I have an 800mgz Celleron, 256 meg, and 11 mg video. With FS2k2, I fly only single engine props. Even with sliders all the way to the right, thick clouds, and Radar Contact running, I can get at least 5 frames per second on takeoff and landing in all but the busiest skies. That's really good enough for me. I'm not picky.I'm thinking about getting FS2K4 because I would get the enhanced ATC and GA traffic in and out of uncontrolled airports. I know I'll have to move the sliders over to the left. But can I get visuals at least as good as I get with FS2k2 with my computer? From the many posts on the quality of FS2K4, I know I won't get better visuals with my system. But I like the idea of random traffic and the better ATC function. Anybody with a low-end computer like mine able to use FS2k4 for IFR and VFR single prop flights without frame rates and graphics that are worse than with FS2k2?Thanks,Persephone

With those SPECs Id be suprise if you could even get FS9 to load:)I think a upgrade is in order.

Persephone,I say go ahead and buy Fs2004, it will work. I have similar specs and enjoy 10-15fps (not that, that is important), my sliders are somewhere in the middle, and hands down it is better than FS2002.I would say at some point soon you could consider an upgrade. AS I am, although at the moment simply can't afford it. I am happy with my FS2K4 performance, and have not started FS2002 since I got mine.It will take some fiddling or tweaking, as FS2002 did but I feel you will be satisfied with what you see.

http://www.forefrontgrp.com/jayssigsmall.jpg"There is an art . . . to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss!"

Before getting a new PC in August I ran FS2004 on my old 'puter for a couple of weeks: 800 Mhz P3, 256 Mb, 32Mb GeForce 1. It ran surprisingly well, smooth with good frame rates. On the same machine it was far superior to FS2002. I assume a Celeron is a bit slower than a P3, but it should still run well with moderate settings. Best regards, Chris