Sims that run comfortably on your PC

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Hi.
I wish there were more new sims that could run on
my PC instead of having to upgrade all the time.

Two games which worked well on my Celeron 466Mhz PC
were Steel Beasts and Silent Hunter 2.

Why can't game developers develop games which the
other groups of people without a Pentium 4 or high-end
AMD chips can use?

It would also be nice of flight sim developers could
offer games which have polygon-mapped and texture-mapped
options of the graphics. Something like Flanker 1.5 with
polygon and Gouraud-shading.

Anyone know of other games which worked well during their time without
you having to upgrade your existing (then outdated)
hardware?

Regards
Frankie "TornadoMan" Kam
The place where Digital Integration's Tornado lives:
http://www.stamford.edu.my/socsscm/tree/tornado.html
21 answers Last reply
More about sims comfortably
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    In article <1118383379.053612.316730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    frankie@stamford.edu.my () wrote:

    > I wish there were more new sims that could run on
    > my PC instead of having to upgrade all the time.

    I have some sympathy with what you say. But if you're still running a
    466MHz PC then you're not really upgrading "all the time", are you? :-)

    I think it's natural for developers (and us) to always be pushing the
    boundaries of what's possible. But I do agree that now PC power has
    reached a plateau (a capable machine is now cheaper than it's ever been)
    it would be very nice if someone would start looking at improving
    gameplay rather than graphics, or adding yet another unnecessary aircraft.

    Hopefully as consoles increasingly take over the gaming world, that will
    free up the PC for a fresh wave of niche developers with more
    imagination and less interest in providing the very latest of graphical
    thrills.

    Of course then we'll just complain their work looks ugly compared to our
    PS4 titles :-) For instance, last night I saw a TV preview of this Xbox
    title...

    http://xbox.ign.com/objects/741/741872.html

    It's not a sim by our standards, but the graphics look superb, with
    smoke plumes which appear to be far more realistic than anything we've
    seen on the PC. In motion it looked very nice indeed, with crowds of
    people scattering on the ground to make it seem more like a real world.
    On the PC we've seen nothing like that since DI's Hind... you'd think by
    now someone in PC-land would've tried it again.

    On the subject of smoke, one of my least favourite features in LOMAC is
    the way smoke plumes rise vertically and all look identical. It's an
    area where a little randomisation would go a long way towards stopping
    immersion being broken. But then those Russians have always liked an
    ordered universe. Look at the way those wingmen still behave :-)

    I guess this is a typical example of how developers are caught in a
    trap. We ask for gameplay and then drool over improved graphics. No
    wonder most gave up and got proper jobs.

    Andrew McP
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    Mr. Sylvestre wrote:
    > Andrew MacPherson wrote:
    > Well, I wouldn't blame them for adding a very necessary aircraft (that
    > shall remain unnamed but a variable geometry wing would be nice :) ).

    You're right, we've gone far too long without an F-111 simulator.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    Andrew MacPherson wrote:
    > (...)
    > I think it's natural for developers (and us) to always be pushing the
    > boundaries of what's possible. But I do agree that now PC power has
    > reached a plateau (a capable machine is now cheaper than it's ever been)
    > it would be very nice if someone would start looking at improving
    > gameplay rather than graphics, or adding yet another unnecessary aircraft.

    Well, I wouldn't blame them for adding a very necessary aircraft (that
    shall remain unnamed but a variable geometry wing would be nice :) ).

    But in general, gameplay should indeed be a priority for PC sims.

    Regards,
    Mr. Sylvestre

    PS. For a shot of nostalgia, click this -> http://tinyurl.com/7g9zz
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    frankie@stamford.edu.my wrote:
    > Hi.
    > I wish there were more new sims that could run on
    > my PC instead of having to upgrade all the time.

    This actually reminds me of the early 1990's, when I could only go to
    "Software Etc." and imagine having a machine that could run the newer
    games. It was cool to see what stuff was out there, and it didn't
    bother me that I was out of the running for using newer software
    because I just new I'd get a new PC down the line. When I finally got
    my P200 MMX in '97, I went out and bought many of those older sims,
    figuring that my PC would obsolesce fairly quickly, and that I could
    stretch its appreciable life by playing the hell out of old games
    before moving onto those whose lower-level system requirements were
    closer to the top of my system specs. As it turned out, I'd
    overestimated how quickly I'd tire of those games. As a result, my
    rampant raids to the bargain bin have stuffed my CD drawer with dozens
    of titles that I have no time to get to. The point is, I don't need to
    upgrade because I'm plenty well stocked with titles as it is - and I
    don't feel them as obsolescent unless I do something crazy like pick up
    a computer gaming magazine with reviews of newer sims. In short, with
    a system like yours, there's plenty to enjoy without resort to an
    upgrade.
    >
    > Two games which worked well on my Celeron 466Mhz PC
    > were Steel Beasts and Silent Hunter 2.

    A sub fan? (What's "Steel Beasts"? sounds like a tank game.)
    >
    > Why can't game developers develop games which the
    > other groups of people without a Pentium 4 or high-end
    > AMD chips can use?

    Because they'd probably be anemic in comparison to the ones written for
    the higher systems. This ofcourse is a truism - the original EF2000
    didn't even need a Pentium, and it offered beautiful graphics and
    gameplay for its time; the first "Janes Fighters" sims did require a
    Pentium, and didn't look anywhere near as good. That said, it's likely
    that that upward spiral in sys-req had much to do with the fact that
    you ended up with a Celeron machine as you describe - there was a time
    when 466 mhz wasn't an anemic number. Ambitious software coding is a
    big part of why we have such stupendous systems. It's not something to
    be lamented. OTOH, sims have plateaued since '97 - with advances in
    graphics and sound revealing just how limiting the entire format is.
    Where are the 3D VR goggles we were supposed to have by now? If you'd
    told me in 1992 that, over a decade later, we'd still be flying sims
    watching through a 2D monitor, I'd be skeptical. (I'd also find it
    hard to believe that so few sims have been released over so long a
    period over the past few years). Yet this is what happened. PC games,
    and esp. sims, have stagnated. We should be happy that there's any
    evolution at all - a fact you'll appreciate when you finally get around
    to upgrading your machine.

    >
    > It would also be nice of flight sim developers could
    > offer games which have polygon-mapped and texture-mapped
    > options of the graphics. Something like Flanker 1.5 with
    > polygon and Gouraud-shading.

    That sounds like "Flanker 2.5". Have you tried to run that game?
    According to Gamespy, it's Sys-Req is a 300 MHZ PIII and 32MB of RAM.
    Jane's F-15, which ran comfortably on my P200, should make up for not
    being able to run Jane's F/A-18. It could probably do with a good
    graphics accelerator - likely a 3dfx. If you're not into something too
    hardcore, I'd suggest "EF2000 v2.0" or "Total Air War". TAW is
    primarily an F-22 sim, but it's stronger as a theater-wide real time
    strategy game involving warplanes. Also, either of the first two
    Longbow games and the first "Enemy Engaged" will easily run on your
    system.

    When it comes to WWII games, I'm somewhat uncertain. My P200 couldn't
    really handle the generation of sims that debuted with MS's first
    Combat Flight Simulator, even when I installed a 3dfx card. It wasn't
    until I swapped that machine for a 2Ghz P4 that that changed - I never
    tried it on something closer to your set-up. Even so, you can easily
    enjoy sims like the Aces series, or "Pacific Air War". While those
    games might be more painfully outdated than available modern sims,
    they're still quite worthy of your time, and ofcourse are likely to be
    even cheaper than the above.

    Did I miss any areas of interest?
    >
    > Regards
    > Frankie "TornadoMan" Kam
    > The place where Digital Integration's Tornado lives:
    > http://www.stamford.edu.my/socsscm/tree/tornado.html
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    <frankie@stamford.edu.my> wrote in message
    news:1118383379.053612.316730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

    > Anyone know of other games which worked well during their time without
    > you having to upgrade your existing (then outdated)
    > hardware?

    I still play F/A-18 Precision Strike Fighter (aka F/A-18 Korea Gold [for
    PC]) practically every day (single player only).

    System requirements:
    - Pentium II 233 Mhz
    - 64MB RAM
    - 8MB OpenGL 3D Accelerated
    - 70MB HD space

    Some screenies:
    http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002219#000000

    PSF has a look and feel that I'm very comfortable with and I still really
    enjoy playing it. What's great is that it screams on my Dell 1.7Ghz / 512MB
    RAM / Radeon 9600SE with my OpenGL Catalyst settings fully maxed out.

    I wish this sim would get a major overhaul, though. There is a more recent
    version called F/A-18 Operation Iraqi Freedom, but it doesn't compare to the
    older Korea versions, IMO.
    --


    Mark

    >
    > Regards
    > Frankie "TornadoMan" Kam
    > The place where Digital Integration's Tornado lives:
    > http://www.stamford.edu.my/socsscm/tree/tornado.html
    >
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    Follow-up:

    And I believe Hornet Korea was a sim that didn't require a cutting edge
    system when it was released.
    --


    Mark


    "Mark Gonzales" <enter_my_name@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:h-ednaDLb5aXmzffRVn-qw@comcast.com...
    > <frankie@stamford.edu.my> wrote in message
    > news:1118383379.053612.316730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > > Anyone know of other games which worked well during their time without
    > > you having to upgrade your existing (then outdated)
    > > hardware?
    >
    > I still play F/A-18 Precision Strike Fighter (aka F/A-18 Korea Gold [for
    > PC]) practically every day (single player only).
    >
    > System requirements:
    > - Pentium II 233 Mhz
    > - 64MB RAM
    > - 8MB OpenGL 3D Accelerated
    > - 70MB HD space
    >
    > Some screenies:
    >
    http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002219#000000
    >
    > PSF has a look and feel that I'm very comfortable with and I still really
    > enjoy playing it. What's great is that it screams on my Dell 1.7Ghz /
    512MB
    > RAM / Radeon 9600SE with my OpenGL Catalyst settings fully maxed out.
    >
    > I wish this sim would get a major overhaul, though. There is a more recent
    > version called F/A-18 Operation Iraqi Freedom, but it doesn't compare to
    the
    > older Korea versions, IMO.
    > --
    >
    >
    > Mark
    >
    > >
    > > Regards
    > > Frankie "TornadoMan" Kam
    > > The place where Digital Integration's Tornado lives:
    > > http://www.stamford.edu.my/socsscm/tree/tornado.html
    > >
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    <frankie@stamford.edu.my> wrote in message
    news:1118383379.053612.316730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi.
    > I wish there were more new sims that could run on
    > my PC instead of having to upgrade all the time.
    >
    > Two games which worked well on my Celeron 466Mhz PC

    ^^^^^^^^^

    Aw HAHAHAHA! Are you SERIOUS? My PC from two overhauls back was better
    than this. And that's from 1999! BTW ceratin Celeron lots were VERY
    overclockable - my Celeron 566 I had running at 825MHz without a hiccup.

    > Why can't game developers develop games which the
    > other groups of people without a Pentium 4 or high-end
    > AMD chips can use?
    >

    Because nobody wants to run in 640x480x16 anymore? Because nobody wants to
    get 5 fps anymore? Because nobody actually has a SB16 anymore? Because
    anyone with a PIII is considered a caveman?

    > Anyone know of other games which worked well during their time without
    > you having to upgrade your existing (then outdated)
    > hardware?
    >
    > Regards

    Sorry to be so offensive but hell - if you're going to be playing on the
    cheap, you take what you can get.

    James
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:aNtqe.2686$VK4.117@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >Because
    > anyone with a PIII is considered a caveman?

    A similarly clocked P3 is just as fast as a P4. Intel just pulled the wool
    over your eyes and stopped making faster clocked P3's, just like they have
    stopped making faster clocked Northwoods and are forcing these POS Prescotts
    down our throats with the new socket so you have to buy a new motherboard.
    It's a vicious BS cycle. Keep playing the game.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    Sounds to me like you pulled your own wool over your own eyes. Your
    conspiracy theory is based on ignorance not facts, Sodium.

    The original P3 has 9.5 million transistors while the original P4 had 42
    million (Prescott has 125 million). Do the math and come back and tell us
    what clock speed we'd need to be running that P3 to equal a P4 Prescott? On
    that same line of "thinking" what kinda cooling setup and how much would it
    cost to keep that P3 cool running at around a 50GHz?

    This isnt even including all the other features that make up a modern CPU.

    No one is forcing you to buy anything but spewing absolute nonsense helps no
    one and makes you look......

    Id rather argue about torque vs horsepower hehe.

    Mitch


    "Sodium" <sodium@benzoate.invalid> wrote in message
    news:11am12edgponjb4@corp.supernews.com...
    > A similarly clocked P3 is just as fast as a P4. Intel just pulled the wool
    > over your eyes and stopped making faster clocked P3's, just like they have
    > stopped making faster clocked Northwoods and are forcing these POS
    > Prescotts
    > down our throats with the new socket so you have to buy a new motherboard.
    > It's a vicious BS cycle. Keep playing the game.
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:42:27 +0000, Mitch_A wrote:
    <snip!>

    > Id rather argue about torque vs horsepower hehe.
    >
    > Mitch

    I have a Golf TDI here, which is rated at 95 hp, and those who have
    ridden in it with me are surprised that's all it's got.. VW's gearing's
    superb :)
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    frankie@stamford.edu.my wrote in news:1118383379.053612.316730
    @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    > Hi.
    > I wish there were more new sims that could run on
    > my PC instead of having to upgrade all the time.
    >
    > Two games which worked well on my Celeron 466Mhz PC
    > were Steel Beasts and Silent Hunter 2.
    >
    > Why can't game developers develop games which the
    > other groups of people without a Pentium 4 or high-end
    > AMD chips can use?
    >

    I hear you. I have a P4, 2 gig chip
    and 640 megs of ram - not half bad - but
    the last few games I bought were virtually
    unplayable on it.

    As you have noticed, flight sims are the
    worst about trying to be "cutting edge", i.e.
    graphics demands that are so high that only
    the most current of high end computers can
    utilize them. And from what I hear the current
    games barely make the purchase worthwhile.

    Currently I am trying to go the other
    way. Looking for decent computer to run all
    my old DOS favorites, Red Baron, SWOTL, Wolfpack,
    BoB, Centurion and the like. Horribly retro,
    but that is where I am right now.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    frankie@stamford.edu.my wrote:
    > Hi.
    > I wish there were more new sims that could run on
    > my PC instead of having to upgrade all the time.
    >
    > Two games which worked well on my Celeron 466Mhz PC
    > were Steel Beasts and Silent Hunter 2.
    >
    > Why can't game developers develop games which the
    > other groups of people without a Pentium 4 or high-end
    > AMD chips can use?
    >
    > It would also be nice of flight sim developers could
    > offer games which have polygon-mapped and texture-mapped
    > options of the graphics. Something like Flanker 1.5 with
    > polygon and Gouraud-shading.
    >
    > Anyone know of other games which worked well during their time without
    > you having to upgrade your existing (then outdated)
    > hardware?
    >
    > Regards
    > Frankie "TornadoMan" Kam
    > The place where Digital Integration's Tornado lives:
    > http://www.stamford.edu.my/socsscm/tree/tornado.html
    >
    European Air War and Red Baron 3D are two sims that you should get ASAP.
    Get a Voodoo 5 for twenty-thirty dollars on Ebay and go nuts
    downloading user created upgrades and exploring new worlds and new
    civilizations.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    I gave up on upgrading/replacing my computers a while back. Too much
    monetary expenditure, researching the best hardware, ordering it, and
    assembling it. I also got tired of downloading the latest hardware
    drivers and patches for games.

