Buying New Computer
Frank Avent
I have a 486 DX2 66 and Flight Simulator 5 runs fine (if you
are going to run FS5). I have heard reports that FS5 will lock
up on Pentium machines. I would contact MicroSoft or
CompuServe's Flight Simulator Forum - General Aviation.
I'm having a great time flying all over the place as there is
now instrument scenery for FS5 that covers all of the U.S.,
South America, Europe, Virgin Islands, etc. Be sure to get a
good joystick and ThrustMaster Ruddder Control pedals.
Frank
ag...@yfn.ysu.edu (Arthur B. Corte) wrote:
>
>
>After 5 years with my Atari 1040ST I am ready to buy a
>new computer. Flight simulation will be one of its
>major uses as I hope to use it to supplement the 6
>hours IFR practice needed to maintain currency. Until
>recently I thought a 486/66 would be it but now there
>is the DX4 and the Pentium to consider. I have read
>the FAQ the FAQ and understand there are tradeoffs
>between integer and floating point capability of
>various processors. I would be inter ested in any
>comments from experienced users as to whot they would
>buy in my positionxD
>Art Corte
>EAA Chap 225
>Rochester NH
Robert Dorsett
>
>After 5 years with my Atari 1040ST I am ready to buy a new
>computer. Flight simulation will be one of its major uses as
>I hope to use it to supplement the 6 hours IFR practice needed to
>maintain currency. Until recently I thought a 486/66 would be it
>but now there is the DX4 and the Pentium to consider. I have read the FAQ
>the FAQ and understand there are tradeoffs between integer and
>floating point capability of various processors. I would be inter
>ested in any comments from experienced users as to whot they would
>buy in my positionxD
There are no trade-offs between FP and integer use, from the user's
perspective. Integer use utilizes fixed-point math, and works very well: all
major games use integer math. There is *no* sacrificing of precision using
this technique, just an increase in processing speed.
FP IS good for modeling: some simulators (Elite) aren't optimized to the
point where they use integer math, though, so be aware that specific packages
may require an FPU.
Note that if you have an FPU, an integer-based program won't run any faster.
Lastly, the recent crop of Mac flight simulators have been generally higher-
quality products than their PC counterparts, giving 20 frames per second or
more, with 640 x 480 graphics. PC games seem to be stuck in VGA, which is
STILL the commercial standard: most Mac platforms, however, are 640 x 480
and 256 colors (yes, MOST--the B/W days are gone forever, and comprise a
rather small segment of the current installed base).
If you want air combat, for the WWII era, there's Hellcats/Leyte (which
*completely* blow away Aces over the Pacific, etc). 50's through the
70's, Chuck Yeager's Air Combat (again, a *very* good port of the PC version,
better-done and with more features). For the modern era, F/A-18 Hornet
(which is *vastly* superior than the new Spectrum Holobyte product), the up-
coming Flying Nightmares (Domark), and A-10 (ParSoft).
On the "civil" side, my 727 simulator and Elite are the only ones I'm aware
of; Microsoft does not seem to be planning a Flight Simulator 5 on the
Mac (then again, it'd probably be a major flop: if it only gets a couple of
frames per second on a 486/66, it'd only get a couple on a Mac, and the market
simply won't tolerate that). FS4 is out for the Mac, and MacWorld still
thinks it's the hottest game around (nobody I talk to plays it, so I
dunno :-)).
With the PowerMac, I think we will see a number of very good simulators:
A-10 is supposed to run in native, and Graphic Simulations (Hornet) have
apparently dropped hints about native development.
If this sounds like the words of a Mac-bigot, perhaps: but I am truly,
sincerely appalled at the quality of all of the recent "major releases" on
the PC side. After the pretty (if static) surrealistic graphics of FS5 and
the Tornado simulator, it all went downhill, IMHO.
Cheers,
--
Robert Dorsett
r...@netcom.com
Arthur B. Corte
After 5 years with my Atari 1040ST I am ready to buy a new
computer. Flight simulation will be one of its major uses as
I hope to use it to supplement the 6 hours IFR practice needed to
maintain currency. Until recently I thought a 486/66 would be it
but now there is the DX4 and the Pentium to consider. I have read the FAQ
the FAQ and understand there are tradeoffs between integer and
floating point capability of various processors. I would be inter
ested in any comments from experienced users as to whot they would
buy in my positionxD
Markus Wischerath
fba...@pipeline.com (Frank Avent) writes:
>
> I have a 486 DX2 66 and Flight Simulator 5 runs fine (if you
> are going to run FS5). I have heard reports that FS5 will lock
> up on Pentium machines. I would contact MicroSoft or
Not quite correct. The only thing that doesn't work on Pentium
boxes is the 320x400 mode of the original FS 5.0. This does no
longer happen with the 5.0a upgrade.
