FS2004 Anybody played it?

[Guest THEGENERAL22]

Hello, at around Christmas time i hopefully will be the proud owner of FS2004 :-jumpy, but just wanting to ask anybody that's played it-what is it like and will i need a super powerful computer to run it. I'll give you some of my P.C. info::-roll Processor-1.2GHZ AMD DuronMemory-192mbGraphics card-SiS 630/730 64mb sharedsound card-SiS 7018 waveHard Disk-20gbI know i did have problems running FS2002 with this spec but i should be upgrading after Christmas.Thanks.

[Guest daveg4otu]

It should run on your PC - I have had it running as an experiment on a 700Mhz CPU setup with Win98 - tho I did have a better graphics card(ATI 9000) in the PC.Tho it didn't match to performance on my main PC it still achieved quite reasonable framerates(15-22 average)Better GPU and more RAM will help,obviously faster CPU will also make a big difference- also it runs best with WinXP(don't know your OS)Plenty of people have posted on here with quite good results on setups inferior to yours.Dave

[Guest THEGENERAL22]

My OS is Windows 98 but after Christmas i'll be upgrading to Windows ME. Thanks

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

Congratulations on your plans... As you suspected, you will indeed need a hardware upgrade, or more properly replacement, to fully enjoy FS2004.At the very least, you would need to upgrade your memory to 512 Meg and possibly invest in a new video card.. so you are pretty much looking at a new computer..The good news is that you do not need a "super powerful computer", but rather a well configured mainstream system, such as a P4-2.4 with 512 Meg RAM and a good quality dedicated video card.. or the AMD equivalent.Check the hardware forum for component recommendations!

[Guest danowat]

Hi,Well I'm gonna say your gonna struggle, unless you whack the sliders down and not use any hungry add-ons.I recently upgraded a relitivly decent spec PC, P4 2.4Ghz, Geforce 4 Ti4200, 512Mb RAM ,to a 3Ghz P4, 1GB RAM and a ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, simply because I felt it was not powerfull enough to run FS the way I like it.Your CPU is reasonable, but you will certainly struggle with the SIS "card", I assume since this has 64mb shared it is an onboard GFX card?.I am not even sure that this card is DX9 compliant, but I may be wrong.So after your GFX card has gobbled up 64mb your left with 128mb, this is quite low for such a hungry app as FS.Sorry to put a dampner on this, but you should not expect to be able to run it at a decent graphical quality without low framerates and stutters.Do you have an AGP slot in your PC?, if so your best bet would be to get a reasonable card and a bit more ram, this will certainly help on your system..Dan.

[Guest THEGENERAL22]

So if i upgrade the graphics and sound card and also get more RAM would it run ok? The processor can wait, have you seen the price of those things? Also is it possible to get a graphics card that doesn't use your system memory?

[Guest daveg4otu]

If you're planning to upgrade from Win98 - it would certainly be more advantageous ( and probably cheaper in the long run) to go straight to WinXP.If you're in the UK an OEM version of XP Home can be bought for around

[Guest THEGENERAL22]

It makes you laugh really, it says on the back minimum requirements are Intel pentium III, 8MB Graphics, and 64-128MB RAM. How anybody would expect it to run with that spec is beyond me!

[Guest THEGENERAL22]

The problem is most of my existing games won't run on XP. And i've heard many problems with XP concerning memory drain.

[Guest danowat]

Most of yours games wont run XP?, are they all DOS games?, because XP is the best MS OS so far, it is certainly loads more stable, I would recommend it to anyone.As for a new card sharing your system ram, no, only an onboard i.e. built-in to your motherboard.You need to make sure that your system has an AGP slot, as sometimes motherboards with onboard GFX dont.If you look inside your PC, you will see a number of white card slots (3 or 4 normally) then above this there should be a brown slot ;), this is your AGP slot.Dan.

[tf51d 284]

>My OS is Windows 98 but after Christmas i'll be upgrading to>Windows ME. ThanksActually you should skip ME and go right to XP. Barring that stay with Windows 98 especially if it is the Second Edition version. (Windows 98SE) Windows ME was released as a stop gap between 98 and XP, and is in fact less stable then 98SE.

[tf51d 284]

>The problem is most of my existing games won't run on XP. And>i've heard many problems with XP concerning memory drain.Have you tried the compatibility settings? You can make a particular App in XP think it's running in Windows 98. It doesn't work for everything but does a pretty good job. To use it Right click on the app and go to properties>Compatibility

[Guest Grayfox]

First off, DON'T get ME. Microsoft doesn't service ME anymore, meaning you won't see anymore service packs for it. It was a complete failure. The most stable operating systems are 2000 and XP. I still run 2000 because of it's time proven stability. I have XP and will load it soon though since it has been out there for some time and has proven itself too.Second, your chip of 1.2 sounds OK. You'll definetly need more ram...not just for this game but it would be wise of you just to get more ram. So concentrate on that. Try to upgrade to at least 256ram and if you can to 512 this will help a lot.You're graphics card meets the minimum, it might lag a little if you set all the graphics to super high but you should be fine if you just tone it down one setting for each. You aren't losing much on scenery if you do.However if you can spare it, an upgrade to graphics card would help A LOT, say to 128ram graphics.So basically just concentrate on your RAM and your graphics card. Oh and if you can't get XP or 2000, just stick with what you have now. ME and I'm serious is a total waiste of time and money. I'm even surprised if you find it out in retail stores still. Microsoft has ceased all production and service on it.

[Guest Grayfox]

>Most of yours games wont run XP?, are they all DOS games?,>because XP is the best MS OS so far, it is certainly loads>more stable, I would recommend it to anyone.>>Dan.XP is good and it does load stable, however, don't over look the power of 2000. It is a GREAT operating system with regular updated service packs from MS.I have both 2000 and XP, but I'm holding back on installing XP for now, I just love the way 2000 runs on my comp. never a problem. I guess XP is a lot more stable than it first came out with the new service packs and updates.I used to work in a retail store and I can't begin to tell you the people that brought XP back due to problems with their systems. Most major businesses and coorporations still run on 2000/NT.So yeah, skip ME totally and 98SE if you can. Go right to XP or 2000, you'll be fine with either one. It doesn't matter which one you get since Microsoft is coming out with a new operating system I believe in 2006 if I remember correctly.It's built on the XP system but more graphically interfaced.

[Guest THEGENERAL22]

Ok then i'll get XP.