are so that they require the most powerful specs to play with the best graphics ever made and only for one platform.
For example, rFactor 1 and rFactor 2. Back in 2013 I had just a desktop PC - i7 4790k, 8GB, 250GB SSD, GTX 750 with 2GB VRAM. That was the maximum I could afford.
I could easily play rFactor 1 on it but not rFactor 2. Why? When I investigated the matter, rF2 has exactly the same engine, same codebase, even rF1 mods could be ported to play on it, it's practically the same game. ImageSpace Incorporated developed rF1, and handed the development of rF2 to Studio 397. Also, I couldn't do my work on that PC, I needed a Mac for that, so I had a MacBook Air. But I has already starting to get pissed for having to do maintenance on two computers instead of only one.
Finally I discovered that rFactor 2 was changed to run on DX11 instead of DX9, and received a number of tweaks for "better environment lightning". Even with lowest graphics settings, rFactor 2 was completely unplayable for me and needed a newer graphics card. No f**k, I am not buying a new graphics card again. Then I began searching for a new computer just to play that game. I sold the PC, the MacBook Air, and I did a hackintosh with a Dell G5 laptop and it didnt last one year because it not only was too big and bulky to carry around with me, it was hard to do maintenance to be able to boot between macOS and Windows. So I gave up on it;
I sold it and bought the rMBP I'm currently using. Mounted a VM to play Grand Prix 4 with several classic F1 mods, and I have never been so happy without worrying about GPU upgrades. The only downside is that I had to give up on competitive online sim-racing tournaments. To be fair, I have no more dedication to race as a pro simracer, so it was an easy decision for me so far.
"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 22:38:If they are THAT good, I'll happily pay for one. =P
I doubt they will be unless they go all Fujitsu with core density. If you look at the whole ecosystem, Apple desktop products haven't been at the tip of the performance spear for a long time.
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 22:38:The only thing I don't want to do anymore is build a desktop computer and keep updating its parts every year because a game A or game B requires this or that to give me good graphics and fun.
Then don't. I certainly don't. Take advantage of depreciation, save a wad of cash, and enjoy the games you can run on the hardware you've got.
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-14, 22:38:Unlike the previous poster did to me, there's nothing wrong in playing old games because I think the newer ones are not good enough, and nothing wrong in using a Mac for that, be it overpriced or not. The focus of my critics were never the price of a computer but yes how poorly programmed the games are so that they require the most powerful specs to play with the best graphics ever made and only for one platform.
Sure, some games are poorly optimized (I'm looking at you, Crysis), but it's never been uncommon for game titles to be demanding on hardware. A fair chunk of gaming sales happen, in part, because people want the latest shiny bling.
All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-15, 02:51:I doubt they will be unless they go all Fujitsu with core density. If you look at the whole ecosystem, Apple desktop products haven't been at the tip of the performance spear for a long time.
1) At the very current moment with the (very little) news I've been reading and the (supposed to be) leaked benchmark of the DTK (and yes I know it is not very representative of what they will sell in the future, but shows a very good promise of what they can deliver) are very convincing to me, so I have high hopes for what an ARM Mac performance can be like.
The DTK with an iPad Pro 2020 A12X cpu was capped to half cores yet managed to beat the crap out of my current 2013 rMBP 13-inch on geekbench. And the DTK also ran x86 geekbench 5 with Rosetta 2 so there was a (very little) performance penalty. Then yes, if the final product yet to be seen performs better than my current Mac, then I will do the switch for sure. The only remaining question is the price. I don't think they will sell it overpriced when they need to convince the consumers to switch from one architecture to another.
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-15, 02:51:Then don't. I certainly don't. Take advantage of depreciation, save a wad of cash, and enjoy the games you can run on the hardware you've got.
2) That's exactly what I do. Thanks for understanding my point of view.
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-15, 02:51:Sure, some games are poorly optimized (I'm looking at you, Crysis), but it's never been uncommon for game titles to be demanding on hardware. A fair chunk of gaming sales happen, in part, because people want the latest shiny bling.
