I'm lucky enough to have a new PC dropping through the letter box (not literally) tomorrow....
I bought this PC, purely for FS9 (that's how dedicated I am to the virtual world of aviation!).... and also for my Music Production software...
If I list basic Spec below, could someone that has a similar spec please reply and give me suggested FS2004 SETTINGS in all the main areas.
Really appreciate it
- Pentium 4
- 3.0 GHz
- 1024 Mb DDR400 Duel RAM (2 x 512 MB)
- 128 Mb ATI Radeon 9800 Pro Video Card
- 80GB Hard Drive
I don't run any other software on the PC other than:-
- Internet Explorer
- MS Outlook
- MS Train Sim (Oops, don't normal admit that!)
- Reason (Music Software)
- T-Racks (Music Mastering Software)
WOULD LOVE TO HERE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS !
Really nice machine, you should get great fps and fast scenery rendering with it. Just max out all of your sliders then back off some until you get the results that you like. Clouds, shadows, they use up much of the resources that go to performance.
Good luck and let us know how you do.
Great stuff RM, will try that... Frame Rates will obvioulsy be my priority.. but will be nice to be able to turn up the graphics sliders too...
My current machine has a pathetic 224 MB RAM, and I have never got better than 15 FPS !! So obviously I can't wait to see how FS9 will run with 1024 MB of RAM !!
With the A319 / A320 add-on I have at the moment I get --- wait for it --- 2 FPS, so in other words it just ain't a sim any more when I fly it, so can't wait to see what it's like with the new PC...
What would you say would be the best Screen Resolution for a big-specc'd PC like my new one ?
Resolution depends on you monitor, your card (I have it) can handle anything. Find out what your monitor can take you don't want to ruin it.
I fly at 1600x1200x32 because I like sharp views of the aircraft, many fly at much lower resolutions. I read that quite a few even with power machines like yours do it at 800x600 full screen not window mode and get even better fps.
Yeah, that' swhy I asked - I was amazed that so many people recommending Screen Rez's (on an earlier topic), were saying they flew 800 x 600... When I choose this obvioulsy I get better FPS but the graphics (especially edges) are not accpetable to me...
Thanks for the advice - will no doubt be buzzing when I try FS9 for the first time on the new PC !! (5 times as much memory - gotta be good!)
Again I'm envious. It's getting pretty wet here today.
Just wanted to give an update on the differences I'm now getting with my new PC.
This may be useful for anyone considering the investment of a new PC, and wondering if they'll get much 'bang for the buck'.
I bought a Pentium 4, 3.0GHz Processor and specified extra RAM (a total of 1024MB)... I also paid more to get a 128KB ATI Radeon Pro Graphics card.
The difference is just indescribable... FS9 must detect available RAM because, as soon as I installed it into the new PC, all of the FS9 SETTINGS were defaulted to the highest settings all round... My first flight was my absolute fave plane of the moment - the delightful Baron 58 and I flew the short flight from Newcastle - Teeside (UK), about 40 Nm.
The first thing I noticed was that I actually felt a bit dizzy on take-off as the fluidity of the movement as the plane accelerated was just amazing!
I immediately noticed how much more dense the objects on the ground at EGNT were, and how much more detailed everything was. As I raised in altitude, I was blown away by how good the scenery looked, especially from 3500 and 5500... Photographic is the only way to describe it, and this was default FS9 scenery.
Another massive difference was that the SETTINGS had turned up the TRAFFIC % slider and when I taxi'd to Runway 7 at EGNT, I was in a queue of 737s and MD83s, waiting for take-off !! Again, even with all this traffic the graphics are like nothing I've seen before.
In short, whatever I throw at this PC it handles with Frame Rates that never drop below 40 FPS, (and are usually more like 60+).
The best way I can sum up the difference between FS9 on my old PC (2.0Ghz, 224 RAM) and my new PC (3.0Ghz, 1024 RAM) is by saying that before, it was like a 1989 Nintendo Master System, and now it is like a NASA built hybrid Mulit-Million dollar simulator !!
In short, if you're fortunate enough to be able to afford a Pentuim 4 PC with 3.0+ Ghz and at least 1024MB of RAM, go for it !!
(or get it on Credit like I did).
Cool, David. Buy me one on credit too, would you please? How about posting some pictures so we can all appreciate the clarity you're now seeing.
Great rundown on what your now seeing with that terrific machine.
It sounds like a dream machine, enjoy it!
Now your flying
Shame about the OTHER sim,but you Northerners
So it rains in Newcastle Ever been to Wet Wales
no sheep jokes please
Dude, thats awesome, I've got double your RAM, same hard drive, 2.8 Ghz processor, and a FX5200. I get around 17-18 FPS in O-hair airport wit 800-600 rez.
Hopefully i'll do a update like your post, cause, as you may know, and i cant stop talking bout, cause i'm excited, in gonna get a X800 XT Platinum card in late september if ATI gets on it and makes enough of them! I prolly won't turn up the Rez above 1024 or whatever, just increase detail...dont even talk bout anti-alaising, I hate that crap! i like sharp detail!
TTT - Sure I've been to Wales, my sister lives in Newport !!
(I think the area is called Rogerstone).... I also spent Christmas in a cotage in Solva, near St. Davids... Me and Wales are but you know you can't beat the Geordie Heartlands of North-East England...
