Hi,
I've read so many posts on this board and am not sure which way to turn as some people with relatively modest systems seem to have FS X working fine and others with great systems say it hardly runs well at all. I guess it all depends upon your own expectations of where you can set the sliders and differing opinions on what is an acceptable frame rate...
A relation of mine is about to upgrade his PC (which currently runs FS 2000 on a 633 MHz Pentium with 128 MB RAM !). He wants to buy FS X, but I'm not sure whether it would run acceptably on his new PC, so wonder if he's better off with FS 2004 ? (Bear in mind he won't have high expectations as any improvement on his current set up will be good !)
Specs for a £500 (UK Pound) PC he's thinking of buying:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+
Windows Vista ???? (see below)
2 GB DDR2 533 Mhz RAM
256 MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro PCI Express Graphics Card
250 GB (7200rpm) Serial ATA Hard drive with 8MB databurst cache
So will this run FS X well enough to be able to play or is FS 2004 a better bet? (I'm not expecting high framerates or to have sliders maxed - just to be able to play it reasonably enjoyably)
Also, does FS X now run on Vista? I know when it first came out there were some problems? Most new PCs seem to come with Vista.
And finally, on the above system we could trade down to 1 GB RAM but get a faster Athloan dual core X2 5000+ processor instead. Which is more important for FS - RAM or processor?
Thanks to all
Chief Captain
First Officer