Upgrade An Old PC for FS2004 Flying Only?

Hi,

I have an old Windows Xp desktop - HP Pavilion a1515a.

is it better to upgrade the hardware (video card/RAM/HDD) so it can be used as a dedicated FS2004 sim machine, or would it be better getting a new quadcore 64bit W8 machine?

I think someone said no point on the new machine bacuse FS2004 will only run on 32bit - ie, WXP.

Thanks for your input

Personally, if you're entertaining the thought of using FSX or P3D, then a new rig with a fast CPU, lots of RAM, and a powerful Graphics card is in order.

If not, a used rig with an i5 or i7 would work well for FS9, and it will run with W7 64 bit.

Good Luck!

Alan :pilot:

If it truly is for "FS only", then it is also worth CONSIDERING disabling ethernet so you have no networking. This will give you slightly better performance, less overhead, BUT the loss of some features/functionality, not only in FS itself, but in some of the freestandeing support programs. You may or many not be able to live without those featrures, that is entirely up to you. As Alan said, extra memory and a good graphics card are your higest priorities.

Steve from Mudgee.

You don't need an i5 or i7 to run FS9. A Pentium 4 (3.2 Ghz) will be plenty. If you don't plan to spend $2,000 on a 'FSX' rig, then keep what you got. Maybe you could get a 'better' video card but that would be it.

I have Win XP Sp3, 32 bit, and get 30 fps (locked / steady) with FSX and my i7. FS9 shows over 600 fps (see pic) in 'View Options' window with FRAPS running, but FS9 is also is locked at 30 fps. That is all the fps you need and can 'get by' with 24 fps.

Chuck B

Napamule

The most important thing that will give you better performance is the CPU.

If you go for a new computer get a system with no OS installed and install win7 64 bit. Suppot for win7 will continue till 2020

Thanks for the input.

It would be for FS2004.

Would disablling eathernet improve system performance for other programs as well?

These are the specs for the machine:

http://support.hp.com/gb-en/document/c00806797

It had no video card as such and uses system RAM, but I understand that can be changed.

I undrstand FS2004 is 32bit only, and that a 64bit machine wont improve performance?

I just checked the specs again and I see the HP only has a max 2GB expansion - my laptop presently uses 8GB!

Rather then disabling the Ethernet, just disable the virus protection when using FS. In more then 20 years of flight, I have never had an issue with a virus or other from any FS internet connection.

Then you are a very fortunate person indeed. However, your fortune cannot be guaranteed to be experienced by anyone else. Personally, and I suspect this would be the view of the great majority of people, I think your advice is very dangerous and should be ignored.

Dijvid

I am quite interested to know if disabling the ethernet on a none networked PC would improve overall system performance for the sim, and other programs?

I don't see why this should be so as the Ethernet connection isn't using any resources.

Dijvid

I am quite interested to know if disabling the ethernet on a none networked PC would improve overall system performance for the sim, and other programs?

Without an actual connection, the system will largely just ignore the network Ethernet connection. It won't affect performance at all.

Hi,

 

I have an old Windows Xp desktop - HP Pavilion a1515a.

 

is it better to upgrade the hardware (video card/RAM/HDD) so it can be used as a dedicated FS2004 sim machine, or would it be better getting a new quadcore 64bit W8 machine?

 

I think someone said no point on the new machine bacuse FS2004 will only run on 32bit - ie, WXP.

 

Thanks for your input

Hello

Recently I bought a new pc HP Pavilion 500-326 .It has an amd quad core thing ,and either 6 or 8 gbs ram.

It comes with both some sort of graphics facility in the chip itself and a radeon gcard (probably there entry level card).

This PC cost me £400 pounds UK.

I have seen advertised at £370 recently.

This is no gaming monster (it would probably be described as an all round family computer)

I can tell you that the increase in FS9 performance has been staggering.

I can now run add-on airports (for the first time in eleven years of simming) completely smoothly (as smooth as the stock airports .I can run the stock airports that used to be difficult performance hogs is Egll

,Klax ,eham etc completely smoothly. I can use VCs (that used to be ) performance hogs and slow to draw

) very smoothly now, a good example being the Posky vc for its 777s .

I can have decent levels of AI now without major stuttering (I realise there are simmers who will settle for nothing less than 100% ai ,but forty percent is fine e for me (my old setup I would set at something like ten percent ai) I am of these the opinion that for me my sim is a flight sim not an ai sim.

Anyways I am totally satisfied .

My old setup was an XP ,P4 2.8 ,2gb setup that I always defended as having great Fs9 performance....I was kidding myself ,it was poor.

Not only that my new PC starts up and is ready to use in 30-40 seconds .My old setup was nearly ten to thirteen minutes before I could use it,and another long wait for FS to start.

Anyways

Not sure about all the stuff about 9 being 32bit and my new setup 64 my new setup having a quad core chip that fs can't fully take advantage off etcetc .

Sim is great.

PS my new PC cost 400 quid UK

If you are US simmer then I expect you would pay a few hundred dollars (we are of course in ripoff Britain)

For the equivalent PC)

PPs I am purely talking FS9 in this post.

I like to fly not tweak.

Cheers Andy

I wonder if it was the extra RAM and a good video card that made the difference?

From what I can tell, x86 progs don't run in 64bit mode, so your fast extras may have made a difference. Do you have the trees and buildings active as well?

I remeber putting FS98 onto an old 2.6GHZ 32bit machine along time ago, and the sim ran too fast so I had to slow it down. I was getting massive frame rates!!!

Same cant be said for FS2004 though.

My 2.2GHZ 4GB W7 laptop still stutters on EGGL and YSSY. But the extra RAM did help it fly smoother, but I had to keep the detail levels down.

Nice set up, BTW - glad your sim is flowing smoothly.

You might want to do a Google for Large Address Aware and see if this can be of use to you.

Dijvid

I wonder if it was the extra RAM and a good video card that made the difference?

 

From what I can tell, x86 progs don't run in 64bit mode, so your fast extras may have made a difference. Do you have the trees and buildings active as well?

 

I remeber putting FS98 onto an old 2.6GHZ 32bit machine along time ago, and the sim ran too fast so I had to slow it down. I was getting massive frame rates!!!

 

Same cant be said for FS2004 though.

 

My 2.2GHZ 4GB W7 laptop still stutters on EGGL and YSSY. But the extra RAM did help it fly smoother, but I had to keep the detail levels down.

 

Nice set up, BTW - glad your sim is flowing smoothly.

Hello

Re..autogen

I usually have autogen turned off. This is not for reasons of performance, its just that I fly mainly passenger aircraft ,and you can't see a lot of autogen from 34000ft.

I did actually do a flt for Fseconomy last night using the Maule 270 and out of interest turned autogen to Max ......Flight was still very smooth indeed.

I feel the problem you may have trying to upgrade your present system is one of throwing good money after bad. Something I did with my old xp p4 system.

If you can afford a new PC (mine now retails for as little as £370) then that may be your best option.

I am speaking as person that has to watch the pennies and £400 was my budget limit (so I am not a money bags by the way)

Anyways good luck.

PS my new machine uses an AMD processor.

And runs Windows 8.1

I have seem many comments along the lines of will fs9 run using W8.1......Yes absolutely

That AMD processors are no good for FS...well they are for me.

Cheers Andy