Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FS 2004 vs FSX...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AVLWATCHER
    replied
    As said before, you will need a REALLY powerful computer to run FSX. I run both FSX and FS2004 on my computer. I have FSX for the awesome graphics, but I use FS2004 for the programs (AES), scenery (FlyTampa), and aircraft. I have a middle computer w/ 1GB of RAM, 256MB video, and 3.2GHz processor. I have all of the settings around the middle in FSX. I get reasonable (5-15) framerates. I'm looking into upgrading my video card though.

    Leave a comment:


  • seahawk
    replied
    I also wonder if I should go to FSX.

    I would be running it on an AMD 4600x2 and a Geforce 8800GT

    Leave a comment:


  • Da-BoB
    replied
    Originally posted by Airbus_A320
    Does FSX take advantage of dual core? I'm making a new build with an Intel Core 2 duo 3ghz processor, GeForce 8800 512mb 650mhz core/1940mhz memory PCI-E 2.0 graphics, 2 GB DDR2 800mhz RAM, so I'll see what happens when I try to max the settings out on FSX. Just have to wait for the parts to arrive. If that can't handle it, I don't think anything can.

    Also, has anyone tried it with SLI enabled?
    I have seen fsx use 50-75% of my CPU which on a quad core means 2-3 cores so yes it does.
    Dont forget a good motherboard too...

    And yes it can handle it as my computer
    q6600
    gigabyte ga-p35-ds4
    2gb ram (666hz in duel channel)
    nVidia 8600GTS (currently running at half speed due to power supply issues.. ie lacking an extra 10 amps on 12 volt lines)
    sata 3gb/s 500GB HD

    can run FSX with maxxed out graphics and get around 15 fps. except when cloudy and over water (~2-5fps)... new power supply will fix that up.

    ~BoB

    Leave a comment:


  • Airbus_A320
    replied
    Does FSX take advantage of dual core? I'm making a new build with an Intel Core 2 duo 3ghz processor, GeForce 8800 512mb 650mhz core/1940mhz memory PCI-E 2.0 graphics, 2 GB DDR2 800mhz RAM, so I'll see what happens when I try to max the settings out on FSX. Just have to wait for the parts to arrive. If that can't handle it, I don't think anything can.

    Also, has anyone tried it with SLI enabled?

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    The scenery is probably the biggest improvement. The feeling of being in an aircraft is also improved with your viewpoint moving backwards and forwards on acceleration and deceleration, just as if your body is moving with the forces of flight. I thought that was quite a clever bit of eye candy.

    .....BUT...like Da-Bob says, you need a powerful computer, a good graphics card and lots of RAM to run it well. My old Pentium4 3.2 gig, ATI Radeon 1650 512mb graphics and 1 Gb RAM performed reasonably well maintaining around 20-25 fps until you got into a high scenery area where it started to stutter a bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Da-BoB
    replied
    Only upgrade if you have a really good computer... as for improvements... default scenery is AMAZING!! Also the aircraft look A LOT better... (the F-18 in the expansion pack is amazingly fun and well detailed.)

    ~BoB

    Leave a comment:


  • AA 1818
    started a topic FS 2004 vs FSX...

    FS 2004 vs FSX...

    Hi guys,

    I was just wondering, what were the improovements made to FS2004 that differentiate it from FS 2004. Should I consider upgrading?
Working...
X