brianivor

I really should have addressed this letter to PC Pilot, having been randomly reading that magazine for many years since the days of Windows 3.1, but have yet to invest any hard cash in flight simulation due to 'trying to hit a moving target':, The only flight simulator I ever had on my first 386 SX computer with Windows 3.1 was a Dos-based sim on a floppy disk. I can't remember the name but I think it was based in Bristol and you could fly under a red suspension bridge if I remember correctly. Then MSFS.came along and I soon discovered that I would need an unaffordably expensive PC to go with it. I also realised that you needed a fair amount of computer skills to set it up and to keep it running properly as updates came along and computer hardware upgrades were also needed to keep up with the software improvements. Hence the remark about 'moving targets' - there never seemed to a a right time to invest. Running a domestic flight simulator seemed to be a solitary hobby, forking out for upgrades without local help.to make them work. One of my worries was having to keep spending more and more cash on this hobby - if I had decided to become a pianist for example. it would have a one off payment for a piano to set myself up for life, So I never did take the plunge and become a flight simmer in all the intervening years to date and an irony is that in those intervening years I learned to fly and got my Private Pilots Licence!. Now I see MSFS has been established on XBOX. No doubt long-establised simmers will not give it much consideration, but it sounds ideal for me, sort of plug and play? In the short term, I would be able to just get on with enjoying the "game" just like switching on the TV and changing a few buttons on the remote. As I said at the beginning, I am always browsing PC Pilot for help in getting started, even at XBOX level, but the content seems to be all about preaching to the converted. How the hobby is going to attract new blood when there is so little guidance for a beginner on the bookshelves I have no idea. It is too late for me to start thinking about multi-screen cockpit layouts now, as I am in my mid eighties now but I would consider dying while trying to land a Cessna 152 sitting in my armchair. Brianivor

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.

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.

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, .