AmericanF100 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 242 posts, RR: 1 Posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3837 times:
Ok, I just got FS2004 today and I am pleased with it... but the smoothness still leaves a little to be desired. My computer has as follows:
Intell Celeron(R)CPU 2.00GHz
512MB of RAM
(I copied all that right form the comp info as I'm not quite sure if its right, like I don't know why there are 2 GHz, but whatever)
I'm considering buying more RAM... now is RAM the only thing that can help speed up flight sim? Or is there something esle I can do? My disk is pretty free and has 6GB free on the partition where flight sim is installed. If RAM is the only thing that can help, how much should I buy? 128? 256? If there is more I can do, what is it? Any information would be greatly appreciated!
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3822 times:
You don't state your OS and videocard, so I have to guess.
Given the age and class of 2GHz Celerons your machine likely has a geForce 2MX with 32MB and is running Windows ME or XP Home.
Such a videocard is extremely outdated and FS2004 is no longer optimised for them (rather it is optimised for a card 2-3 generations newer, the geForce 4Ti series).
Windows ME (if that is your OS) is generally (also by Microsoft themselves) considered the worst OS they ever released.
Windows XP Home is a lot better but a memory hog, and 512MB is the bare minimum to run it smoothly. Adding a highpower application like FS2004 (especially when it needs to do a lot that a newer videocard would do in hardware) will slow it to a crawl.
I'm afraid you have few options available:
live with it. Try reducing display options until you get a decent result
get a new PC. At least a PIV-2.4 (not Celeron) with 1GB RAM and a geForce 4Ti4200 with 128MB RAM
get a new videocard (geForce 4Ti4200 with 64MB RAM would do) and another 512MB RAM
First option is the cheapest of course.
Second option is the best.
Third is a compromise. Won't give you the performance of the second but better than the first at a lower price compared to a new PC.
If you want to run the very latest highend games at top performance expect to need the very latest hardware as well (and in case of bleeding tech like what Microsoft uses in the FS line you won't be able to run it at full settings and optimal performance except on hardware that's not yet on the market as the developer wants it to remain appealing for several years, giving people the option to increase their settings as hardware power increases).
AmericanF100 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 242 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3782 times:
Well my computer is actually new just this year, and the video card I have is an Intel(R)82845G/GL/GE/PE/GV and FS2004 is not running poorly, I'd just like it to run a litte more smoothy. (I copied that video card number right from flight sim) So obviously I'm not going to be buying a new computer. Thanks for the info though.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3762 times:
It is. Most if not all onboard videocards use shared RAM.
Given you are a bit low already it definitely makes things worse (not even taking into account that main RAM is slower than dedicated videoRAM by an order of magnitude).
767ALLTHEWAY From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 659 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3746 times:
Jwenting, well thank you for cleaing that up for me, im not much of a computer technical wizard guru. But i am optimistic that when i get my copy (should arrive soon) that 04 will run well. Best Regards to everyone.
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear"