Which Version Should I Get?

[ske]

I have an Intel Pentium 4 3.0 ghz processor on an intel 915g motherboard with 64 meg integrated chipset, Intel Graphics Media Accelerator Driver, 1 gig RAM.

Looking at FS2000, FS2000 Pro, FS2002, FS2002 Pro, or FS2004 (too taxing for my 2005 system?)

Thanks!

[EMatheson]

OS is also a factor... are you trying to run Vista on that machine? If so, go with FS2004. If not, FS2002 Pro will probably be a better fit.

[ske]

Sorry, Windows XP

[ske]

Just ordered FS2002 Pro. Thanks.

[Desert Rat]

If you got a separate Graphics card, you could run FS2004 just fine, I used to have a very similar setup, and with the less taxing XP rether than Vista FS9 should be fine if you invested in a graphics card, I ran fine with a £50 ATI with 512MB video memory. Another Gig of RAM if your motherboard supports it wouldn't go amiss either.

Jamie

[Ashaman]

I strongly suggest you to get a separate graphic card, so, as Jamie already told you, you would be able to use the state of the art about the FS releases. FS9. After the V9, and for the moment at least, nothing is really worthy of being bought in the FS world.

My old rig was in fact less powerful than yours (An Athlon Xp 2600 with a Gefo 6600GT 128Mb AGP) and FS9 worked on it just fine with all the bells and whistles at max and only slowed down a little when a lot of AI planes were showing.

I would suggest you to buy another GB of memory as well. It really makes the difference with the more complex planes.

[OBIO]

I run a P4 3.0gig, Nvidia GeForce 7600GS 512MB video, 2Gig Ram system. XP Home update to Service Pack 3. FS2004 with all detail sliders at max, terrain at max, AI at max density. I have my frames locked at 20FPS and the sim runs at 20FPS regardless of the scenery, AI population, clouds. I could run it faster, but above 20fps, I noticed no difference in the smoothness of the sim, but did notice some blurring of the scenery. I opt for a lower frame rate setting to maximize scenery clarity.

Add in a dedicated video card and a second Gig of Ram and you will be able to run FS2004 with no problems. On the same system, FS2002 should really scream.

OBIO

[EMatheson]

Question:
Are any of you reporting 20+FPS Fs9 maxed out on a 3.0 Ghz processor and 2 Gbs RAM using any addon mesh such as the FSG meshes?
I run FS9 on a 3.3 Ghz processor with 2 Gbs RAM and a 256 Mbs GFX card, and cannot run FS9 maxed with the FSG mesh... (which, due to the realism it brings to my local area, I am absolutely NOT willing to delete!)

[Desert Rat]

When I had a rig like that I had it locked to 25fps, with everything maxed out bar the clouds and AI. Didn't have any mesh installed bar the world mesh from SimV which didn't last long, to many 'quirks' forced a quick exit stage left. Did have some fairly complex scenery installed and it did suffer when using complex planes in heavy clouds near large airports, which didn't happen to often. Other than that can't think of any other issues.

Jamie

[ske]

Wow, thanks for all the great reponses. A new card is definitely in the offing. I'll need a better power supply as well. I specifically want those things to run IL-2 S 1946 without a Page Fault BSoD.
However, I'm not really too interested in graphics for FS at the moment. I'm just looking for a program that runs with stability. I've used FS since my dad picked it up for the IBM in early 1980s, and have used it, and CFS, on and off since. I have learned to fly through trial and error, on separate rudder controls and near realism. What my goal is now is to plow through my wife's old Jeppesen/Sanderson Private Pilot Manual, use lessons available in FS, and observe in VATSIM with the goal of flying there.
Anyone interested in taking the Instructor's Station in FS for any of my training? Assuming, of course, the software runs smoothly.

[Daube]

I strongly suggest you to get a separate graphic card, so, as Jamie already told you, you would be able to use the state of the art about the FS releases. FS9. After the V9, and for the moment at least, nothing is really worthy of being bought in the FS world.

My old rig was in fact less powerful than yours (An Athlon Xp 2600 with a Gefo 6600GT 128Mb AGP) and FS9 worked on it just fine with all the bells and whistles at max and only slowed down a little when a lot of AI planes were showing.

I would suggest you to buy another GB of memory as well. It really makes the difference with the more complex planes.

I would suggest you to get a little bit informed before telling such things to people that are new to the sim world.

Ske, I see you have already ordered FS2002, I think this was a mistake, but I suppose it's too late already. FS9 was indeed the correct choice, since your CPU is powerfull enough to really enjoy this sim. What you really need, as already stated above, is to get a real video card. Your integrated video card will surely give very bad results, even in FS2002.

[Ashaman]

I would suggest you to get a little bit informed before telling such things to people that are new to the sim world.

Of course everything I write is my point of view. I've tried them all, and I am using only FS9 and X-plane 9, and sold away FSX ASAP, trying to get back as much money I could from THAT business for a reason.

...and with me agreed the 75% of the FS9 users who tried the X. :mixedsmi:

That and, we were asked about an optimal solution for a P4 3.0Ghz. Though even had he had a top of the line rig, I would have been extremely wary in suggesting a something I know it's not even half of what was advertised. A suggestion that one that could almost assuredly have got me one hell of a bad reputation, or at the very least a polite inquiry on what did I smoke when I suggested that and, most important, why did I not share.

My point of views remain in the end that. Mine. :ernae:

[ske]

I run a P4 3.0gig, Nvidia GeForce 7600GS 512MB video, 2Gig Ram system. XP Home update to Service Pack 3. FS2004 with all detail sliders at max, terrain at max, AI at max density. I have my frames locked at 20FPS and the sim runs at 20FPS regardless of the scenery, AI population, clouds. I could run it faster, but above 20fps, I noticed no difference in the smoothness of the sim, but did notice some blurring of the scenery. I opt for a lower frame rate setting to maximize scenery clarity.

Add in a dedicated video card and a second Gig of Ram and you will be able to run FS2004 with no problems. On the same system, FS2002 should really scream.

OBIO

What size power supply are you using?

[OBIO]

My power supply is about 6 inches, by 4 inches by 5 inches LOL. I think it is the 200 to 250 watt range. I want to swap it out for a new 500 watt power supply so I can add some more fans to my case to help keep things cooler...don't have a real heat issue, but cooler is better for so many reasons.

OBIO

[Ashaman]

250 Watt??? :isadizzy:

That is really poor wattage, especially with the new and demanding graphic cards. Only because you have, I read, a 7600GS (the low powered version of a 7600) surely you must have little to no problems.

If your power unit is really that low in power, I strongly suggest you to find something better. Nowadays, 500 Watt power units come quite cheap. Keep in mind that most of the strangest glitches in a else perfectly working rig (strange software behaviors, sudden resets, PC freezing and requiring a hardware reset, odd crashes to desktop...) are fault of an overstressed power unit... not to say what would happen if you found a graphic card like my old 6600GT (which required a direct connection to the power adapter on the top of the power drained from the AGP slot) and wanted to use it instead of your actual one.