For those wondering if FS2K4 will run...

[Guest]

on their older/newly bought machines...based on the numbers I see, I sure hope so!!I have a lower end Athlon (funny thing, it wasn't so low end when I got it a couple years ago...) and accept the fact that COF will eat it for breakfast...oh well. Until I can upgrade (Christmas maybe?) I will live with sliders pulled back and framerates lower than I'm currently used to. And I won't be getting rid of 2002, just in case.For the many out there who use their computers to heat the house (P-4 9700, GF12, 62Gb of 900MHz ram, 480Gb ATA700 HDDs, liquid helium cooled CPUs, you know the ones...), yah, I'm jealous....but that's ok. I'll get there in about 12 years!!Best to all with our new toy!! Should be interesting to see how it functions on various setups. I have 2002 running pretty well here.Dave JKCOSAthlon 900, ASUS A7V, XP Home512 PC133 RAM40Gb WD HDD ATA100 (stop that giggling!!!)Radeon 9200, 128MbSoundblaster Live! (I heard that!!!)DSL, CDROM, Floppy, and a very old case w/ a 300w screaming PS.

[Guest CargoMun]

The way I see it, you can run with the sliders at same place as in fs2002 with same output but just have to live without using real weather - or clouds at all for that matter :(

[Guest]

I reckon we'll ALL know soon enough...Darn folks across the pond, beat us to the punch...I am SOOOOO jealous!!I'll bet my Best Buy down the street has it and is sitting on it till next Tuesday!!! EVIL!!! LOLOLOL!!Getting a bit twitchy here...Dave

[Guest]

Seriously? The clouds are going to kill frame rates? Even from cockpit? Take a look at my specs and how do you think i can have the sliders?

[Guest jordan]

Each system will be unique. However I'd like to say that the clouds are not necessarily frame-killers. Also there is a lot of flexibility on what amount of clouds will be fully rendered. Depending on what the user desires.I was able to keep my level of detail about the same and I sacrificed about 5-7 frames per second in the new version. I use to lock in at 30fps and now I lock in at about 25fps.my specs: 1.3ghz athlon 512DDR Ram GeForce4 MMX 64MB graphics card.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Even though I promised myself I'd take a few days off of the forums, it's time for me to step in and put folks at ease in this thread...I've been a COF tester and have had gold in my hands for some time. I think my system is typical of a low end machine. In spite of that, it's always run FS2002 very well. Let me rid the thread of a few misconceptions....First, clouds can be lived with--sliders have been built into FS2004 which allow you to scale the cloud detail against your system. In FS2002, I lose a few fps when I have a deck of cumulus. Same in FS2004, but just a few if I set up the weather the same way. In FS2002, if I used real weather, there was always the risk that real weather would layer in a very thick deck of cumulus, and that gave me a hit on fps. Real Weather can do the same in FS2004, but you can decide whether it's worth it or not.If I set up a moderate deck of T-Storms and go easy on the Autogen, I can still get around 15 fps. A light deck of cumulus averages 20-22 fps, although I've had it peak as high as 30 away from the cities. Clear skies--exactly the same performance as FS2002.But the other misconception--sliders.... You have to be careful with Autogen, airports and scenery density. "Normal" autogen and airport and scenery density detail in FS2004 is as dense as the "max" settings in FS2002. If I set those settings to normal in FS2004, skies to clear, and max everything else, I can still average 20-25fps--with AA enabled.Want to know something else? If your Video Card supports it (GeForce 2 Cards don't), water reflections have almost no fps hit. Compare that to FS2002.... Water reflections look outstanding in FS2004--great for the eye candy shots.I've told people with lower end systems I will be here as a resource to help you. Anyone with a system similar to mine in spec will have no issues, unless you plan on running FS2004 in "Pentium 4 mode"--meaning your intent is to max all the sliders because that's what you do in FS2002. FS2004 picks up in detail where FS2002 left off.Do I intend on trashing FS2002?.... No...it will still remain on my system. For one, it is a great backup of my aircraft collection. And, due to changes in FS2004, I find it an easier platform to test landclass design, since I can apply scenery changes without having to restart the sim.But people with systems like mine need not fret. For everyone with a Pentium 4 system posting cloud shots with 15fps, I can do the same and you'd be hard pressed to see a difference in detail. And by really matching FS2004's detail to FS2002, I get the benefits of FS2004--and the performance of FS2002. I won't mislead you--clouds may still cause fps to falter under certain situations. But some of that is my own fault--I found when comparing notes that I lock my fps at a more optimistic level than most with higher end systems. And digging into FS2002 the past few days, I've noted that the same can happen with clouds in FS2002. I just never paid attention, as I only used clouds for eye candy and little else.Sorry about the long note, but I wanted you to hear it straight from the "horses" mouth....Edit:Here is a link to my last set of screenshots. I don't display the fps counter in these--I didn't want to ruin a nice set of shots. But rest assured I was getting 22-25 fps... Enjoy the shots, and take a look at the water reflections!http://forums.avsim.com/dcboard.php?az=sho...2&mesg_id=64872Regards,

[TonyB 1]

Hi John,I am really glad to see you posting here again. I really appreciate you taking the time to post all the details regarding your experience with a lower end machine. I and many others are taking comfort and setting reasonable expectations based on your info. You have a great way of putting things in an overall positive light without over hyping. Like me, you seem to be a glass half-full guy rather than many of the half-empty folks out there. You are among a small handfull of people whose opionion I really respect on this forum. Keep it up.Tony

[Holger 0]

Hi John:I second Tony's kudos wholeheartedly - thanks so much for you input and advice.Of course, I'm totally biased, as my sytem specs are almost identical to yours, except I run a Radeon 8500 ;-)Cheers, Holger

[Guest freequest]

Thats good to hear Im running pent 4/1.6GHz system and at the moment i have everything maxed out in FS2002 and im hitting 15-20fps. though i had better update my vid card i suppose from a GF2 to a GF4 at least :)Thanks

[Guest RobA]

John, Great shots! Really appreciate your time to post them. I am in awe at how you get those fps with your setup. I have an AMD 1.4 with 512 MB DDR and a GF2 64 MB DDR video card and get 20 fps mostly (running Win98se also). Just upgraded to the GFX 5200 128 MB card and to my amazement the fps went down and not up! Clouds are at only 38%, autogen "normal", scenery is "very dense". Other sliders about 3/4 full and visibility at 60 nm. I'll be looking forward to hearing what you have to say about your setup later.Thanks again,Rob

[Guest]

Thanks alot john! Your input really helps me because I also have a low end system.Thanks