brianivor

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. brianivor

    Dipping toe in the water

    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.
  2. brianivor

    Dipping toe in the water

    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.
  3. 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, .