Computer requirement for RF 5.5
 

I have a laptop with an AMD quad core P960 (1.8 ghz) processor. Can this processor handle RF 5.5 decently?? Is a 2.4 ghz dual core a better option for this application?

RE: Computer requirement for RF 5.5
 

Dowloaded theG5 demo. The photofields and 3D fields work fine. Ithink I will have no problems running this sim in my computer........

RE: Computer requirement for RF 5.5
 

What is your exact graphics processor? Is it a separate card in your laptop or shared with the main processor as with my cheapy laptop?

RE: Computer requirement for RF 5.5
 

I took the opportunity while in a higher speed wifi to also download a G5 demo. It runs well (25-40 FPS). All I have is a 1.6 Ghz Athlon single core with an on board ATI Radeon HD3200 shared graphics (256MB) and 3GB Ram. I mean this is a $350 machine for crying out loud! Is this a trap set by the RealFlight folks to lead us into buying the full $200 program which our machines can't run??? Would like to know................

BTW I downloaded the Phoenix demo several months ago and while the graphics were stuning my machine could not run it fast enough to be worthwhile (estimate 5-7 fps).........

RE: Computer requirement for RF 5.5
 

im not a pc whiz by no means, but i have a hp laptop thats a year old. has the dual anthlon proccesors, and im not sure what kind of graphics card. but realflight 5.5 runs very smoothly on my pc at the photo fields not so much at the 3d fields, and i have just about all the graphics cranked as high as i can get them. the only real downfall i have found with it has been playing on the interenet it seems to be slower, but i think that has to do with whoever is hosting the flying at that time and there computer being slow. or if there are 6 or 7 people all flying with there smoke on that seems to drag it down to

RE: Computer requirement for RF 5.5
 

The Demo uses the same core engine as the full program.

If you are getting good performance with the demo, you'll get similiar performance with the full version.

However remember that 3D airfields are MUCH more processor and resource intensive than 2D ( 2D background "pictures" ) airfields.... so at worst you may want to stick with 2D airfields on that machine.

3D airfields ( what Aerofly 5 calls 4D?!? ) are completely mathmatically rendered airports, while 2D airfields use a static image for the background, but include a sparse collection of 3D rendered objects. Both however render the 3D plane or heli.

Shared memory is normally the bane of most 3D texture rich graphics programs... so you are better off reducing the texture load by sticking to 2D fields.