Thanks for that Charles.

What you say certainly seems to support my thinking.

With my AMD2100+ I just doubled my RAM from 512MB 2100 DDR to 1024MB and saw NO change in FR at heavily populated airports.

So you need to go for both memory AND CPU power as you've done.

Nice setup foo

Athlon processors are coming down all the time and I only pay dealer price as well because I'm in the biz so I'll be looking to upgrade myself soon. I'm selling 2000+ processors as 'bog standard' now so my 2100+ isn't looking like anything special. Be able to pass it on to a customer soon!!

Sold my first Radeon chip graphics card this week (don't do much to ordinary guys - I mainly sell to companies) only a 64MB 7500 equivalent to or a bit better than a 64MB GForce 4 MX but it performed well 'out of the box' and I'll replace my GeForce 3 Ti 200 with a Radeon I guess.

Gotta get some FRs like you've got!

Quote:


I'm sorry but......Bull****!

Quote:


Based on what information/experience exactly?? Plenty of people can run FS2002 smoothly on processors far less powerful than a 2.4 and recommending the fastest range of CPU is hadly rocket science is it?

Quote:


Oh really... and what is it you think that an AGPx8 card has that the flight simmer can't live without? Have you seen the (independant) bench testing on AGP8?? An AGPx8 benchmarked against an AGP normal standard card produced a total frame rate improvement of less than 3%. AGPx8 does NOT give you 8 times the graphic speed.

So....to clarify the question, what is it that a TI4200 4X AGP does so badly that it's beneath your "nothing less than" level?

Quote:


Absolute rubbish. The rating your power supply should be is based on the power consumption of the total components of your P.C., not one graphics card. If you happen to be running, let's say, a 1.0ghz chip with 1 CD drive, the TI4200 card and no other peripherals, you could do it quite easily on a 250w power supply.

Quote:


It's also a notorious resources hog. Any advantage you might get from improving your performance (and performance is what you're referring to here, not sound quality) would be wiped out by the loss of CPU cycles.

I know you claim to have a massively specified P.C. and 'm sure we're all very happy for you, but before you start telling people that you can't run FS2002 satisfactorily on the mid-rage systems, you'd do well to find out what you're talking about.

Sorry if this sounds abrasive, but people visit these forums looking for advice and assume, quite wrongly in this case, that if you make a post like yours it must be correct and make large financial investments on the strength of it.

Quote:


I wasn't saying you never need a decent power supply, just that to quote figures on the basis of a graphics card alone is highly misleading. As I said in the thread, your power supply requirements are determined by all of the hardware you have, not just the graphics card.

Just out of curiousity, if I did upgrade to the GF4 MX440, how much of a preformance increase in FS do you guys think I'll get.

Quote:



I doubt it would be much to be honest. It's hard to say because both cards you're comparing are MX chipset based. (I have the GF4 MX 440 btw).

The problem is that the MX chipset severely restricts the bandwidth of data flowing through the card. If you can afford to, I'd strongly recommend avoiding anything using MX and look at a GF4 TI series card. With the advent of the recent high end graphics cards, these have now significantly dropped in price and will give you a major boost in performance.

From what I read M$ says I can run this thing on a 300 Mhz processor, 64 Mb RAM and an 8 Mb video card. 

Of course if you do have that kind of system I'd recommend having a lot of chores to do cause you'll give her full throttle, go mow the lawn and come back in time to rotate. Anyone getting 8 Fph (Frames Per Hour)? 

hey! U2 guys (Matt and Dark) R really luck guys!

your systems are to be considered "weak" but as U mentioned, is quite good the performances!!!
wwow!!! very nice!!!