Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 22, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted April 22, 2009 Just read a good article about a $500 machine that could run Crises at 40 fps and I realized this was also a killer machine for FS2004. You most likely would want a larger disk with all the addons you got, but otherwise it is a very solid selection. Please note that it will not look kindly at FSX because the CPU is just not good enough for that. Nothing short of a fast duo core or entree level quad core CPU should be considered for that.http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/...0fps?page=0%2C0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franthree 3 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Only 2 gig of DDR-2 ram is not too hot even for fs-9! Rest of system not bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmanix 61 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Only 2 gig of DDR-2 ram is not too hot even for fs-9! Rest of system not bad!Agreed! FS9 needs at least 4gb for best results! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted April 29, 2009 Author Aerosoft Share Posted April 29, 2009 Agreed! FS9 needs at least 4gb for best results! I do not agree. First of all a 32 bits OS is a lot better for FS2004 then a 64 bit OS and that means you get 3,2 Gb max. Secondly I have never seen FS2004 + OS use more then 1,4 gb. I actually think you will be hard pressed to see any difference in FPS between a 4 Gb and a 1 Gb system. Might take a few seconds longer to load though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmanix 61 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I do not agree. First of all a 32 bits OS is a lot better for FS2004 then a 64 bit OS and that means you get 3,2 Gb max. Secondly I have never seen FS2004 + OS use more then 1,4 gb. I actually think you will be hard pressed to see any difference in FPS between a 4 Gb and a 1 Gb system. Might take a few seconds longer to load though.I can prove you otherwise, or it is just my imagniation. My desktop is: XP HMCE 32bit 3.0ghz 2gb ATI HD4850 and I get far better frames on my laptop which is: Vista HPE 64bit 2.53ghz 4gb ATI mobility HD3470. The desktop runs well but sceneries like KJFK run very SLOW with all sliders maxed out @ about 18-25 fps. The Laptop runs much better! FSDT KJFK gets an advrage framerate of 35-50 fps. All sliders maxed out.So why is that Mathijs? Slower processor, lower end graphics card, more memory, runs faster. And I will add: the HD3470 is NOT a gaming card. So why is this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psolk 80 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I do not agree. First of all a 32 bits OS is a lot better for FS2004 then a 64 bit OS and that means you get 3,2 Gb max. Secondly I have never seen FS2004 + OS use more then 1,4 gb. I actually think you will be hard pressed to see any difference in FPS between a 4 Gb and a 1 Gb system. Might take a few seconds longer to load though.I would have to respectfully disagree with the 32bit OS recommendation...I would say that XP 64 (or the 64 bit OS) is the best thing that ever happened to FS9 and FSX. There is so much more to FS than physical memory usage as well as FPS, what about stutters, texture loading etc...Remember, the OOM error in FS originated in FS9 once it was loaded with add-ons and carried over to vanilla FSX due to MS being unable to keep FS within the constraints of a 32 bit OS to begin with. That is why with FSX SP1 MS made FSX largeaddressaware and started recommending the whole/3gb userva=2560 band aid to fix the problem. The REAL benefit to an application being largeaddressaware is a 64 bit OS, not a 32 bit OS with a /3gb switch. The whole LargeAddressAware + /3gb switch is nothing more than a band aid, XP 64 is liking having surgery to fix the problem regardless of FS9 or FSX. I now run FS9 on XP 64 with 4 gigs of memory and a largeaddressaware fs9.exe file and I NEVER have to worry about an OOM in ANY plane at ANY airport with every setting maxed out. Say that about a 32 bit OS and FS9 with all its add-ons... Hence, my personal opinion is that 32 bit OS's are a thing of the past and should have been years ago... FS9 patched to LargeAddressAware or FSX SP1 or later +XP64 is by far the better way to go... -Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
![Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account]](https://forum.aerosoft.com/uploads/monthly_2023_09/Aerosoft_Social_Media_Profilbild_Neu23.thumb.jpg.03721825e6a434ed4af0c8b2b73a5898.jpg)
Recommended Posts