Optimal PC for FS2004?

[JoHubb]

I run FS2004 on a 4 year old PC and would like to upgrade. I'd be grateful for advice.

Currrent PC (Win XP).

Asus Rampage Formula mobo; Q9650 @ 3GHz; 3GB DDR2; Nvidia GTX260 216 cores o/c; Western Digital standard HDD 7200rpm 500GB; 650W PSU.

I run a lot of addons (REX, GE Pro, dozens of airfields) and I've made a hobby almost of AI. Mostly the machine runs very well but large airports are frame-rate hitters. Would I see much of an improvement if I built an i-3 or an i-5 machine? And should I replace a 4 year old, heavily used PSU?

Finally, if I build a new machine I'd install W7x32 or W7x64. Not sure which?? After this how best to transfer my existing FS2004 XP setup to the new W7 machine?

Thanks!

John

[Dumonceau]

I run FS2004 on a 4 year old PC and would like to upgrade. I'd be grateful for advice.

Currrent PC (Win XP).

Asus Rampage Formula mobo; Q9650 @ 3GHz; 3GB DDR2; Nvidia GTX260 216 cores o/c; Western Digital standard HDD 7200rpm 500GB; 650W PSU.

I run a lot of addons (REX, GE Pro, dozens of airfields) and I've made a hobby almost of AI. Mostly the machine runs very well but large airports are frame-rate hitters. Would I see much of an improvement if I built an i-3 or an i-5 machine? And should I replace a 4 year old, heavily used PSU?

Finally, if I build a new machine I'd install W7x32 or W7x64. Not sure which?? After this how best to transfer my existing FS2004 XP setup to the new W7 machine?

Thanks!

John

You would see a HUGE improvement with an i5 machine. Go for the fastest available, their not too expensive Enough RAM (the fastest possible) and a decent GFX card will also do the trick. And if there is money left, buy an SSD instead of a classic hdd. With two HDD's, an i5 and an SSD, I would go for a more powerfull PSU, especially if you would decide on going SLI (two GFX cards)

And if you have decent cooling, you could overclock the thing as well. That should give you an FSX capable machine. But maybe I'm blaspheming over here...

[aeromed202]

IMHO, no such thing. However, there seems no end to the variation that can still run a very good game. My specs are below and after finally getting that faster processor, that made the most improvement to smooth graphics. Don't overlook the other factors like other programs running, defragging the HD, malware, or corrupt textures. I also have 4gig of ram knowing XP can only make use of about 3.5 - 4gig, but every byte helps and I didn't want that to be the limiting factor. Memory is still pretty cheap so adding another gig might make a noticeable difference for little cost before spending bigger bucks.

[JoHubb]

Thanks to both. A faster processor seems a worthwhile priority and a new mobo. In recent years I've moved to Intel so I'll probably stick with that.

What about the 'transfer' of my existing XP setup to W7? And will W7x64 Home Premium run FS2004?

That should give you an FSX capable machine. But maybe I'm blaspheming over here...

Shh! I run FSX too - on a different PC - different location.

[Tom Clayton]

W7 Home Premium x64 will run the Sim just fine - that's what I have on this machine. My only problem is that it's not a "gaming" computer, so I have performance issues related to the hardware.

If you run a multi-core processor, remember that FS9 was coded a decade ago and is only designed to run on one core. On my last machine, I actually got slower frames when I forced the program to use more than one core. Core speed, RAM, and a decent GPU seem to be the three biggest factors in getting good FS9 performance in any machine.

In my own opinion, doing a fresh install will give you the bes results. After you run the 4CD's, leave #4 in and run the 9.1 update next. Once that's done, apply any addons that can only be done via executable. Next, copy over the rest of everything in your addon scenery and aircraft folders. Last step is to activate the addon scenery in that library. Since a lot of addon exe's peek into the registry to see what's where, this should give you a relatively seamless installation.

[stansdds]

I agree with Tom. FS2004 is an old sim, designed to run on a single core CPU. Now you might assign the background processes and maybe even some of your add-on programs to other cores, but FS2004 is designed to run on one core only.

[Bjoern]

I run FS2004 on a 4 year old PC and would like to upgrade. I'd be grateful for advice.

Currrent PC (Win XP).

Asus Rampage Formula mobo; Q9650 @ 3GHz; 3GB DDR2; Nvidia GTX260 216 cores o/c; Western Digital standard HDD 7200rpm 500GB; 650W PSU.

I'll take the 9650 if you want to throw it out. That thing should do close to 4 GHz!

[stansdds]

Mine does 3.8 on air, fans not even going full speed.

[JoHubb]

I'll take the 9650 if you want to throw it out. That thing should do close to 4 GHz!

Thanks, fellas.

I'm taking on board some of your comments before I do anything rash with the Q9650. I did o/c it to 3.8 GHz with no probs at all. On the other hand chips don't last for ever, even cool ones like mine. Or do they?

I was running the sim on four cores - now I'm testing it on Core 0 only, and getting rid of some sceneries which I think might be conflicting or partially corrupt.

John

[Dumonceau]

Thanks to both. A faster processor seems a worthwhile priority and a new mobo. In recent years I've moved to Intel so I'll probably stick with that.

What about the 'transfer' of my existing XP setup to W7? And will W7x64 Home Premium run FS2004?



Shh! I run FSX too - on a different PC - different location.

Your rig should run Win7 64 bit quite good, but it might not be a bad idea to add more RAM to it. Your MoBo will take it!

EDIT: don't forget, after adding more RAM, to adjust your pagefile accordingly!

[JoHubb]

Your rig should run Win7 64 bit quite good, but it might not be a bad idea to add more RAM to it. Your MoBo will take it!

EDIT: don't forget, after adding more RAM, to adjust your pagefile accordingly!

Yes, I'll up the RAM to 4GB but I don't understand about pagefile.

Will also do a fresh install on W7x64 - it's a dual boot set up already so that will be easy. I checked the age of my system - it'll be 5 yrs in October. Doin' not bad but a new PSU is probably advisable too.

[JoHubb]

Running on a single core has improved frame rates - these are now verging on my peak limit of 30 fps even with heavy AI and 'mega' airports. I still get the occasional 'tear' in the scenery which I'll try to tweak out.
Probably the best way of optimising now is to do a fresh install on a new SSD in W7 x64 and buy myself a new PSU. I will have the old install and PSU as back ups - always useful.

Thanks for all your help folks

[Tom Clayton]

I remember several discussions a while back that suggested that the best option for frame limit was to set it to "Unlimited." That way, the code could allocate resources where they were needed. If you're flying around in nice weather without much to tax the system, you can get nice fluid frames. The only time I ever limited my frames was when I was on a multiplayer server - in which case limiting frames to 25 made the server load lighter.

[JoHubb]

I remember several discussions a while back that suggested that the best option for frame limit was to set it to "Unlimited."

Thanks. The advice varies. NvidiaInspector - which I use - says to limit to 30 fps. I'll try 'Unlimited' and see if I detect a difference.

[stansdds]

I would try unlimited, then match the refresh rate of your monitor (usually 60 fps), then try half of the refresh rate. See which setting provides the smoothest rendering.