FS2004 on a Pentium II 500?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Hello,

I would like to get Microsoft's FS2004. My computer is a Pentium II
500 with 192MB of RAM. So it would work (according to Microsoft's
site), but will it just be a slide show?

Thanks
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Crazyrcer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to get Microsoft's FS2004. My computer is a Pentium II
> 500 with 192MB of RAM. So it would work (according to Microsoft's
> site), but will it just be a slide show?

Yep.



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Would the FS2002 be any better (like usable)? What about FS2000?
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

 

[GREGORY]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:18:07 -0500, Crazyrcer
<Crazyrcer@forums.simradar.com> brought the following to our
attention:

>Would the FS2002 be any better (like usable)? What about FS2000?

FS2002 perhaps could run on it.. but you'd best get more RAM. OTOH
maybe not worth investing more $$ into it though.

>I would like to get Microsoft's FS2004. My computer is a Pentium II
>500 with 192MB of RAM. So it would work (according to Microsoft's
>site), but will it just be a slide show?

I run FS2002 on a dual 500MHz CPU system with 512MB RAM and
32MB nVidia graphics card. ALso have FS2004 installed but don't run
it much.. being too cheap to register all the utilities that went
payware with FS2004.

Have borrowed the terrain textures from FS2004 for FS2002 use.
Also have a utility that converts FS2004 MDL files for use in FS2002.

One last remark.. upgrading to a 64MB GeForce3 caused the framerate to
decrease although better appearance.. so went back to the OEM Diamond
Viper nVidia TNT2. Can get 11-30 fps but have it locked at 19 fps.


-g

 

[dallas]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Crazyrcer"
> I would like to get Microsoft's FS2004. My computer is a Pentium II
> 500 with 192MB of RAM.

Do you mean 128 MB of RAM? (it doesn't come in 192 MB)

FS2004 no... forget it.

FS2002 yes.. if you bump your RAM up to 500 MB and have a good 3D graphics
card.

Dallas

 

[crash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Dallas wrote:
>
> FS2002 yes.. if you bump your RAM up to 500 MB and have a good 3D
> graphics card.
>

Do you mean 512 MB? <G>

Me bad, go now......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Not even a slide show mate, just a collection of stills with that setup. If
you can get a free version of Fs98 then have a try. Do NOT, I repeat NOT
bother with FS2000 even as a gift with a free holiday. No-one I know who
bought it ever used it again!
FS2004 is a brilliant program but it is still a cutting edge simulation and
demands a lot of power both in CPU and video card with a minimumj of 1024 Mb
RAM IMNSHO.
Cheers
Quilly


Try 'Living With Technology' magazine
http://www.livtech.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

128mb + 64mb

i thought FS2004 was better optimised for all ranges? ie its lower settings
could run on a 500mhz cpu ok yet 2002 wouldnt? or was it 2002 that did that
vs 2000?

--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:7Z5Le.4905$WD.555@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Crazyrcer"
>> I would like to get Microsoft's FS2004. My computer is a Pentium II
>> 500 with 192MB of RAM.
>
> Do you mean 128 MB of RAM? (it doesn't come in 192 MB)
>
> FS2004 no... forget it.
>
> FS2002 yes.. if you bump your RAM up to 500 MB and have a good 3D graphics
> card.
>
> Dallas
>
>
>

 

[crash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Adam Webb wrote:
> 128mb + 64mb
>

Touche'

My old Fujitsu laptop (P-150 has the odd amount of 80 MB - that draws some
strange looks when I fire it up!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Yes, get FS2002. It's still a great sim, and it will be much more
flyable on your existing hardware.

_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!

 

[GREGORY]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:54:47 -0500, "CRaSH" <sorry@aint-here.spam.com>
brought the following to our attention:

>Adam Webb wrote:
>> 128mb + 64mb
>>
>
>Touche'
>
>My old Fujitsu laptop (P-150 has the odd amount of 80 MB - that draws some
>strange looks when I fire it up!!
>

CRaSH.. the last box before this one was a P5-120 tower with 180MHz
overdrive CPU. It has 80MB of RAM.. enought to run NT 3.51 back then.
Packed seven hard drives (four SCSI), a SCSI bus (SCSI CD-ROM).
Still meets the requirements to run Win2k and boots DOS.. has all the
old DOS games including FS5 -- sitting on floor right here!!

-g

 

[steveh]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"CRaSH" <sorry@aint-here.spam.com> wrote in message
news:987Le.20079$E95.1396@fed1read01...
> Adam Webb wrote:
>> 128mb + 64mb
>>
>
> Touche'
>
> My old Fujitsu laptop (P-150 has the odd amount of 80 MB - that draws
> some strange looks when I fire it up!!
96Mb less a bit for video memory?

SteveH

 

[crash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

SteveH wrote:
> 96Mb less a bit for video memory?
>

16Mb on board and a 64Mb stick I think, it was already installed when I got
it, and haven't had any reason to tear into it.... Works just fine for
utilitarian chores traveling, maps, photo editing, etc., but I wouldn't even
think about trying to sim on it. FS-5.1 maybe??

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

>Would the FS2002 be any better (like usable)? What about FS2000?

FS98 would run great, forget about FS2000. You may try FS2002
depending on your video card and add some memory...
===
All the best!
Katy Pluta

 

[Colin]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

> Not even a slide show mate, just a collection of stills with that setup.
> If you can get a free version of Fs98 then have a try. Do NOT, I repeat
> NOT bother with FS2000 even as a gift with a free holiday. No-one I know
> who bought it ever used it again!

Agreed. FS2000 was a CPU/RAM Hog... I dunno? it just never worked well, I
installed FS2002 on the same system and it was much smoother and better
looking on same settings.

I wouldn't go as far back as FS98 on the OP's system though, FS2002 might
just work for him, otherwise its time to upgrade the hardware, or at least
some of it.

Having said that, and being a glutton for punishment, might just install
FS2000 and FS98 again for a look before I format again.

Colin

 

[GREGORY]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:43:01 -0500, David Wilson-Okamura <David
Wilson-Okamura@forums.simradar.com> brought the following to our
attention:

>Yes, get FS2002. It's still a great sim, and it will be much more
>flyable on your existing hardware.
>

Thank you for stating that. As one who is holding up the `low end' of
the spectrum (someone has to do it).. am still having great enjoyment
with FS8. And who else would have the nuts to post screen caps from
old `crud box' unless they were a tinkerer? ;-]

Was out for an early a.m. cargo run yesterday.. and crossing L.A. at
34,000 ft heading for Bay area. Departed San Diego like a pro (well
almost). Here are two views that demonstrate.. with lots of experiment
and tweaks.. that 500MHz hardware is USABLE and fun!!

http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/Burbank_valley.jpg (187k)


http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/Van_Nuys_valley.jpg (525k)


Even saw a cruise ship out of San Diego (brightened - early a.m.)
...sorry about default shores and roads.. tests with FFNE and FS8
show that upgraded shores can be added into FS2002.

http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/San_Diego_ship.jpg (260k)



-Gregory

 

[GREGORY]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:25:48 -0500, "CRaSH" <sorry@aint-here.spam.com>
brought the following to our attention:

>Dallas wrote:
>>
>> FS2002 yes.. if you bump your RAM up to 500 MB and have a good 3D
>> graphics card.
>>
>
>Do you mean 512 MB? <G>
>
>

yep.. 500MHz, 512MB RAM, and a 32MB nVidia card!! How about
Burbank, Van Nuys and.... LAX from FL340? - early a.m.

http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/LAX_valley.jpg (314K)


{ you don't give up.. do ya' dude? }


-Gregory

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Gregory,

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:25:43 -0400, you wrote:

> How about Burbank, Van Nuys and.... LAX from FL340? - early a.m.

> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/LAX_valley.jpg

I guess each of us finds fascination in different things. I've lived
in some big cities (Seattle, L.A., and NYC), and still, never have I
been very fascinated with cityscapes; from ground level or from the
air. I've always been partial to wilderness...especially with
dramatic features like rugged coastlines and mountains (and it's a
bonus if they're in the same places!).

