Apuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11 Posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6274 times:
For the moment, I'm still running FS98. A couple of years ago, when MS released FS2000, I was soooo dissapointed by the system requirements. Although they claimed that it would work great on my system (P II MMX 350mHz, 128SDRAM, 32mB NVidia TNT2 Ultra), it sucked. Frame rates were sooooo low, so I decided not to buy it (yes, I first tried a copy of a friend).
Now, two years later, MS releases FS2002. today, I went to a local shop, and what did I read on the package: 'system requirements: PII, 300mHz, 64mB RAM, 8mN graphic card accelerator'.
My question: Is this true? Will I get acceptable framerates on my computer, or should I just stick to FS98 (which runs just fine, with all the installed add-ons)? Is FS2002 less demanding then FS2000?
Tbird From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 851 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6028 times:
Unless you have a Pentium or Athlon 800 or higher and 256mb don't waste your money. You can run it on slower computers but you really can't take advantage of the great graphics. Flightsim.com has great section about FS2002 and their recommendations on running it, check it out.
Eham06 From Spain, joined Oct 2001, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5936 times:
Those are the minimum reguirements. When you put the scenery on low it will give you good frame rates put there are a lot of detailes missing. When you want more detail you need at least 256Ram and a Pentium III. So I would stick to FS98 if I had such a computer
B777 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 370 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5927 times:
Go for FS2002! I have a lowly Celeron 600 190MB and GeForce 2 64mb graphics card and it runs well, with graphics and atc setting set at about medium with autogen at normal. FS98 is no comparison! The only time I get crappy framerates is when I fly into a high resolution airport or city or I fly a downloaded plane that has high rez textures. FS2000 worked fine too (and that was before I updated from 64mb to 190mb and got the graphics card) Here is some pictures from both sims:
I suggest you get more ram if you do decide to get FS2002. But another good alternative like YKA suggest is get X-Plane. It's a pretty neat program-I got it myself!
B777 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 370 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5913 times:
It's me again, I noticed the pictures don't show up. Sorry for the inconvience but you can get to the pictures by right clicking the pictures and under properties you will find the url to the page. It might take a while too load on slower connections.
Aloha 737-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5867 times:
Please get FS2002. I am currently running FS98 too, and I can't wait to install my FS2002. However I'm out of hard drive space on my computer so I'm saving money to buy a third hard drive for my comp.
Here's what you can expect for FS2002, based on what I have read from customers on Flightsim.com, airliners.net, and other sources:
Lower FPS than FS98, but MUCH smoother. That is, 10fps will LOOK and FEEL like 25FPS. Because in FS98, have you noticed that in detailed scenery areas, teh frames "jump"? That is, instead of a smooth transition at lower frame rates, the aircraft and scenery jerk.
Well that's gone in FS2002, smooth as a baby's bottm.
Graphics are great, even if you only have the sliders on halfway. In FS2000, when I had it, I can to set the sliders back, and only the ground immediately beneath my aircraft had texture!! In FS2002 you can get away with more texture, and less drop in frame rates.
Autogen scenery: MEans less load on your computer. Autogen is a huge step up from the scenery in FS98 and FS2000, in that not every feature has been specifically placed, and created, rather, you have a set of standard objects that pop up in their respective places, all over the globe. What does this mean? It means the same building could be used in several cities at a time, instead oa specific building for a specific city, whcih uses up time and space to load, and makes the scenery complex. Autogen usues simple defaults, but don't think that "default" means crap, these defaults are unlike anything you've seen. Take a look for yourself.
Also, there's a new mesh terrain generator, more advanced than FS2000, and less taxing on frame rates.
Sound quality has improved, and the "landable water" is gone. That is, if you land an airline rin the water, it sinks, it doesn't just sit there like in FS2000 and 98.
Waves, yep, there's moving waves in the water. Fly over a lake at very low altitude, and your wake turbulence will stir up waves.
Lighting is back, rain is too, and the clouds are even more realistic than FS2000 clouds, perhaps the best yet. And also, as always, less taxing on frame rates.
So what does all this add up to?
Well, if you're getting 25FPS in FS98, you'll get 25FPS(smoother) in FS2002, plus alot, lot, LOT more.