Microsoft's Flight Simulator X

I wasn't sure if this was a hardware question, or a gaming question (but FlightSimX isn't really a 'game'), or what, so I posted it here..... now that I'm thinking about it, it's probably a hardware question... whatever... oh, I guess there's no question here, maybe there is, I don't know yet....

Lately, where I work, we've had several folks that are REALLY in to flight sim apps, and (of course) FlightSimX from Microsoft is the big one. It's is a MONSTER of a program! I can't seem to find any somewhat current reviews, but the system specs are ridiculously low. I have seen FlightSimX bring a quad-core system with a new Radeon 5830 plus 4gb of RAM to its knees. The program would not run perfectly with all in-game settings at 'very high' or whatever the max is. FlightSimX is about 4 years old, yet it still maxes out many new high end systems. Why is it that NONE of these 'hardware-benchmark-test-the-newest-video-card-max-out-PC-type' web sites don't use FlightSimX as a torture test for hardware being tested? They use Crysis, FarCry2, the newer Call Of Duty games, but never do they use FlightSimX. Why? The thing is a beast!!!! I have no idea where I'm going with this, but a dude I know just bought a quad-core AMD 2.80ghz system with 3gb of memory, and an NVidia 9800GTX+ and he could only run FlightSimX at Med to Med-High. That's crazy. True, his specs aren't cutting-edge or super high-end, but when compared to the posted system requirements, it's WAY above what's needed (here's a link to Microsoft's published specs: http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx#sysreqs).

I guess I'm just looking for some input here.... did Microsoft deliberately create an inadequate spec list to sell software? I can't imagine the program being even slightly enjoyable on a PC using those basic system specs...

 

I've moved this to the game forum as that appears to be what it is - a discussion on a game.

As for the questions, FlightSimX has a ridiculously low spec because the "ultra low" or lowest settings in it can run at said low specs. Most games don't have such a variation in power needed between lowest settings and highest.

 

It is also pretty much unknown among the target market those websites writes for: PC Gamers. Most gamers don't even consider flight simulators to be "games". They're flight simulators.

The other ones you mentioned on the other hand, we all know what they look like and how they run, and roughly what they need in order to maintain smooth frame rates. If I was to tell my gamer friends that my new laptop can run FlightSimX on high settings (guesstimating here) they would have no idea what I'm talking about, they've never run that program. If I tell them it can run Dragon Age maxed out though, they know what kind of laptop it is.

So in short, these writers are doing what all smart writers do. They're using comparisons their readers know and understand.

 

Also, there were a few sites out there that did use fsx for benchmarking. I believe both tomshardware and hardocp both did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWCrqmYSeD0