Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sims that run comfortably on your PC

Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 10, 2005 3:02:59 AM

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you having to upgrade your existing (then outdated)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

More about : sims run comfortably

Anonymous
June 10, 2005 12:02:28 PM

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
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 5:11:09 PM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 6:06:00 PM

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
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 6:17:07 PM

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
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 9:28:42 PM

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....;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
>
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 9:34:06 PM

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....;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
> >
>
>
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 8:29:58 AM

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
June 11, 2005 12:33:36 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 8:42:27 PM

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.
>
>
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 8:42:28 PM

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 :) 
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 11:27:30 PM

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.
June 12, 2005 9:46:13 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 4:29:16 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 7:00:14 PM

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.
>
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 4:57:28 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 5:04:09 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 5:19:06 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 1:00:53 AM

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
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 9:10:08 AM

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
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 4:39:00 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 11:02:11 PM

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.
!