3) Yes, but when I see rFactor 2 being worse (oops, more demanding) than rFactor 1 on the same exact PC hardware, it can't be anything but a poorly optimized game, can it? I was in complete disbelief when I did that test. After months trying to look for a solution, I just gave up and did what I said above in 2)
Now back to the MFS 2020 subject... I'll admit that the graphics are very, very exciting and I really want to play that game. But I don't want it that much to a point where I am going to buy a very expensive PC hardware.
According to that image, I don't even make the recommended spec with what I have, although I do have bandwith, HDD (SSD) and 16GB of RAM. As always, CPU and GPU letting me down. OK, an i7 4th gen can do it, but I don't have a dGPU and I could do an eGPU, yet I cannot afford an expensive eGPU enclosure like AKTiO or Sonnet, and neither an expensive NVIDIA or AMD GPU good enough to run that game with the desired graphics quality. And it has to be a very good GPU, because there will be a performance penalty from Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2.
So all that effort and yet I wouldn't have 4K ultra quality graphics because there would be some bottleneck on it with an eGPU setup. To sum up, the cost/benefit of all that investment is just not worth it. Now you guys see my point?
There is no screenshots to have a rough idea of what the game will look like with minimum, recommended and ideal specs. Their videos advertised just shows amazing graphics so that must be their ideal specs.
"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-15, 04:04:At the very current moment with the (very little) news I've been reading and the (supposed to be) leaked benchmark of the DTK (and yes I know it is not very representative of what they will sell in the future, but shows a very good promise of what they can deliver) are very convincing to me, so I have high hopes for what an ARM Mac performance can be like.
Geekbench results should be taken with a salt lick when comparing across CPU architectures. We'll need a more comprehensive run of benchmarks to get a clearer idea of what the performance delta will be.
All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder
gdjacobs wrote on 2020-07-15, 14:43:Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-15, 04:04:At the very current moment with the (very little) news I've been reading and the (supposed to be) leaked benchmark of the DTK (and yes I know it is not very representative of what they will sell in the future, but shows a very good promise of what they can deliver) are very convincing to me, so I have high hopes for what an ARM Mac performance can be like.
Geekbench results should be taken with a salt lick when comparing across CPU architectures. We'll need a more comprehensive run of benchmarks to get a clearer idea of what the performance delta will be.
Yes, especially when the DTK is not even close to what will be sold. But nevertheless, it's still an encouraging sign of the things to come from Apple.
How about compatible controllers for MFS? Anynone know a good controller/joystick for games like MFS?
"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!
I've also read a report of a brazilian youtuber that went to Seattle to try out one of the FS2020 betas... the computer he had at disposal was a 8th gen Intel 7, 64GB of RAM, RTX 2080 ti. Guess what... he had a few minor screen lockups. Now imagine with a low spec computer... my God, the game will lag more than my 1998's internet connection.
"Design isn't just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
JOBS, Steve.
READ: Right to Repair sucks and is illegal!
Bruninho wrote on 2020-07-15, 15:20:I've also read a report of a brazilian youtuber that went to Seattle to try out one of the FS2020 betas... the computer he had at disposal was a 8th gen Intel 7, 64GB of RAM, RTX 2080 ti. Guess what... he had a few minor screen lockups. Now imagine with a low spec computer... my God, the game will lag more than my 1998's internet connection.
Those lockups probably had nothing to do with the graphics card, and had more to do with the fact that it’s streaming data from Bing maps. Flight Sim has had that problem for a long time, especially if you have custom data that you’re loaning.
robertmo wrote on 2020-09-05, 08:26:
There's more than a few well made landmarks scattered around the world, but there's also a smeared texture on a hill for Mt. Rushmore. I have about 40 flight hours, and have been using a TBM 930 to fly from LAX to, currently, Cairo, Egypt. Feel free to ask questions if you have any.