    I now have three computers that serve all of my needs: a 1 GHz, a 1.4
    GHz and a 2GHz. I built them all myself. I have all of the final
    hardware drivers and game patches burned on CD-Rs. I use both Win 2000
    and Win XP.

    These machines serve me well for the flight sims and games that I play.
    Mostly older ones but I am still very happy playing just them.

    A short list of the flight sims:
    European Air War
    Jane's WWII Fighters
    Enemy Engaged Apache Havoc
    Enemy Engaged Comanche Hokum
    Jane's F/A-18
    IL-2 Sturmovik (the original version before Forgotten Battles)

    Beleive it or not, I am still using a 3dfx Voodoo 5500 in the 1 GHz
    machine!

    When my son gets older, I'll network the computers together and we'll
    play each other. Also, we will eventually buy him a console. But until
    then I'll spend my time playing my favorites; a good game never becomes
    obsolete.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    OK then, have fun....

    Ill be upgrading so I can take advantage of things like accurately modeled
    physics and graphics where you can actually tell whom the enemy is. If
    youre satisfied good for you, but some of us arent and want a better more
    realistic experience. Sounds to me like your an xbox sort anyway.

    If you plan your upgrades correctly you can avoid the "big" monetary
    expenditure and spread the costs out over time.

    Mitch

    "FATSOS" <oncedarknessnowlight@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1118734156.166824.45300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >I gave up on upgrading/replacing my computers a while back. Too much
    > monetary expenditure, researching the best hardware, ordering it, and
    > assembling it. I also got tired of downloading the latest hardware
    > drivers and patches for games.
    >
    > I now have three computers that serve all of my needs: a 1 GHz, a 1.4
    > GHz and a 2GHz. I built them all myself. I have all of the final
    > hardware drivers and game patches burned on CD-Rs. I use both Win 2000
    > and Win XP.
    >
    > These machines serve me well for the flight sims and games that I play.
    > Mostly older ones but I am still very happy playing just them.
    >
    > A short list of the flight sims:
    > European Air War
    > Jane's WWII Fighters
    > Enemy Engaged Apache Havoc
    > Enemy Engaged Comanche Hokum
    > Jane's F/A-18
    > IL-2 Sturmovik (the original version before Forgotten Battles)
    >
    > Beleive it or not, I am still using a 3dfx Voodoo 5500 in the 1 GHz
    > machine!
    >
    > When my son gets older, I'll network the computers together and we'll
    > play each other. Also, we will eventually buy him a console. But until
    > then I'll spend my time playing my favorites; a good game never becomes
    > obsolete.
    >
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    I'm not really the console type as the only two I have ever owned were
    the Atari 2600 and Super NES and only about ten games with each system,
    none of which I own now. No, I really enjoy the computer games that I
    currently own and will play them ad infinitum.

    My son is a few months away from turning six years old and he won't be
    getting a game console till he is around ten. Even then the games will
    be screened for violent content.

    I have been taking the money that I used to put into new hardware and
    software and paying off our mortgage early. Only one year left and
    after that is paid off I will save for retirement.

    I can't really spend more time than I do on computer entertainment nor
    do I want to because of time with my wife and son, time with friends
    and family, reading, gardening, cooking, exercising, home repair and
    maintenance, movies and TV, etc.

    As far as a more realistic experience is concerned, I don't want to
    keep chasing rainbows. More FPS at a higher resolution doesn't mean
    that much to me. It seems to me that the integrated circuit industry
    keeps slowly metering out the advancement of technology just enough to
    milk consumers of their cash. A giant leap forward would be nice.

    I guess that the experimental computers that use the light based (laser
    light) transistor that were supposed to be a million times faster than
    today's fastest computers haven't progressed to the stage of being
    practical yet. Either that or Intel is paying gobs of money for the
    project not to get off of the ground.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    I'm not really the console type as the only two I have ever owned were
    the Atari 2600 and Super NES and only about ten games with each system,
    none of which I own now. No, I really enjoy the computer games that I
    currently own and will play them ad infinitum.

