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

"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

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

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 :-)

"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

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

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.

"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?

"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

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