I'm not a mathematician...

But I started out with a Commodore VIC20 in 1980-1981

So, maybe a Rise of Flight 2 a bit later. Low enders get to keep a version they can run well enough, 777 get revenue for a new Forgotten Battles level standalone, and higher end users win big time...

So until 2020 it's gonna be kinda hard to have played PC games for 40 years.

That'll do for me. I can't afford a new PC, or upgrade, for a few years unless the lottery comes up , but I'd be extremely upset if - after buying every single plane that's been released (which I have, and will) - suddenly I couldn't play the game any more. If that ever happened I think I'd be asking for ALL of my money back, or 777 to buy me a new computer

second that

Hey...although I admittedly haven't put a lot of thought into it...

This sounds like a *really* (really) good idea. I mean, really good. It sounds like a "win/win/win"...I wonder what the 'official' response to such an idea would be? (Maybe an "upgrade" offer at a special price for those who already bought the sim and want the "RoF2" version?)

It also ties in to discussions previously about 'technology limitations'...I've often wondered that, if they're writing code bound to a lower-end spec (even if by necessity, to support folks with older hardware - which I understand), there should be some way to accomodate those with higer-end machines as well. I've personally never thought RoF taxes my machine that much, so long as I keep the graphics settings down (still using a GTX260/216 here). The CPU and the mass media storage subsystem (in my case) don't seem to break a sweat, really. And, let's be honest, it's time I upgraded the video card anyway.

Oh, come on, guys - give the man a break...he was rounding, for God's sake - even if by quite a bit. The mathematical disparity in this case doesn't change the point he was making.

(And, by the way, without getting into a big deal about it, I believe the "personal computer" was around well over 40 years ago...perhaps not in common use, but still, if we're going to be all technical about it...yeah, maybe there weren't really "games" then, but the Altair 8800 was around in the mid-1970's, and some even argue the "PC" goes back to the 1960s, if I'm not mistaken.)

All I'm saying is the timeline may be arguable, but his point is...well, his point.

Those were personal computers, but they weren't what would be defined as "PCs." The PC began with the explosion in popularity of the 8086 and MS DOS. Before I got my 8MHz XT in 1988, I had a series of Ataris...the 400, 800XL, 1300XE. They could do word processing and play games and some other stuff...but I wouldn't call them "PCs".



The Jedi Master

Of course, I see your point. But that is the very reason there's so much dispute about *when* the PC came along, simply because folks can't agree on exactly *what* is a PC. And it doesn't help that the definition of a "personal computer" varies greatly, depending upon the source.

Personally, I see it as "PC" stands for "personal computer", so regardless of capability, human interface, or what software...it's a PC.

I also happen to have the good fortune that Dr. Ed Roberts was a family acquaintance, and my grandmother's and father's physician for some time. Although he regretfully passed last April, he would tell you in a big damn hurry that *he* invented the first personal computer (The Altair), thank-you-very-much, and everyone else be damned. (Including Bill Gates, who Dr Roberts knew and actually gave his first real computer-related job at MITS).

Although more anecdotal than empirical, Dr Roberts has often been referred to as the "Father of the personal computer". He was, factually, far more of an expert in the field than most of the people I run across today on the Internet that claim to be...and not to insult, but given the choice between his account of the situation and yours..well, I'm gonna have to go with his. He *was* actually there, in the very thick of it, after all.

In the mid-1970s, the Altair was actually sold as a genuine "personal computer" kit. ('Personal' in the sense that it was affordable to an individual; you built it and you owned it, and that it was small enough that it didn't require special accomodations). The Altair was 8080-based, which is about as Intel architecture as it comes, and also pre-dates the 8088 and 8086 by about 4 years.

So, I would respectfully disagree that "The PC began with the explosion in popularity of the 8086...", and I think readily available evidence would support my position.

What seems to be suggested is a new high load version of ROF that you could download if your PC can handle it. High load features would be stuff like longer view distances and more ground objects that people are asking for.

Its not in 777s interest to ailienate customers. I can imagine that new content like aircraft and career updates will still be added to both versions, it would make sense.

I see you tempt fate and having hordes of Mac lovers descend on you and rip you to shreds for suggesting that their beloved Apple/Mac/iMac is a PC!
After all, John Hodgman was not portraying an Altair in his ads with Justin Long.

Ergo, I postulate that while every PC is a personal computer, not all personal computers are PCs. After all, when introduced 25 years ago, they were all IBM PCs. Then came the notion of "IBM-compatible PCs", a term which no longer holds any weight, but has since been truncated to simply PC. Concordantly, when someone says "PC gaming", they are implying "IBM-compatible PC gaming using an MS operating system on an x86 or x64-based processor." If that is NOT what they mean, that is well and good, but that is how the public at large will interpret it and one can hardly be blamed for interpreting it that way. Much as calling the P-51 a "Cadillac" in the 1940s was meant as a compliment, calling an F-22 a "Cadillac" now would hardly be seen that way.
For example, I NEVER called my Atari 400 or Atari 800XL a PC, nor even an Atari PC, but always "Atari computer" merely to differentiate it from the console line from Pong to 2600 to 5200 and so forth.

So, while it could be said technically that you are correct, as commonly accepted definitions for the past 3 decades have established you are incorrect. Especially in an era of politicians making blatantly false proclamations that are then simply explained as "not intended as a factual statement"...


The Jedi Master