    My son is a few months away from turning six years old and he won't be
    getting a game console till he is around ten. Even then the games will
    be screened for violent content.

    I have been taking the money that I used to put into new hardware and
    software and paying off our mortgage early. Only one year left and
    after that is paid off I will save for retirement.

    I can't really spend more time than I do on computer entertainment nor
    do I want to because of time with my wife and son, time with friends
    and family, reading, gardening, cooking, exercising, home repair and
    maintenance, movies and TV, etc.

    As far as a more realistic experience is concerned, I don't want to
    keep chasing rainbows. More FPS at a higher resolution doesn't mean
    that much to me. It seems to me that the integrated circuit industry
    keeps slowly metering out the advancement of technology just enough to
    milk consumers of their cash. A giant leap forward would be nice.

    I guess the experimental computers that use the light based (laser
    light) transistor and were supposed to be a million times faster than
    today's fastest computers haven't progressed to the stage of being
    practical yet. Either that or Intel is paying gobs of money for the
    project not to get off of the ground.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    Don't you have to run it on a system with an OS lower than Win2000? I
    thought that Glide API supprt vanished with Win98.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
    news:1118866746.873592.19570@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Don't you have to run it on a system with an OS lower than Win2000? I
    > thought that Glide API supprt vanished with Win98.
    >
    I'm running a Voodoo2 in Windows XP for RB3D - it's fine.
    But WinXP keeps re-writing my EAW.ini so I'm having trouble with my all-time
    favourite.
    Mark Lee
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    FATSOS wrote:
    > I'm not really the console type as the only two I have ever owned were
    > the Atari 2600 and Super NES and only about ten games with each system,
    > none of which I own now. No, I really enjoy the computer games that I
    > currently own and will play them ad infinitum.
    >
    > My son is a few months away from turning six years old and he won't be
    > getting a game console till he is around ten. Even then the games will
    > be screened for violent content.
    >
    > I have been taking the money that I used to put into new hardware and
    > software and paying off our mortgage early. Only one year left and
    > after that is paid off I will save for retirement.
    >
    > I can't really spend more time than I do on computer entertainment nor
    > do I want to because of time with my wife and son, time with friends
    > and family, reading, gardening, cooking, exercising, home repair and
    > maintenance, movies and TV, etc.
    >
    > As far as a more realistic experience is concerned, I don't want to
    > keep chasing rainbows. More FPS at a higher resolution doesn't mean
    > that much to me. It seems to me that the integrated circuit industry
    > keeps slowly metering out the advancement of technology just enough to
    > milk consumers of their cash. A giant leap forward would be nice.
    >
    > I guess that the experimental computers that use the light based (laser
    > light) transistor that were supposed to be a million times faster than
    > today's fastest computers haven't progressed to the stage of being
    > practical yet. Either that or Intel is paying gobs of money for the
    > project not to get off of the ground.
    >

    Sounds to me like you've got your priorities straight. Good on ya mate.

    James
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:00:53 +0000, Mark Lee wrote:

    >
    > "FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
    > news:1118866746.873592.19570@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >> Don't you have to run it on a system with an OS lower than Win2000? I
    >> thought that Glide API supprt vanished with Win98.
    >>
    > I'm running a Voodoo2 in Windows XP for RB3D - it's fine.
    > But WinXP keeps re-writing my EAW.ini so I'm having trouble with my all-time
    > favourite.
    > Mark Lee

    Probably system file checker (sfc) or that damned "system restore" or some
    other doohickey they trotted out when their blood was being bayed for. As
    is so often the case with such products, "It's a feature, not a bug!".

    I'm running win2k and win98 here - win2k for F-15, F-18 and Flanker 2.5
    and win98 for the dos based F22Pro programming tools.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    There are some really good 3rd party drivers out there for 3dfx cards
    in a Win2000/WinXP environment.

    The one that I use is Amigamerlin 2.1. Also, I don't run any games post
    DirectX 8.1.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Sims Games Video Games