GermanPilot 0 Posted June 2, 2009 Cheers! I bought CFS3 a year ago in anticipation of OFF Phase 3. Haven't had the chance to play any of the earlier phases. Since I'm on a budget, CFS3 runs on a cheapish laptop. Nevertheless, I get on almost highest settings fluid frames. Never seriously drops below 20 FPS. Highest observed FPS were in the 30s to 40s. Any chance to tweak OFF into something flyable, even on lowish settings? Or should I forget about it until I can afford a new PC? Thanks a lot for any honest and constructive input! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WarlordATF 1 Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) I am also interested in trying to find out if i can run OFF before i purchase it. I read the Tips but i'm still not sure. My system specs are... Pent 4 3.0 ghz 1 gig ddr2 ram 500 gig Seagate HD nVidia 8400GS 512 meg PCI-E Gfx Card Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit CFS3 runs pretty well, but is anyone running OFF on a simular system? Edited June 2, 2009 by WarlordATF Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balalaika 0 Posted June 5, 2009 Hey Warlord, with Vista running I'd say invest in more ram. Not just for OFF, but overall performance. I've read Vista is a real system hog that needs almost a gig just to run itself. If you have poor performance, try turning off some background apps (certainly things like sidebar and maybe the whole 'aero' desktop, until you get some more ram. I've got 6 gigs of ram in a quad pc and it still boots up soooo sllllloooo compared to XP. Anyway, best of luck with OFF - which looks good at even low settings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GermanPilot 0 Posted June 5, 2009 Thanks for the responses so far. I got RAM (3 GB), but my dual core 2 only kicks at 1.6. Does someone have it running on a lower spec. system? Right now I'm tinkering and playing with Red Baron 3D. Is still a lot of fun. Though, I was looking forward to OFF. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sitting_duck 3 Posted June 6, 2009 Thanks for the responses so far. I got RAM (3 GB), but my dual core 2 only kicks at 1.6. Does someone have it running on a lower spec. system? Right now I'm tinkering and playing with Red Baron 3D. Is still a lot of fun. Though, I was looking forward to OFF. one computer i used to run off on was a 2.9 celeron with 2 gig of pc3200 (thats 333 bus speed), and a 512mb pci card. I had to run it at 5-2-1-1-1, and it took forever to load up, but it was playable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GermanPilot 0 Posted June 6, 2009 one computer i used to run off on was a 2.9 celeron with 2 gig of pc3200 (thats 333 bus speed), and a 512mb pci card. I had to run it at 5-2-1-1-1, and it took forever to load up, but it was playable. How does a 2.9 Celeron compare to a 1.6 Core Duo 2? Since OFF doesn't use the second core, is it comparable to just a Pentium 4 at 1.6? I know, bus speed, cache and such adds up, plyus the graphics chip which is only an Intel X3100, but hey, I play FS9 and addons with high frames on highest settings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sitting_duck 3 Posted June 6, 2009 (edited) could be wrong about this,,,,,but dont think i am off DOES utilize a dual core,,,,it wont utilize a quad core.... and your question is one i always seem to be asking,,,how does a x.x celeron match up with a x.x p4, and so on.. with all the other factors invoved, dont think you will ever get a difinitve answer, not being a saleman here, but i would definately get the game, especially if you are satisfied with how cfs3 plays on your laptop. granted, you may not have your sliders set to where you would like them, and may have scenery disabled all together, but you will still enjoy the game. Edited June 6, 2009 by sitting_duck Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GermanPilot 0 Posted June 7, 2009 Theoretically a Top of Heap, Celery can't do a decent job, on any flight simulation, because it can't handle the Huge amount of Mathimatical Computations needed at one time.Hence all the 2's and 1's Yet you have the Balls, to compare BHaH, to FS9 written in 2002-2003, being played on motherboard video. Pardon Me if I Laugh Pick-up an 8400 on Ebay . . then try it You may laugh as much as you want. My comparison was made to give insight how my system performs on another sim with mesh, landclass, and a lot of other addons, high settings, with the result of very fluid frames. If that is not good enough to play OFF on lowest settings with its core engine being CFS3, comparable to what, FS2002, I´ll accept it and will get some more mileage out of RB3D. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Polovski 460 Posted June 11, 2009 Hard to say GermanPilot. The system requirements are on the website and a reasonable guide. OFF is NOT the same as the original CFS3. it is massively expanded, from higher rendering on scenery huge higher quality textures, 1000's of ground objects during major battles, over 220 craft in the air (and more) doing real missions all with individual skins of Aces, squads, bzzzzt I'll stop there you get the idea. Sliders in OFF = CFS3+2 Also for scenery in general terrain/scenery sliders at 2 is approx the detail of slider at 4 in CFS3 (plus then we are using much higher res textures too!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