We have some great little Airfields up here too - I live 1 mile from somewhere called "Shotton Airfield" (not featured in FS9!), and regularly have Cessna 152s from the flying school, coming over the house about 1000ft above on their approach... great stuff when you love aviation!
FEM, shame you're not getting better performance with so much RAM - I'm no PC expert but I reckon the combination of the 1024 RAM and the quality of the Graphics card are what gives me sparkling performance... I now have virtually every slider on MAX and Frame Rates are so good that I don't even check what they are any more!
I'll deffo get some screen shots on soon (currently have no Internet connection at home = caveman).... I took a screenshot at home the other evening of the Baron flying over the 'Sea of Bothnia' near Finland... Shimmering water - amazing !
The PC cost £866 all in (about $100) - not bad for this sort of performance, I reckon.....
MSTrain Sim even runs perfectly on this and that IS a difficult program to get steady Frame Rates from.
DISCLAIMER: I HEREBY STATE THAT I USE MS TRAIN SIMULATOR FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY, IN THE NEVER ENDING HUNT FOR FRAME RATES IN THE 100+s... NEITHER I, NOR ANYONE I KNOW IS A TRAIN SPOTTER... AGAIN THE "LONDON - BRIGHTON ADDON PACK" I HAVE IS PURELY FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES.
If I look out of my bedroom window I can see Rogerstone(well, if I stand on my tip toes I can )
Honestly,I live five mins from Rogerstone.
I hope you do not own a anorak and note pad (not even for research)
I hope your sister do'esnt live too close to the old railway line (it may reopen)
Workrd in a pub called The Jolly Roger in Rogerstone a good few years ago
I have FS9 on my computer, and it runs very well at 20-30, possibly 40 fps with default FS9 aircraft, as long as there are just a few clouds (like the fair weather setting) or no clouds. I would really like to be able to get the photographic scenery that The-GPS-Kid talked about, be able to fly through clouds, and use some of the other cloud/rain/snow intensive weather settings without the framerate dropping. Here's my computer specs:
Dell Dimension 4600 Series: Pentium® 4 Processor at 2.66GHz with 533MHz front side bus
Windows XP Home
Memory: 512MB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 333MHz (2x256M)
Hard Drive: 40GB Ultra ATA/100 Hard Drive (7200 RPM)
Video Card: 128MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Graphics Card with TV-Out and DVI
Monitor: 17 in E171FPb Flat Panel Display (I have the resolution at 1024 x 768)
So I have 2 256 MB cards. The owners manual says there are four slots for memory, DIMM 1, 2, 3, and 4. I suppose 1 and 2 are filled with the 256 MB cards. Could I buy two more 256 MB cards from right here to have 1024 MB total RAM and get those good framerates, scenery, graphics, etc.? Or is the video card not good enough and I would be wasting my money if I bought more RAM?
More memory will help in the rendering of textures. Having 1 gig of ram with that very nice setup you have would be a bonus.
Check these for better prices on ram.
So it won't help with the framerate? Only a better graphics card will?
And is this a pretty good buy: I'd get 2 of these?
As long as it's the right memory, yes they have excellent prices probably the best you can get outside of a Sunday newspaper sale.
The extra will help all around, you'll see better texture rendering, less st st st studders (slide show) and if you have the latest vido drivers and the latest directX 9.0c, you will see all around improvement even some FPS.
You have a very good system, if you want to turn down or off some of the features (scenery shadows, less clouds) any of the performance hogs you be better off.
Try to shut down background programs, they are using up more power than anything else.
I'd be happy to get 30 fps with no studdering in any circumstances, with any view (cockpit, VC, spot, tower), any plane, any time of day, and any weather condition. Would that RAM do it?
No, your card, your CPU, if your adjustments are reasonable, no programs in the background, many things will contribute to better FPS.
The less demanding you are of your scenery, clouds etc the better your fps. If you want to try, turn off some of the most demanding slides off or down and see how your fps does, just play around with the settings.
30 all the time, with a P-4-3.2, 2 gigs of ram and the latest 256 ATI or Nvidia card maybe.
This sim can't be run with everything including some of the most popular add-ons full out on any machine made today, it's built for tomorrows machines.
Hey Luigi Man,
Your set up is actually pretty good, you've got a 128Mb Graphics Card and a new Generation system.... As RadarMan said, probably the biggest factor that would make your system better (especially as you said, in Clouds), would be to add another 512MB of RAM.
Also, go into XP Options and "Defragment your Hard Disk" regularly - I found this helped with my old PC....
Well I recently tested my new PC further by setting the final option onto it's highest setting - the WATER..... !!
still getting 30 FPS minimum on everything EXCEPT the Dash 8 add-on that I have (which I am fast going off!), which drops to 20, which is still perfectly acceptable really.
I'd echo what others have said - RAM and Graphics Card make the biggest difference - invest in the absolute most you can physically afford, you'll regret any economising !!
Thanks for the advice everyone. I think when I have extra money to spend I'll go ahead and buy the RAM, since a better video card would cost way more than I can spend.
The-GPS-Kid: I do go into Disk Defragmenter occasionally, but since I did defragment the first time it has said that I don't need to do it.
I may be super cautious but I run scandisk and defrag every weekend.
I never look or care what Windows tell's me.
That's the way I've been doing it for years.