--Markus
m...@spinfo.uni-koeln.de # rm -rf / and one was assaulted...peanut
Michael Scott Zimmerman
Mac stuff deleted..
I was just wondering what kind of support Macs give for all of the Flight Sim
Aids such as Virual Pilot and Rudders. Without them, I would pretty much have
to say that ANY flight sim would suck. Just my 2c.
Mike
>
The One and Only
PowerMac; just for the record, native applications for a PowerMac
and a PowerPC are exactly the same. The beauty of it all... Thats the
point. I expect that we will see some incredible simulators come out of
this. They are RISC machines, true full 64 bit data paths.. Should be a
whole new level. And the software companies won't have to bother writing for
both Mac and IBM. They can write one application to run on either.
Of course, in all reality they will now be writing for Mac, IBM, and Power
machines. But it was a good plan. :) Terry Cary
Robert Dorsett
That's not quite correct. The PowerMac utilizes the PowerPC processor: this
is true. However, PowerMac software must still run (native or not) in the
Macintosh GUI. If someone wants to run DOS on a PowerPC platform, that's fine
and dandy, but the software can't be said to be "equivalent," because the
usage and interface standards are so very different.
--
Robert Dorsett
r...@netcom.com
Steve Gallagher
>>
>>After 5 years with my Atari 1040ST I am ready to buy a new
>>computer. Flight simulation will be one of its major uses as
>>I hope to use it to supplement the 6 hours IFR practice needed to
>>maintain currency. Until recently I thought a 486/66 would be it
>>but now there is the DX4 and the Pentium to consider. I have read the FAQ
>>the FAQ and understand there are tradeoffs between integer and
>>floating point capability of various processors. I would be inter
>>ested in any comments from experienced users as to whot they would
>>buy in my positionxD
I just bought a 486DX/33 and that's probably overkill for the available
professional flight sims. They all recommend a 386/25, with Elite also
requiring an FPU.
Brian Burton
<TLC...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
Actually, the current PowerMacs are 32-bit machines. You will have to wait
for the PowerPC 604 processor (or is that the 620, I am so confused). And
although the PowerMac's applications's operands may be read by PowerPCs,
what is missing is that big 2 MByte ROM that contains all the QuickDraw,
font handling, memory handling, etc. Not to mention that IBM PowerPCs
might not have ADB subsystems to drive the keyboards and mice. One really
needs a cross-platform framework between your code and the native OS.
Small but important things.
--
Brian Burton
bur...@aatdev.uucp
We have an agreement. Andrew doesn't express my opinion and I don't
express theirs.
I. A. Chaudhry
>
>I just bought a 486DX/33 and that's probably overkill for the available
>professional flight sims. They all recommend a 386/25, with Elite also
>requiring an FPU.
>
>
Not quite a overkill! They do recommend 368/25, but there is A LOT of
differene. If you get a chance, try running some new sim stuff on a 386 and
486. You will a be amazed! You will be even amazed about the difference
between 466/33 and 486/50+
IAC
be
Steve Gallagher
I have run FS100 and IFT-PRO on 386's and didn't detect any difference.
What "new sim stuff" are you referring to?
Robert Petit
|> >In article <2nhdte$s...@news.ysu.edu> ag...@yfn.ysu.edu (Arthur B. Corte) writes:
|> >>
|> >>After 5 years with my Atari 1040ST I am ready to buy a new
|> >>computer. Flight simulation will be one of its major uses as
|> >>I hope to use it to supplement the 6 hours IFR practice needed to
|> >>maintain currency. Until recently I thought a 486/66 would be it
|> >>but now there is the DX4 and the Pentium to consider. I have read the FAQ
|> >>the FAQ and understand there are tradeoffs between integer and
|> >>floating point capability of various processors. I would be inter
|> >>ested in any comments from experienced users as to whot they would
|> >>buy in my positionxD
There are currently no DX4 (clock quadrupling) processors. There are IBMs "Blue Lightning" clock tripled DX3s but you would probably need to buy an IBM to get one. The pentium is still plagued by problems. On top of that, the only speed difference you will see, is the clock speed (60MHz compared with whatever 486 you would buy) Unless software is optimized for the pentium, It won't take advantage of the pentium special features (dual integer pipeline, etc)
You can probably make do with a 486/33DX (NOT an SX) They are relatively cheap. A 50 or a 66DX2 would be even better. The addition of memory (8MB instead of 4MB) will help performance more than the processor in some cases. Also, make sure whatever you buy has 1MB Local Bus video card (Local bus video is much faster than a standard VGA card. The 1MB video ram allows for 256 color video.)
If you are daring, buying mail order or at a computer show is your best bet. For the price of a 4MB 486/33DX at a store, you can get an 8MB 486/66DX2 with the video and sound you need. I wouldn't even consider buying a 386 if I were you.
