I see there are often posts from people saying that they have a "low end" system for FS 2004. Sorry if this is a stupid question, but can someone tell me what a low end system is?My system is:-AMD Athlon XP1800 CPU256MB RAMGeforce4 440MX 64MB graphicsOn board sound.Windows XP HomeI guess that is on the low side compared to others I've seen. Is it on the low side for FS 2004?Victor

Sorry to tell you but yep, that's a low end system.It isnt rock bottom, all you'd have to do is add a better graphics card and at least another 256MB Ram.The GF440MX is a horrible card, anything with MX in the name is horrible. Try getting the Nvidia GF4 TI4600 128Mb which is going for pretty cheap or get a ATI Radaeon 9700...worth the investmentLook at my specs below, Even I am slipping down the slope to Low end system status :(JohnP 2.53 GHZ512 RAMWINXPGFORCE 4 128MB Ti4600http://homepage.eircom.net/~eamonnmca/images/logo_ba.JPGwww.bavirtual.co.uk Senior Captain Simflight.com Staff Reviewerhttp://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

Your system is now a mid to upper system that should play fs2004 very adequately. I recommend you add another 256MB of memory. If cash allows get a better graphics card, i.e., GeForce 4Ti 4200 128MB or FX 5900.A low end system for fs2004 is probably anything under 800MHz. During testing of fs2004, I tested it on a K6/2 550MHz system with 512MB, and a GeForce 2Ti 64MB card. The stutters, and lag times for control inputs made fs2004 not very pleasant to fly. I tested it using Win98SE/WinXP. Conversely, I tested fs2004 on a system similiar to your and found the quality of flight was very acceptable. For a comparison on the high end system, I had average 30FPS using FS2002 and average 20FPS using fs2004. Will your system be adequate for fs200x, probably not, but that is 2yrs away.W. Sieffert

Thanks for the answers.My system runs FS 2002 fully maxed out and with MyTraffic.With FS 2004 it needs a little tweaking. I know people post comments about "low end" and "high end" systems but was unsure where my rig fitted in.Victor

Victor-I go along W Seiffert - your system should have few problems.Anytime - upgrading the graphics card will always give an improvement even for those with much "higher end" systems.I also tried out FS9 on a "low end" PC - in this case it was an old AMD 700Mhz CPU,256MB RAM,WinXP, but- here's the bit that helped most- an ATI Radeon 9000/128mb card.The results were surprisingly good- a little sticky at times but quite flyable.(averaging 17-20 fps most times)If you really have to find a niche in the descriptions ,be like me and just call your system "Mid Range and versatile":-lol Good luckDaveAMD XP2000:526mb RAM:Ti4200/128 MB ,WinXP

Hi Victor,I have similar system to yours - less CPU speed, 512 Meg more memory, similar graphics card. I'd say mine is 'low-end' but it runs FS9 better than it did FS8. It seems people with high-end systems are expressing more dissatisfaction with FS9 than "low-enders" like me.It makes me reluctant to try to upgrade too much.And for some reason, being satisfied with FS9 annoys people.

>>And for some reason, being satisfied with FS9 annoys people.>:-lol :-lol

Please redefine the term LOW END:-lolPIII 450MHzGeForceII 64Mb256Mb RAMIt happily runs FS2002 :DI'm sorry, but GF2s are NOT crap .........http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/39360.jpghttp://album.atomic-systems.com/showPic.ph.../AAV_banner.jpghttp://www.aavirtual.com :)

"It seems people with high-end systems are expressing more dissatisfaction with FS9 than "low-enders" like me."Thanks for saying that... I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that. I'm happy I've been able to squeeze the performance I have out of arguably one of the slowest systems here. But I wonder if our systems allow us to approach FS9 with more of an open mind. I think those with the fastest systems often do two things--they go for "sliders right" on the new sim in town, and they allow more to run in the background on their rigs. I've always approached things from the other direction--I start sliders left and work my way up.I've been highly satisfied with FS9, but I did have a head start being in the beta. Sadly, few listen to what I and others like Chris have said coming out of the beta. A couple of issues cropped up, but to some they appear like warts on the sim. They don't want to accept the fixes offered--they'd rather have the perfect sim. I noted yesterday that very few seemed interested in my overcast solution. I haven't bothered to release the needed textures to Avsim--why waste my time? That said, if I had to sacrifice one sim or another because I was short on HD space, it would be FS9.... But that's only because add-ons haven't caught up and I have some FSDS 1.x aircraft I really like, like Yannick's Robin.Based on the authors specs here, I'd say it will work fine with FS9. It's a matter of being willing to make a compromise. I think those unhappy with FS9 won't make them. And no, I haven't joined the bashing bandwagon...but I am a realist and I see issues on both sides of the fence that only our working as a community can help resolve....

I consider my system mid/low end, but it still don't mean I plan to upgrade it anytime soon LOL. Don't worry, It should run FS2004 pretty well. Mine runs it EXTREMELY well considering that it hasn't been upgraded once (except for a HD and optical drives) since late 2001 LOL. I have absolutely no graphic glitches, and as long as antialiasing is OFF, fps will stay in the mid 20's with most sliders maxed. I usually have the framerate counter off though, usually do not care what my fps is, as long as i'm flying its all ok LOL.

Any advance on 450Mhz?(Looking for lower perhaps that should be "any retreat?")" But I wonder if our systems allow us to approach FS9 with more of an open mind. etc"JohnCI.I think you may well be right-if you're starting with a slower system,and are prepared to acknowledge this,you're likely to be more patient with things.Dave

>Any advance on 450Mhz?(Looking for lower perhaps that should>be "any retreat?")>>" But I wonder if our systems allow us to approach FS9 with>more of an open mind. etc">>JohnCI.I think you may well be right-if you're starting with a>slower system,and are prepared to acknowledge this,you're>likely to be more patient with things.>JohnCi is exactly right about this. Unfortunately, Patience pretty much went out the window in this world a couple of decades ago ;)

Its true LOL. Since I had an older K6 400MHz machine till a bit after FS2002 was released, I learned from FS2002 that fps isnt everything. I remember having a blast during the first few months, despite having a fps of 4-12 (which was an improvement from 4-6 on FS2000 LOL). It didn't bother me, since I knew I was running the sim on outdated hardware. That K6-2 box is still running like new almost, despite being 4 1/2 years old (I like building computers that last, not get replaced every year).That old K6-2 system also helped on "slideritis", you don't have to go maxed out to fly and have fun. I only bump up the sliders only if I know my computer can handle it (FS2004 on my 1.2GHz box looks pretty good and runs good at the same time).

Do you get the sun reflecting on the water surface with the 7200, Zack?Thanks,Robert

Nope, it uses DX8 bump mapping to do the water reflections. Since the 7200 is a DX7 based card, it wont do the water reflections. Oh well. Not a big loss LOL.