I usually run about 25-35 FPS in FS2002Pro with the sliders maxed out at Meigs in the default Cessna 172. The same flight in FS2004 with the sliders all set at minimum gets me a max of 8-12 FPS. Resolution is set at 800x600 32bit, full screen.
Is FS2004 that much more of a memory/CPU hog than FS2002 or is there something in my system that's not FS2004 compatible?
I have an Athlon XP2700+ with 512mb ram, VIA mobo with KM400 S3G integrated graphics, Realtek AC'97 integrated sound.
I am planning to upgrade to at least an NVidia FX5600 256MB, and would like to talk my wife into the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, but at 400 bucks, it's going to be a wile.
With the scenery turned up and a slow card your FPS will suffer. When you do get a better card you'll see the difference.
Yes, FS9 is more graphic intensive than 2000.
😀 I agree with RadarMan but just want to know if you do talk your wife into letting you get the 9800 Pro........could you please tell us you secret.
😀 All the best and good luck 😀
Well, onboard graphics are usually very bad and have very basic chipsets - ther are to provide minimal 3d graphics technology just so the manufacturer of the board can say that there is "onboard video" - they dont mention what kind of quality it is! The card you mentioned would be a great buy, and yes - also an expensive one. Another card to look at if you were to spend money would be a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra - an amazing card, and I belive the 5950 is out now 😂
If you were to go for a good card, at a reasonable price, I recommend a 5200 ultra - you can probably pick one up for around £75.
Be sure to search for your question from existing posted questions before asking a new question as your question may already exist from another user. If you're sure your question is unique and hasn't been asked before, consider asking a new question.
Flight Sim Questions that are closely related to this...