John E. Carty wrote in message
...

"Nick Name" wrote in message
...

John E. Carty wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Reilly wrote in message
...
The code in this junk is crap.
I can run FS2002 on an IBM Aptiva 400 with 512 ram with just about
every
slider maxed out with no problem at all.
Now you tell me why we get 2 FPS flying a C172 straight and
level
with
a
2D cockpit over Seattle Wash
10AM summer with just about all sliders shut down and with NO linear
settings.
The 2D panel at straight and level has just about zero activity.
The 2D panel hides about 2/3,s of the scenery.
What is so difficult about putting together code that will make some
customers happy
with at least an 800 machine.
Look..my OLD 400 was running FS 2002 just fine.
I thought FS2004 might be give me at least 12 maybe 25 FPS depending
on
location.
So I figure I,d just dial back some sliders ect as per FS2002.
WRONG..........refund tomorrow
one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to get
full
enoyment out of FS2004

Propilot 99 had your clouds years ago

Software development is driven by the latest hardware and what it can
handle. FS2004 recommends at least a 450MHz processor, so why would
anyone
expect it to run smoothly on a 400MHz system? I can get 15fps on an
old
PIII
600MHz with a RADEON 7500 64MB video card. Learn to read the
requirements
before you buy :-)


I can read **** BRAIN
You can read, but do you actually comprehend?

The Min requirements are close to my configuration.
Looks like close doesn't count, now does it? The fact is that you knew
your
system was below the minimum requirements to run this application and yet
you throw a hissy fit when it doesn't work as well as you'd expect :-)
Your are in for 12 times fps more of a disapointment upgrading from 2002 to
2004
than you are from fs98 to fs2000......Bill Gates loves you