forum? Dipping toe in the water

[brianivor 1]

I have wanted to try flight simulation for quite a few years but could never afford the type of powerful PC needed to give a satisfactory experience.

 

I did start accumulating FS2004 discs (scenery, airports) but never got any further.

 

Ironically,  now having retired, I could go out and buy a really fast PC tailored for Flight Sim,

but I don't want to throw a lot of money at hardware if I didn't "take" to the hobby.

 

I am wondering whether what would have been considered as a high powered PC for FS2004 when it first came out,  is matched or bettered by a modern budget PC?

 

To that end, what I had in mind, considering its more about CPU speed than graphics, would be to purchase a fast Athlon PC with an AMD A10-5800 (3.8gz) and which I understand has good on-board graphics and may be adequate for older software like FS2004 (and avoid the cost of a graphics card)

 

Also, since FS2004 was written in the days of single core 32 bit technology, I was thinking of buying a systemless PC and loading Windows XP.

 

I realise that support for XP is coming to an end but I intended to have the new PC solely for Flight Sim and would not need to connect to the Internet - so malware and viruses would not be an issue.

 

As a beginner, I would welcome advice on my reasoning.

 

Many thanks,

 

  .

[FloG 148]

Welcome to the forums!

I have too little experience with XP (and FS9, for that matter), but anyway these are my 2cc: You are right about FS9 being a 32bit application. However, it might still be helpful to have the possibility of adressing more than 4GB RAM, at least it is for FSX, which also is 32bit. But then again, I have never heard of FS9 having similar problems with out of memory errors as FSX has...

As for not connecting the computer to the internet: It might be possible that one addon or another needs an internet connection to activate it, so it could be easier to allow an internet connection on that computer (but again, I'm not sure, if that applies for FS9 as well, that's jstu my experience from FSX).

[ViperPilot 81]

Welcome to the Forums, Brian!

 

It's funny you mention it, but if you look at my Computer Specs, I am currently running FS 9 on a system that it was originally designed for; a single core Pentium IV at 3.0GHz, 2Gb of RAM, Win XP SP3, and a 1Gb stand alone Video Card. I'll be honest; when running FS9, I consistently get 25 fps with this System, and considering it was extremely value priced, it works quite well for FS.

 

Of course, that's just me. Others will definitely chime in with their recommendations, and the last thing I want to do is to send you down the wrong Victor airway as you are looking for recommendations!

 

[brianivor 1]

Thank you FLoG for your contribution. you make a valid point about online upgrades, and I would be prepared to go online for these but nothing else.

 

ViperPilot, You have shown that you dont need a super whiz-bang computer to run FS2004 although I note you are using a 1gb video card (almost unheard of when FS2004 came out?)

The point I was making was questioning whether the onchip graphics on a current Athlon CPU would be adequate for my needs:  i.e. no separate graphics card?

Putting it another way, did adding your 1gb graphics card make a big difference to your FS system?

Also, I note you are using a wide screen monitor , somthig I had considered upgrading to, but was concerned that FS2004 would not display correctly - such as the dials looking oval shaped.

I would really appreciate your thoughts on the questions I have raised.

Thank you.

[ViperPilot 81]

Brian,

 

I'll be honest; the widescreen monitor will have a tendency to 'stretch' 2D Panels a bit, but not to the point where the Panel is un-viewable.

 

I went with the separate Video Card in order to boost the Graphics to the maximum that this system could take. With this particular motherboard, I had no other choice but to use an AGP Video Card, which was the 'precursor' to PCI Express. New AGP Video cards are very hard to find nowadays, but compared to just the onboard Graphics chip it made all the difference in the world! Remember, though... this is an OLD computer by today's standards; in most people's eyes, obsolete.

 

It's really going to come down to how much of an 'immersive' experience you're looking to achieve, and what type of flying you want to do. If you catch the FlightSim bug with FS9 (FS 2004) and want to eventually use FSX, there's no way a rig like mine will run it. Newer systems will also give you many more options with regards to Video Cards, dependent on the PCI slot. Options like FloG mentioned will also be an asset when transitioning into FSX.

 

What kinds of flying do you want to do, and do you have any 'expectations' about how the Sim should 'look'?

 

Alan  

[brianivor 1]

Well, realism is obviously very important to me and the wide screen stretch you mention does give me some concerns - I dont know of anyone in my area who runs a flight sim system so I am completely in the dark as to how acceptable it is.

 

As to the type of flying I am interested in, well I am in my 70's now and have had to give up G.A. flying (Pipers and Cessnas etc) so I guess I would like to retrace some of my flights in the UK and reminisce a bit.

 

I have no interest in flying airliners around the world and learning commercial procedures - I just want to look out of the window and fly for fun.

 

If I am encouraged by my experiences with a basic single screen setup I may invest in a better quality PC with maybe three screens (non widescreen) and of course FSX.