I spent five years of my life living in L.A., and I'm sorry, but
looking at Burbank, Van Nuys, etc. just never was my idea of an
inspirational view!

- --
Melissa

PGP Public Keys: http://www.freewebs.com/kuviahunnihautik/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQCVAwUBQv+j/jEYqNTZBqoEAQOUywP9F2/X6xIpUyDlWv6NeS5icZ0xKxdV5+t7
LYj/Xl166YgyupbnGl50CnoM90YdTh48hCTLYCK+YdyLAw0MQSATihjhdzwHrxJw
whFu2y33o1GoenHrdeKbo7ziT9n7GXfuJtt8VsgqkX6SSNQpxkbb3rHYWDrCvDUF
6U8UPKKp1z8=
=YKbM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Got him!!

JW
"CRaSH" <sorry@aint-here.spam.com> wrote in message
news:ZI6Le.20076$E95.16943@fed1read01...
> Dallas wrote:
>>
>> FS2002 yes.. if you bump your RAM up to 500 MB and have a good 3D
>> graphics card.
>>
>
> Do you mean 512 MB? <G>
>
> Me bad, go now......
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Hi Gregory,

"And who else would have the nuts to post screen caps from old `crud
box' unless they were a tinkerer? ;-]"

You're no tinkerer, mate - you're a Maestro.

Regards,
John Ward



"Gregory" <flightsim.maps@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qj0tf1digj0dfa4htubbm4hhgp8hhd9kav@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:43:01 -0500, David Wilson-Okamura <David
> Wilson-Okamura@forums.simradar.com> brought the following to our
> attention:
>
>>Yes, get FS2002. It's still a great sim, and it will be much more
>>flyable on your existing hardware.
>>
>
> Thank you for stating that. As one who is holding up the `low end' of
> the spectrum (someone has to do it).. am still having great enjoyment
> with FS8. And who else would have the nuts to post screen caps from
> old `crud box' unless they were a tinkerer? ;-]
>
> Was out for an early a.m. cargo run yesterday.. and crossing L.A. at
> 34,000 ft heading for Bay area. Departed San Diego like a pro (well
> almost). Here are two views that demonstrate.. with lots of experiment
> and tweaks.. that 500MHz hardware is USABLE and fun!!
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/Burbank_valley.jpg (187k)
>
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/Van_Nuys_valley.jpg (525k)
>
>
> Even saw a cruise ship out of San Diego (brightened - early a.m.)
> ..sorry about default shores and roads.. tests with FFNE and FS8
> show that upgraded shores can be added into FS2002.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/San_Diego_ship.jpg (260k)
>
>
>
> -Gregory
>
>

 

[GREGORY]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:05:58 -0700, Lawn Dart
<willkayakforfoodREMOVE_THIS@gmx.net> brought the following to our
attention:

>
>Hi Gregory,
>
>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:25:43 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> How about Burbank, Van Nuys and.... LAX from FL340? - early a.m.
>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/LAX_valley.jpg
>
>I guess each of us finds fascination in different things. I've lived
>in some big cities (Seattle, L.A., and NYC), and still, never have I
>been very fascinated with cityscapes; from ground level or from the
>air. I've always been partial to wilderness...especially with
>dramatic features like rugged coastlines and mountains (and it's a
>bonus if they're in the same places!).
>
>I spent five years of my life living in L.A., and I'm sorry, but
>looking at Burbank, Van Nuys, etc. just never was my idea of an
>inspirational view!

Hi Melissa.. understand all that.. and I usually Sim over mountainous
terrain. Have lots of `cruddy old hardware' screen shots from out in
the wilderness.. and posted them before.

The main purpose is to demonstrate how 500MHz hardware can be
(and still is) used while still having fun. That general area (as one
forum guy mentioned) has mountains, shores, urban, desert, and all
kinds of features. Hope you're not too upset with the `valley' views..
I've had bad experiences in major cities.. and would not like to be
reminded of them either.

In fact.. got stuck in a huge L.A. traffic jam on a bright Saturday
afternoon no less.. and wanted to get moving and back to San Diego
instead of just sitting there crawling along!!


so lets cheer up.. shall we


-Gregory