If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
crap FS2004
one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to run this
FS2004 PALES in comparison to FS2000 thats right FS2000 Save your money |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Nick Name" wrote in message ... one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to run this FS2004 PALES in comparison to FS2000 thats right FS2000 Save your money Disagree. I haven't upgraded my system since I first bought FS2002, when it first came out. FS2004 runs slightly faster and with slightly more eye candy than I had with 2002. My system: W2k pro (all updates/patches) DirectX 9 Dual PIII 933 512mb RAM GeForce 2 MX400 Clive |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Reilly wrote in message ... Provocative troll-esque subject line notwithstanding, on Sat 9 Aug 2003 crap FS2004 -------has that sound Nick Name wrote: one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to run this Well it's not necessary, but it helps if you want all the eye candy. 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 FS2004 PALES in comparison to FS2000 thats right FS2000 In terms of performance against average machine specs at the time of release FS2000 is the most resource-hungry version of all the Windows MSFS variants. Whatever machine you have, if you're happy with its rendering of FS2000 I recommend you try FS2002. For the same level of graphical detail you will almost certainly see a frame-rate increase. You may even be able to crank some settings up a notch or two. 2004 is surprisingly efficient with the resources it uses (given the graphical improvements over 2002 I'd have expected worse) but it does need a fairly robust machine once you start using weather effects, environment mapping etc. -- Kev __________________________________________________ ________________________ "Grandmother of eight makes hole in one." Newspaper headline |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 :-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Nick Name" wrote in message
... 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. If you are getting only 2FPS with all the graphics settings at their minimum, even on a 400Mhz machine, there is something wrong with your configuration. Even FS2000 could do better than that, and I doubt FS2004 has actually regressed even to that level, never mind worse. Alternatively, you're just full of crap. It's hard to tell which from over here. Pete |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 The Min requirements are close to my configuration. 400/RADEON7000 W/512RAM As stated above i thought at least maybe we can dial back this ROAD HOG like FS2002 and maybe get something out of it. ---------------------------- now I,ll drop down one notch and talk to DICK HEAD |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote in message ... "Nick Name" wrote in message ... 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. If you are getting only 2FPS with all the graphics settings at their minimum, even on a 400Mhz machine, there is something wrong with your configuration. Even FS2000 could do better than that, and I doubt FS2004 has actually regressed even to that level, never mind worse. my machine running A Ok thats why I,ve kept it so long. The scale of upgrading from fs2002 to fs2004 is 12 times slower fps wise than compared to upgrading from fs98 to fs2000. Alternatively, you're just full of crap. It's hard to tell which from over here. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Nick Name" wrote in message
... The scale of upgrading from fs2002 to fs2004 is 12 times slower fps wise than compared to upgrading from fs98 to fs2000. FS2004 is 12*X slower than FS2002 where "X" is the differential between FS2000 and FS98? It's becoming easier and easier to tell that you're full of crap. Alternatively, you're just full of crap. It's hard to tell which from over here. That's the best you could come up with? I could swear I heard that somewhere else before...are you sure it's original? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Nick Name" wrote in message
... one needs a state of the art ultra high end gaming machine to run this FS2004 PALES in comparison to FS2000 thats right FS2000 Save your money Total rubbish! What one needs, is to know how to set your BIOS settings and choose your hardware combo's. I have an Athlon 2000+ (1.67Ghz IIRC) 512MB of cheap DDR RAM nForce MB chipset GeForce Ti4200 And guess what, I run FS2004 at 1024x768x32 with FULL detail on everything. It even manages 4X anti-aliasing if there's not too much to draw. So, FS2004 doesn't require monster hardware, it requires you to know how to optimise your existing hardware to it's best. But go and waste money and a brand new machine if you want. BTW - Absolutely nothing in this machine is overclocked. Regards, Nathan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I'm going to "Laser" a pilot. | Happy Dog | Piloting | 79 | February 5th 05 10:45 PM |
Bridges in FS2004 | Kevin Reilly | Simulators | 18 | October 2nd 03 11:00 PM |
FS2004 approaches, ATC etc | henri Arsenault | Simulators | 14 | September 27th 03 12:48 PM |
Ahhhhh! FS2004 I'm impressed! | Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo | Simulators | 1 | August 9th 03 04:20 AM |
FS2004 Garmin GPS map question | Charon | Simulators | 1 | July 28th 03 06:39 PM |