Hi all!I currently get 30fps just about all the time in FS2002 on my laptop (1.0Ghz, 512MB ram, obscure and fairly slow Intel graphics card). That's with all display settings at close to maximum, apart from autogen at normal. I've also got multitexturing turned off because my graphics card doesn't seem to like it (I get disappearing textures). My question is: what kind of frame rates could I expect in FS2004? I obviously wouldn't be able to have all the sliders at maximum, but would it still be flyable (mostly 20fps+) with a prettier view than FS2002 manages?Cheers,Bungo

I wouldn't even concider FS2k4 if I were you until I got at least a 2gig processor, 128mg video card, and at least 512megs of ram...Another plus would be XP as your primary OS.Dillon--

Hi,I'm using my fairly new Acer Centrino (1.3Ghz, 512MB DDR, ATI9000, 64MB) for FS9. Performance is very good when there aren't many clouds around (I can fly around in 1400x1050 and most sliders almost to the max) but when you're flying with real world weather, frames can really drop. Now I'm flying in 1024 most of the time, with 25% mesh quality, and it's pretty good but clouds are still fairly hard on the frames.Of course, you can turn off 3d clouds, but that doesn't look half as good. But in that case, you'll get FS2002 performance or better, with slightly better quality.I dunno. You decide.

I think you should be able to run FS9 - but your fps will obviously not be so good.I have run it on a 700mhz machine as an experiment and tho it had some problems with very high demand graphics such as at LAX or Las Vegas- it ran fairly smoothly as long as I wasn't to greedy with the sliders.However,I definately agree with Dillon's comment about WinXP.Here I have dual boot WinME and WinXP with FS9 on both OS.The XP copy runs about 15% (average) better frame rates than the ME copy.Dave

Thanks everyone - it certainly sounds worth a go, so I think I'll treat myself to a copy :9Bungo

DONT CHANGE TO FS 2004.yOU WILL GET 1 TO 2 FRAME RATE WHEN YOU LAND.STAY WITH YOURS FS2002.I HAVE P4 1700,1024 RAM 40 HARD DRIVE,G2 ACCELERATOR AND I HAVE 1 TO 2 FRAME RATE WHEN I LANDFAE

FAESorry to state the obvious but there must be something wrong if you're getting that.I've run FS2004 on a 700 Mhz CPU machine with quite reasonable fps when landing,take off ,anywhere.My son using a similar setup(AMD 1700- 512 MB DDRAM ,Geforce 2 MX/64mb)to yours gets good frame rates up in the 20s down to 12-15 on landing.I would have a good look at the settings in FS and also such things as your Graphics and chipset drivers.Dave

My system is a 1.2ghz athlon, 768mb, V5 5500 Voodoo video card (is anybody else still using 3dfx?).With the default sliders, 3D clouds and autogen turned off, anti aliasing on, 1024x768x32, 2D panels, I'm getting around 15 fps. If I climb into blue sky it goes up to around 20 fps. On short final into LAX it drops to around 10 fps.Hope this helps you to decide.Sskoup

DONT CHANGE TO FS 2004.yOU WILL GET 1 TO 2 FRAME RATEWHEN YOU LAND.STAY WITH YOURS FS2002.I HAVE P4 1700,1024 RAM 40 HARD DRIVE,G2 ACCELERATOR AND IHAVE 1 TO 2 FRAME RATE WHEN I LANDFAEThere are plenty that are NOT having problems. You shouldn't state something like that just because you are having problems, that's not right, geeez!Obviously a problem somewhere, I am running it on 2 PCs and the one is a 1 gig athlon with 1 gig 2100 DDR and a Radeon 7200 64 Mb card and it runs very well on it, with very high settings!Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

FS2k4 runs quite a bit better than FS2k2 ever did. IMHO. Neither was a problem for me; but I think FS2k4 is much easier on the equipment with a lot more eye candy.

Agreed. I think people are unrealistic. I have a 2.26 P4, 768 RAM, GeForce 4 4600 128mb. I run at 1024x768x32. I sometimes turn AA on via aTuner. I have most of the sliders maxed at that res and I can maintain 20fps even in overcast except at KJFK +/- 15 miles. Probably the same at other metros, but I don't fly there. Best part: FS2004 looks WAY WAY better than fs2002 ever did. It is the best civil aviation sim I have ever owned, period.That's just my opinion. If I were you, I wouldn't have waited this long. I'm sure that as long as you realize your hardware isn't going to allow you to exploit the new features of 2k4, you will get 2k2 with enhanced weather and atc at a minimum, and maybe a whole lot more.sg