I have very modest system (AMD Duron 1GHz, 512MB PC2100 memory, Geforce 2 onboard graphics). I am running FS2002 with what I think are fairly acceptable visuals (around 18+ fps at busy airports, reaching around 30fps in open skies).I still have much to learn about IFR, avionic systems, navigation etc, and am still learning lots about real world flying through flight simming. I mainly fly short hops in the Dreamfleet PA-28, but I also have the Dreamfleet 737 and have enjoyed exploring the complexity of that bird, but don't feel ready to move up to heavy iron.So my question is: should I bother upgrading to FS2004, and would my modest system be underpowered to run it. I'm not in a position to spend much on hardware upgrades, and I suspect my FPS would suffer too much if I moved up to FS2004.I do have a Sidewinder FF2 stick, which has done a lot to improve my flying, and I can land the Piper well. I'm mainly interested in expanding my flying into IFR and want to learn more about IFR techniques, SIDs & STARs, GPS navigation etc, so FS2002 seems to have all I need.I am tempted by FS2004 from an eye candy standpoint, but I don't want to get into a cycle of buying software only to have to spend lots on hardware to get acceptable performance. Does FS2004 have a more "real world" implementation of radio navigation, IFR etc?I know many of you will have your own opinions, so I want to canvas as wide a range of people as possible.

Based on your description, I would say: Stay with FS2002 until you upgrade your system.FS2004 has a lot of improvements to offer, but they all beg for more computer power. A P4-2.4 with a GF4 video card is really required to fully appreciate this program.The good news is that you can fully explore IFR procedures with FS2002!Even in FS2004, the Dreamfleet PA-28 is a good choice!If you are looking to move up in aircraft for FS2002, I would recommend the Flight1 C421 as the next step. It gives you more of a challenge and better speed and range to get you ready for the big iron...

I agree, stay with FS2002 - sure, FS2004 has lots of new features and eye candy - only uoi'd have to turn most of it off to get decent framerates :-lol

I wouldn't change. There is really no difference in the IFR and navigation capabilies between the two. Some of the new add-on aircraft for FS9 have greatly enhanced systems functions but these aircraft are also quite taxing on older hardware - as is the FS9 eye candy. As you're into IFR/Navigation there are a couple of sites that have some really good tutorial info regardless of the sim version. If you haven't already found them, have a look here:http://www.navfltsm.addr.com/http://www.stevesflightschool.com/Doug

>>There is really no difference in the IFR and navigation capabilies between the two.Sorry, but I can't agree with that statement. The default FS2004 GPS unit is a huge step forward from 2002. It actually resembles a real-world unit for the first time. The ability to fly real-world GPS approaches is also a big improvement. As is the ability to choose any approach, precision or non-precision, and any published transition to the chosen approach. None of that was available in FS2002. The ATC system overall is still not perfect, but it has definitely been improved in 2004.That said, I agree that the original poster should proabably wait to upgrade until he has a new system. He could upgrade now, to get a feel for FS2004, but he'd have to move most of the performance sliders well to the left.

Thanks, everyone. You've confirmed what I thought - no point in moving up to FS2004 until I've built a better system (by which time, FS10 will probably be with us :) ).Also, a thank you to Doug (W2DR) for the two links he posted. I will certainly follow through with the lessons on those sites, and I'm sure they will prove very useful.Any other opinions?

Yes, I have a similar rig to yours, though it would probably have a fraction more grunt: [email protected], 512MbDDR & GeForce3Ti200, & FS9.1 has always run smoother than FS02.I always fly the default planes & only use a few freeware scenery addons for my local area as well as my own AI @ 100%.I have ALL sliders MAXED & get on average about 12-16 FPS, which for me is acceptable. I've had only 1 CTD with FS9 & none since the 9.1 patch.Having said all this, I'm quite happy with my setup, but given your rig I probably wouldn't consider upgrading until FS10 is released, so maybe skip FS9 altogether?Cheers :)Josh

HiI have P III 1 GHZ -- 384mb RAM -- Radeon 9600Pro and run FS9I can enjoy FS9 with this rather rubbish spec with the sliders at around medium. And never have CTDs or anything like that

>Hi>>I have P III 1 GHZ -- 384mb RAM -- Radeon 9600Pro and run>FS9>>I can enjoy FS9 with this rather rubbish spec with the sliders>at around medium. And never have CTDs or anything like that>>You are obviously running the bare default with everything and have no addons?All the best,Dave.'Three greens and soft landings'

I run FS9 on a P3/800, suprisingly with most sliders maxed. As long as I don't load it down with AI and if I keep the res either 1024x768x32 or 800x600x32, it runs around 20-25 fps, and maybe a few fps less when I fly with Autogen, which I usually do over open country.But, your video card gives me concern. I have a 128 meg 4200/TI, and upgraded from a 64 Meg Geforce 2. It made a world of difference--much smoother performance, better visuals, etc.... With a GEF 2, my FS9--except for clouds--looked like FS2002. With a 4200TI I can certainly see a difference.I don't throw much money after improving fps. I enjoy Bush type flying and flying the odd light jet or piston twin. My performance is acceptable. And, I am really waiting to see what FS2006 promises before upgrading my system. Even the best systems haven't "wowed" me with their eye candy--but I suspect FS2006 will if it takes advantage of the newer cards and cpu's. I've budgeted a couple thousand for that upgrade when the time comes, as my system is way beyond it's prime. What I've saved by hanging onto it, skipping generations of cpus, I'll probably "blow" once I'm wowed by FS2006's offerings. -John

Sure go to FS9 but forget the clouds. The clouds are THE frame sucking difference between Fs2002 and FS9. To that end you might want to try some of the toned down cloud fixes out there by Chris Willis and bring your cloud sliders wayyyy down.P4 3.6 ghz 800 FSB Radeon X800XT 256 mb, 1 gig dual channel ram

As far as ATC and IFR, keep a watch out for the release of Radar Contact 4 this year. It's ATC IFR feature set is much better than the FS9 default plus, it will have the ability to interact with AI traffic - providing separation unlike FS9.They have a forum here on AVSIM and you can read the feature set on their website www.jdtllc.comGood luck