Hello,I am looking to replace my PC setup and would like some advice on the most suitable requirements for running FS9 and its features to its fullest potential.My current system is an Athlon tower with 2.2ghz processor, 256mb computer memory and 20gig HDD, Hope i am not running over old ground here but any opinions would bemuch appreciated Cheers., Dan

I guess this will be moved to the hardware forum.There is really no upper limit. But my sig runs it really fine. My A64 is at overclocked to 2,7 gig though and have my ram at 250 Mhz (500 in reality)But for me it

Thankyou for this information., I forgot about the hardware forum!500 mgh ram sounds fine so ill save some money on that front.From what i have gathered is that the processor generally dictates performance more than the graphic card or hard drive size etc... so ill opt for the X800 pro on this one.Likewise the A64 FX53 sounds ideal.I'll save the rest of your page (lots of info there for a simulator newbie such as myself!)Thanks again for the advice, hopefully ill have a system up and running smoother for the latest MS patch!Cheers.,Dan "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world" :-rotor

Yeah if money is no subject you can go no better then A64 FX 53 really :). Then you would have to go dual CPU cores though that I don

Dual CPU,s!., getting out of my depth here, but i guess for that to operate then one CPU must read instructions from the program whilst the other CPU is looking at another instruction?Cheers.,Dan :-rotor

Dan, tell us how you make out.billg

I,ll do that Panda.. It will be soon after the new patch is availableCheers.,Dan:)

Actually, I don't think that dual CPUs will help with FS9 anyway. The software cannot take advantage of the second CPU.However, who knows what the next version of FS will offer? It doesn't hurt to plan for the future.Wilson

>Dual CPU,s!., getting out of my depth here, but i guess for>that to operate then one CPU must read instructions from the>program whilst the other CPU is looking at another>instruction?Nope, both work quite independently. There are however some complications (in hardware) in acessing the main bus and how it is shared. And only WinXP Pro edition can handle such an arrangement.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Par that is strange to me regarding AA & AF as far as IQ is concerned. On my monitor the nV card is at least as good if not better than my 9700 Pro.Noel

Michael:Are you saying, as a fact, that there is an advantage of using dual processors with FS9? If so, this is good news.I was under the impression that there was the need for the operating system software/program software/hardware working together to realize an advantage. I also had understood that FS9 would not function better using a dual processor system because it was not written to take advantage of the second processor. Of course, I may be confusing this with DX9 or something else, LOL.If this is true, is anyone out there running 75+ fps in FS9 with his/her dual processor system and default clouds? If so, I'll trade in my AMD 64 3400+ :-)!Thanks,Wilson

I dont think there is such a system that can run FS at full settings, with intensive addons, weather traffic.However, the more money you can afford to chuck at it, the better performance you will get, its just that simply.With my current setup, a p4 3.4ghz, 1Gb of RAM, and a X800pro, i get extremely good performance in "most" situations, but there will always be certain addon sceneries that will bring any PC to its knees.As for dual's, FS does not, at this stage, support multi-threading, and even if it did you would need XP pro.I doubt that dual cpu would have that much difference anyway, I currenttly run a dual xeon machine for my CAD, and the performance is in no way twice that of a single, it just means that when a program is crunching numbers, I can work in something esle without an performance hit, so it is more like having 2 systems in 1 , rather than having a double quick machineDan.

CRAY :) John

>>>With my current setup, a p4 3.4ghz, 1Gb of RAM, and a X800pro,>i get extremely good performance in "most" situations, but>there will always be certain addon sceneries that will bring>any PC to its knees.>I was looking at the X800pro but couldnt run it on the particular motherboard i had at the time.1Gb of RAM, makes sense as it allows the processor to work more freely? Im stuttering quite badly now (i have several utility add-ons e.g RC, FDC and UT although no scenery files as of yet) so am looking forwardto improved performance... being able to make use of the weather engine, AI traffic and scenery set to at least medium settings with improved FPS Cheers.,Dan

I would be inclinded to say that 1GB is really the minimum amount of memory to have for FS.When FS is running I have around 500mb of memory for FS ALONE, you then need to account for the OS itself, and also for any other progs you need running, AS etc.I have found that FS is more relient on the FSB speed than anything, although a fast CPU is essential, but for stuttering and caching I would say that memory bandwidth, and hence FSB, is quite important.I know this will prove quite unpopular, but in my tests I have found FS to perform better on P4 based systems combined with ATI cards.I also think it is important not to skimp on what memory you buy, I dont think people really appreciate how much difference "good" memory can make, as opposed to generic memory.That said FS is a completely different beast to any other "game", and as such how other games, or benchmarks run, do not tell the whole story for FS.Maybe this thread would be better suited to the hardware forum?Dan.