Timothy Melton
>
>|> >In article <2nhdte$s...@news.ysu.edu> ag...@yfn.ysu.edu (Arthur B. Corte) writes:
>|> >>
[stuff deleted]
>|> >>but now there is the DX4 and the Pentium to consider. I have read the FAQ
>|> >>the FAQ and understand there are tradeoffs between integer and
>|> >>floating point capability of various processors. I would be inter
>|> >>ested in any comments from experienced users as to whot they would
>|> >>buy in my positionxD
>
>There are currently no DX4 (clock quadrupling) processors. There are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are wrong on the first count and right on the second. There IS a DX4
chip, the 100DX4. It is a clock TRIPLED chip (3x33 1/3). As far as I
know, you are correct in that there are no quadrupled chips. Intel has
apparently decided that the chip designators no longer need to be
descriptive ;-)
>IBMs "Blue Lightning" clock tripled DX3s but you would probably need
^^^^^^
No such thing (DX3). See above.
>to buy an IBM to get one. The pentium is still plagued by problems.
>On top of that, the only speed difference you
>will see, is the clock speed (60MHz compared with whatever 486 you would buy)
Wrong. We have a P5 60 here. On average, non-FPU intensive tasks it is 1.5-2
time faster than a 66DX2. On FPU intensive tasks it is 3-4 times faster.
>Unless software is optimized for the pentium, It won't take advantage
>of the pentium special features (dual integer pipeline, etc)
Again wrong. Have you actually ever tried running tests w/ a P5? Pentium
optimization speed things up about 5-10%. The assembly code that the P5
optimizer produces is bizzare tthough ;-)
>
>You can probably make do with a 486/33DX (NOT an SX) They are relatively
>cheap. A 50 or a 66DX2 would be even better. The addition of memory
>(8MB instead of 4MB) will help performance more than the processor in
True.
>some cases. Also, make sure whatever you
>buy has 1MB Local Bus video card (Local bus video is much faster than
>a standard VGA card. The 1MB video ram allows for 256 color video.)
>
>If you are daring, buying mail order or at a computer show is your best
>bet. For the price of a 4MB 486/33DX at a store, you can get an 8MB
>486/66DX2 with the video and sound you need. I wouldn't even consider
> buying a 386 if I were you.
Hey! we agree on something! ;)
>
>
--
Dr. Tim Melton quest1!t...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu
Quest Consultants Inc. (if email replies don't work, use this address)
P.O. Box 721387 (405) 329-7475
Norman, Ok 73070-8069 Fax: (405) 329-7734
robin.kim
Timothy Melton <t...@quest1.UUCP> wrote:
>rpe...@Think.COM (Robert Petit) writes:
>>
>>There are currently no DX4 (clock quadrupling) processors. There are
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You are wrong on the first count and right on the second. There IS a DX4
>chip, the 100DX4. It is a clock TRIPLED chip (3x33 1/3).
There will actually be a family of DX4 chips. According to some news rag,
this family will include 33/100, 33/83, 25/75, and 50/100.
>>Unless software is optimized for the pentium, It won't take advantage
>>of the pentium special features (dual integer pipeline, etc)
>
>Again wrong. Have you actually ever tried running tests w/ a P5? Pentium
>optimization speed things up about 5-10%.
Wow, that's pretty disappointing! Maybe the compilers aren't totally up
to speed yet?
Timothy Melton
>ov!att-in!nntpa!not-for-mail
>From: op...@apxslav1.ih.att.com (robin.kim)
>Subject: Re: Buying New Computer
>Message-ID: <CoKLv...@nntpa.cb.att.com>
>Sender: ne...@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: apxslav1.ih.att.com
>Organization: AT&T Network Wireless Systems Busines s Unit
>References: <rddCnL...@netcom.com> <Cnv24...@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com> <2ou57s...@early-bird.think.com> <1994Apr20.1...@quest1.uucp>
>Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 18:25:56 GMT
>Lines: 24
>
>This is totally outside the scope of this group so I'll keep this short.
>
>Timothy Melton <t...@quest1.UUCP> wrote:
>>rpe...@Think.COM (Robert Petit) writes:
>>>
[stuff deleted]
>>>Unless software is optimized for the pentium, It won't take advantage
>>>of the pentium special features (dual integer pipeline, etc)
>>
>>Again wrong. Have you actually ever tried running tests w/ a P5? Pentium
>>optimization speed things up about 5-10%.
>
>Wow, that's pretty disappointing! Maybe the compilers aren't totally up
>to speed yet?
Sorry, Rob, I meant 5-10% faster than w/o optimization. This was true
(oddly) even on a '486. The P5-60 seems about 1.5-2x faster than a 486dx26
for integer stuff and about 3-4 times faster on heavy FP stuff.
>
>Rob
>op...@ihlpf.att.com