Expected performance of FS2002?

[showday79]

Hello!

I'm looking to get my first ever flight simulator. I have realized that it is hopeless to try to run FS2004 on my system.

I'm searching for opinions about how FS2002 will run with my setup which is as follows:

Celeron 500 Mhz
256 MB RAM
Windows 98 SE
nVidia type 128 MB PCI video card (no AGP slot)

I'd like to get as good of an idea as possible about how FS2002 will work with this setup before I go out and spend the money on the program, a joystick/yoke, and the video card (which I don't have just yet). I would really like to hear from someone who has actually seen the program run on a similar system so I can get a first-hand perspective.

Thanks for listening, and I look forward to the advice!

[devitomd]

It will work okay out of the box, but if you plan on adding scenery and traffic and all the stuff that makes it fun you'll have some problems with frame rates. I'm running a 766 mhz with Windows 2000 and a G-Force 2 and I have terrible frame rates when I go to Atlanta or Chicago or any really busy airport. The way around it is to cut down AI traffic to 50% which I normally have at 100%. However, it will probably take you a good year before getting into all that stuff.

[DougKYIP]

With that 128 meg vid card you might get descent performace, I had a 366 MHz Celeron with 256 megs ram and FS2002 didn't run well at all, that was with a 4 meg vid card though, FS98 ran great on it, in the hundreds of frames per second, FS98 is an option for you with that system, it's a great sim and it will do almost everything FS2002 will, It works great for learning to fly on the instruments and to practice instrument procedures, there are also lots of awsome free add-on aircraft and panels for FS98 still available that will run perfect on that system, it's available still for $9.99 here's the link, http://www.compusa.com/products/prod...207&pfp=BROWSE

I'll always keep my 366 MHz celeron with that 4 meg vid card and windows 98, just to run FS98 on, it's a great sim and some add-ons for it don't work with windows XP.

I am running FS2002 on a 2.0 GHz P4 laptop with a 32 meg vid card and 512 megs of ram and it runs OK, but still stutters some.

FS2002 standard is on sale at Best Buy for $9.99, here's the link
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....oryId=cat02109

[Tony G]

Hi showday79,

First my system specs

Celeron 566 Mhz
256 MB RAM
Windows XP Pro
Onboard 64 MB graphics card

You have a couple of advantages over me. First winXP requires more RAM to run than 98. 2nd, My video card is onboard. That makes two points to favour your RAM, as XP hogs it, as do on board video cards. I ran it with this setup on Windows 98SE and zero problems before upgrading to Win XP.

I have a blast flying with this setup, I do however try to avoid the big cities. I have added on Project AI for traffic, and found it really hurt my FPS. I just adjust my AI traffic to get it to run smooth. Most of my sliders are pretty much to the left(you sacrifice what you don't need)

I fly much VFR, and the IFR I fly is usually with the jets that don't hog the system to much. So, none of the traditional payware heavies. I find the freeware heavies are fine to run, and I have several of the great payware props. IE (all from Flight1) C310, C152, C177, and they all fly great.

Stay away from too much addon scenery, and you will be fine. I have been using this setup since FS2002 came out, and I haven't seen much of a need to upgrade. But keep in mind this is the bottom end of the sim as it was intended. I have tried FS9 and it is not worth it, I own it, but will wait to upgrade to fly it right. Feel free to email me if you have anymore questions.

tonygoodale@telus.net

Happy Flying

Tony

[LGA]

Ok, my specs first.........600mhz AMD-K7, Nvidia GeForce 5200FX, 300 something MB of ram, FS2002 runs well...in my opinion. If I had your computer Showday, I'd go out and get that copy of FS2002. Take a look at the picture, even with settings lowered on FS2002, you'll have a much better and realistic experience than FS98. Don't even think of going middle class and getting FS2000, you'll eventually find out that FS2000 runs worse than FS2002. Things that will kill your framerates in FS2002 are AI Traffic, on that system, I'd keep it down to 25%. The more complex panels....experiment with different panels for the type of airfcraft you wil be flying, some are more framerate friendly than others. Fragmented hard drives....defragment often. Programs running in the background...attempt to close them all before you start a session. Add-on scenery...stay away from it, or you'll see your frames drop into the singles. Needleass to say, FS2002 is worth a try on your machine. Also...and I can't remember the title, but there is an article on the "How-to" section on the site that further explains how to streamline FS2002 so that it runs better.

[habsfan100]

I have a pretty crummy system also - P3 500, 128RAM, 32mb Card, Win 98.
I have to say I'm usually fairly satisfied with what I get from FS2002. Now, for me it's AI Traffic that totally murder's my FPS, so usually I leave that off completely and I get decent framerates. My biggest problem for me right now is blurry textures and jaggies on outside view, but it's not intolerable.
Although you have a Celeron, you have a fair amount of RAM and a nice video card, so it should make it up. If you want great performance, go with FS98.
BTW, I wouldn't think about getting FS2000 if I were you. 2002 runs better on my system than 2000 did (Sadly enough).

[LGA]

Yup, same experience here. 2002 runs much better than FS2000. You'd figure it would be the other way around, but not in this case.

[racartron]

Go for FS2002 definitely, but I'd recommend bunping your memory up to at least 512mb. Otherwise your system should be fine.

I have a Dell P3 XS-T500 with 640mb and a GeForce 2 Ultra card(64mb memory). And I have a blast with FS2002.

BTW, I have most of my sliders max'd for visuals and have all the terrain mesh and sceneries, clouds I can find installed. Since I primarily fly low and slow, I'm not troubled by the big airports and their heavy traffic patterns.

The areas I've found that hurt performance the most are:
..Aircraft reflections -- keep mine off except for certain planes
..Water slider -- keep mine two clicks left of max
..Clouds -- Keep slider around 35%
..AI traffic -- keep slider around 40%
..High density 3rd party sceneries -- But I still use 'em

My advice is to turn off the FPS counter and just enjoy the hobby.

------------
racartron
it stands for something, but I just can't remember what

[Teleflex]

echo what everbody has said above but go for the pro version of FS2002 if you get the non pro version you will regret it later. You cannot get the files you need later. Not legally anyway.

BTW Duron 800, 512Mb ram,128 Mb fx5200 vid. I'm happy for the moment.

Bill.

[thomastt]

Ho,Ho,Ho... Happy holidays...my original sys is a hp circa'99. originally a 500 celeron. i did a powerleap conversion to a 766 which helped A LOT. not very expensive. i seem to remember getting in the mid teens for FPS and i like eye candy.{!} since fs is so processor dependent it's really helpfull to shut down as much a s possible in the background. if you can get an inexpensive sound card [$20 or less ] and disable [in bios] the on-board sound you'll gain a bit more. i used to go thru the routine of "crtl/alt/del" to get to explorer and sys tray only [anti-virus "on" if connected for weather etc], then riva tuner to tweak the card as much as posssible. if you us e V/C a lot, try to keep with original a/c as most add on have huge amounts of data to render. i have a carendo cessna on my xp [ amd2.4/1.25gb ram] but the gf 4 440mx card is my limiting feature that keeps even this machine form giving smooth v/c instrument readings.
so, tweak away and save you're $. tt