4 ms·
Someone got this for me when I was a kid and I tried running it on a 166 mhz Pentium 1 with 16 mb of ram (a Toshiba desktop). It did not go well.
by hparadiz 3y ago
Someone got this for me when I was a kid and I tried running it on a 166 mhz Pentium 1 with 16 mb of ram (a Toshiba desktop). It did not go well.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoYou must be thinking of a different game - Falcon 3.0 came out in 1991 when a 486 would've been top-of-the-line. I played this fine on a 486SX and it was fine.
- sumtechguy 3y agoYeah that spec of machine should have easily played 3.0. Unless it was running too fast?
- hparadiz 3y agoI remember it taking minutes to load and then only getting under 20 fps. Maybe I had the graphics up too high. I didn't know what I was doing at all.
- sumtechguy 3y agoIf I remember right that game was wildly picky about the amount of memory free in the lower area. It may also have been an XMS/EMS issue. Some games were really picky about what you had running. It could have been not using the extra 15MB of memory if it was not set correctly.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoI think maybe you’re thinking of Falcon 4.0?
- wyldfire 3y agoI tried playing it on a 386SX/16MHz and it definitely suffered. It was somewhat playable with the detail features cranked down to minimum.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoI think it also really wanted a floating point coprocessor for the high fidelity flight model.
- TehShrike 3y agoI played on a 486DX2 with a math co-processor, and it ran well, though fairly low FPS unless I turned the graphics down.
- madengr 3y ago[dead]
- arcade79 3y agoThat's weird. It ran wonderfully well both on my 486SX 20Mhz and 486DX2 66Mhz.
- nocoiner 3y agoMight you be thinking about Falcon 4.0? That came out in the late ‘90s and struggled on the best available hardware at that time (as well as the best available hardware for the next decade or so).