For those that have 1, 2, or all of these, which would you suggest getting?I have a Pentium 4 2ghz, 1gb ram, Radeon 9800 ProAny help will be appreciated!

Your system is a bit marginal for the Meridian (the GNS530 is a resource hog).421 or 441 depends on preferences.441 has higher performance but as a consequence needs longer runways.

so the meridian would not run good on my PC?

On the contrary - it will run just fine. I strongly recommend this airplane *IF* you want the most advanced (and hardest to learn) GA simulation in FS9. The FS2004 Meridian has been highly optimized for performance.Michael J.

Would it run on a #%$#%# 1.0Ghz machine?Well, I guess I could always return it if it doesn't work well...

I have all three, and if I had to decide on only one of them it would be a very difficult decision, as they're all good, and all do different jobs. Make it easy on yourself and buy all three! You won't regret it!BestGrahame EDHL

Jeroen,enough is enough. This post, along with many of yours in other forums are simply a shame to this community in my opinion.I even remember a lot of time when you were keeping bashing products (including Reality XP's and Flight1's), without even having purchased one.The GNS530 IS NOT a ressource hog (are you a customer of this product by the way?)Whenever someone is saying the Meridian is CPU intensive, there are many more which are saying it is not, on the contrary. Let me add that since the v2.0 for FS2004 (and furthermore v2.1), the 530XP takes less ressources than the default/FS stock XML based GPS500, while offering a true 100% simulation of this unit.As for the Meridian in particular, and Reality XP products in general, it has always been stated that they are benchmark on a P4 1.3 384MB RAM with a GeForce2 MX (4 years old system...). This means that if you can setup your FS2004 confortably on this system, and get roughly between 15fps to 20 fps and smooth enough experience, the Meridian should not take too much (by design and optimizations aimed to this performance on such system).On a P4 2.0 and above, you should not even see a difference. Of course, the Meridian is effectively more intensive than any default, or any payware which is only displaying round dial gauges and needles (no wonder, it has 1 GNS, 3 EFIS, a complex VC, a complex 3D model etc...). Nevertheless, you would be very surprised with the result since the FS2004 version!!Last but not least, there is a great deal of information and support ressources at flight1 and Reality XP forums about these products, and there should be a very good technical and customer support for these. If you experience any performance problem, there are many setings which can be applied to smoothen and enhance the experience.So let me say this again: if you keep thinking the Meridian is a ressource hog, this is not true. The Meridian is not only one of the most sophisticated GA aircraft available today for FS (and it even compete to some other categories in terms of value for money, and fidelity and accuracy of its design per the real aircraft), but it is one of the best FPS friendly as compared to its complexity. Technology has evolved, the Meridian has evolved since its initial release more than 1 year ago. Your comments in my opinion are not evolving though. You are entitled to you opinion. So were past astronomes still thinking earth was flat, and that the sun was revolving around earth, inspite of scientific proofs of the contrary...Hope this helps!PS: and no Jeroen, whatever you say, I have nothing to proove or justify to you (re: your inapropriate comments in another thread). Please do an extensive search in this forum (and the other topics) for my posts and people know me enough for my approach to help and share, not to take...I'm a user just like you in this board, nothing more, and I'm writing as such.

The meridian is a dream to fly and to navigate. Pure fun. It's a GA plane but it can fly up to 30000ft, and land in small strips. That Garmin unit is awessome!! I find myself sometimes standing on the (Virtual)ramp just playing with the buttons!! It's a very smooth plane and extremely optimized!! IMHO go for it!

I have the Meridian and the Golden Eagle. I agree with JeanLuc as far as the Meridian on your system. The Meridian runs fine on my 2.53Gig w/512 meg and an ATI 9600. I do see a slight drop in frames verses the Golden Eagle, but I have to turn on the framerate counter to see it. I don't notice a difference while flying. The Meridian is worth every penny, but I prefer the Golden Eagle; some people like Ford, some like Chevey's. Part of my preference is all the bells and whistles JeanLuc hinted at. You can start the Meridan up and fly it without reading the manual, but learning how to use everything it comes with (properly) will take some time. Learning the 421C is taking less time, so I spend more time with it. Both have detailed manuals and tutorial flights. Based on all my experience with Flight1 and Jim Rhoads, I think you'd do well with any of the three. Whichever one you get first, you'll want the others soon after. Lack of funds is the only reason I don't have the 441.

Here's what I find owning all three:1. Conquest 441 -- Perfect all around for FS2k4 I have really no complaints here except for the red interior.2. Golden Eagle 421 -- Another perfect model for FS2k4 (with the update that is). This aircraft was originally made for FS2k2...3. Piper Meridian -- Here is a problem aircraft for FS2k4. Although this aircraft has been updated for FS2k4, it still runs like a pig. This plane

I have them all too. It would be hard to chose between the meridian and conquest. i think I would chose between those 2 before the 420 for sure though

I have all three. If you had to pick just one and the aircraft type is all the same to you, I would say the Meridian gives you more value for your money, since you also get the Reality XP's GNS530 to boot. The C421 would be a close second in my book, the basis being you would have to purchase XP's GNS530 separately for the same amount of gadgeting. The C441 comes in a distant third. The main reason being that they oddly chose to model a direct drive turboprop, which MSFS cannot do realistically. I bought it mostly because I was curious to see how they handled that. Unfortunately, there were no breakthroughs. They do manage to make a fairly convincing presentation by faking a propeller rpm gauge as a gas generator gauge, but still, it does not completely function as a real 441 would. So if you can overlook these slight compromises to realism, then you will be able to enjoy the 441. Otherwise, they probably should have given serious thought to modelling a C425 Corsair instead, which is the same as the C441 Conquest, except it uses the King Air's PT6 free turbine engines that MSFS can realistically simulate.

I have a somewhat slower system than you, and owns the Meridianand the Eagle.I like both of them very much!The 421 is a very beatiful plane, flies great and are prettyeasy to learn.The Meridian is also great with a lot of features (Garmin etc.),but is harder to learn.None of them slows my system down noticable.It's a hard decision, but if you prefer complex systems, go forthe Meridian.Best regards Bj

>framerates unless you start the sim and turn off Hyper>Threading for FS2k4 in your 'Task Manager' 'Processes' tab.>This fellow has a 2 Ghz Pentium chip - definitely wih no Hyper-Threading so why give him all this useless propaganda ?Michael J.

KevinAu:Did I hear you insult the 425 and call it a Corsair? Shame on you. The old version was called the Corsair but had probs with the tail so the put a Citation tail on it and called it the 425 Conquest I.