Getting VERY GOOD results with 2004 on low end system!

[Guest ScottPilot]

Hello!Well, I finally got my copy of 2004COF this morning at Game Stop for only $44.95 (Priced at $49.95 without the discount coupon that I had). I also get the $10 rebate from MS also, what a deal!I wanted to send this post because my system is not very fast compared to what many of you out there have, but even so, I am getting very good results so far with 2004COF on my slower system.Anyways, after messing with the settings in FS2004 for a while and doing a little flying, I have to say that I am very happy with the sim thus far.I have most the sliders mid range to max and I am getting slightly better performance with 2004 over 2002.The big thing that I have noticed is 2004 is much smoother than 2002 on my system. I have got the sim set up so that the graphics quality in 2004 is matching the quality of 2002 as it is installed on my system. I am using the 3D clouds and I am getting no worse performance than I do now in FS2002 with the FS Sky World cloud packs that I have installed.I am also using Eddy Denny's Real Scene terrain mesh in FS2004 as well as in FS2002. The landscape is looking good!Of course, I will continue to "tweek" 2004 over the next week to try to get the best performance possible, but only after a few hours I have to say that I am impressed with 2004COF. This is even after hearing so many negative reports on this forum thus far, and being a bit afraid to spend the $$ on COF right away.The only things that I am a bit down on with the sim so far is the fact that I must go to windowed mode to undock the radio and GPS windows, so that I can move them to my 2nd monitor. The other thing is that you can no longer assign a button on the CH Products flight yoke for both the up and down switch for the landing gear. There is only a combination (up/down) option under the assignments tab.But honestly, these are minor irritations that I can deal with. I do however like the other aspects of 2004 that I have seen so far.So, I will keep both FS2002 and FS2004COF on my system together since there are many 3rd pary aircraft that I will not attempt to move to FS2004 from 2002. However, I still see myself flying 2004COF just as much as FS2002!Hope this helps any of you who have slower systems and are concerned about performance issues. Remeber that when most of us bought FS2002, we spent many hours "tweeking" it also, to get the best performance possible. On my system, it looks like a little "tweeking" of COF is paying off!After flying and tweeking COF so far today, I feel that this new sim is money well spent in my case.With a little pateince, hopefully others will get the same good results with COF that I have so far.Happy Simming!Scott :-)ATP/CFII -KCOS in the real avaiton world.My System Specs:PIII 1GHZ DSI Motherboard with 2X AGP and 512MB SDRAMVisiontek Nvidia GeForce 4MX 440 64MB Card running Dual 17" MonitorsNvidia Driver Version: 4403Hurcules Digifire 7.1 Surround Sound Audio Card120GB Hard Disk(s) PartitionedWindows XP Pro SP1 with DX9.0bCH Products Yoke & Rudder pedalsSaitek Cybork Joystick Gold USBFS2004COF and 2002 Pro installed.My average frame rate while flying and on the ground at airports is 14fps (smooth and locked at 15fps)even with the 3D Clouds on. I am also using a screen resoultion of 1024 X 768 32 bit. High enough for my system.

[Carabou 0]

Hi All,YES! My system is very close to Scotts and FS9's performance is very good and smooth etc. I just installed it and still have to fly and tweak a whole bunch, but on first look it seems very good. Not perfect though but still very good. I have my fps same as Scott's with same result. Most of my display sliders are on max. So far my only major concern is about the color and texture of the water. Doesn't look right - too light in color. Anyway, perhaps there's a setting I have to change. I'll also keep FS2002 on my system as I have loads of addons I don't want to leave behind.BTW, I've read about lots of folks saying Windows ME is a problem with FS9. Not so as yet with my system! Seems like a winner.Howard Dell PIII, 1 gig, 512 mb ram, Asylum GeForce 4 Ti4200 64 mb, Win ME, DirectX 9.0b, latest Nvidia drivers just downloaded from their site,scan disk and defrag before installation of FS9

[KERNEL32 500]

I have started noticing a trend here for those reporting "decent" results even with a slower system. Mine is by no means a screamer either, however I have a P4, 2.2 Ghz 768MB Ram, BUT a GeForce 3 Video Card. My frame rates are 6-10 if I'm lucky- which is IMO unflyable. Of course if I turn of 3-d clouds it goes up to 8-13 on ground. Once in the air its strange but I am getting much better results like 14-24.Could it be that Fs2004 (unlike FS2002) is more video card dependent than it is CPU??? Anyone else out there running an older card like mine with a slightly "newer" system and getting better results than I am?

[Guest otter55]

you may be right about the card.my sons antique p4 1.5, 768mgs ram, is running a new $89.00 gforce 5200 (128 card) from walmart and avg 14-15 fps with the good stuff turned on.hope you find your problemdon

[1mikel151 71]

A G3 isn't exactly an "old' card, but it is the bottle neck if you have a P4 2.2.I am running an Athlon 1 gig with a Radeon 7200 64 mb card with cat 3.2 drivers (gaming PC being upgraded), all sliders maxed, and just flew thru a snow storm at Haines AK with a constant 18-20 FPS in the 172, pretty sweet. I do get low FPS in heavy city areas. I took off from Addison airport in Dallas in the EC-130, with default weather and getting about 14-17 FPS.Regards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

[Tabs 2,790]

I'm seeing good results as well with a similar setup (Athlon 1.4, 512MB, GF3)Ryan