II am going to purchase some computers specifically to run Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004.  I would like it to run smoothly on a very high setting.  What specs do I need?  I know min req. I want Optimum. 
Processor Speed?
Ram?
Video Card? (does the manufacturer matter? Ati?or Nvidia?)
I will be running it on dual monitors.  Undocking the dash and having the dash on the bottom screen.  I will also be networking about 18 together and having them fly in same airspace.  Using sidewinder joysticks and possibly CH Pedals.  I will also be running a small app. called "Roger Wilco" a freeware Voice Over IP so that Instructor can talk to the kids like a real ATC.    I hope all this helps determine what hardware I need.  For Example, I don't want to get a gig of ddr ram if 512 would do just as well.... on the other hand I don't want to get a computer that cant display things with a high degree of quality because I went too cheap.
Thanks

airandspacemuseum,

Hi and welcome to SimV.

I'd suggest that you spend some time looking in the "Hardware Forum".... this subject has been discussed a lot there.  Given your virtual "flight school" type plans.... also maybe check out the "Homebuiild Cockpits" forum.  Also you might check back in the old threads here in this forum... you'll see a lot of the "trial and error" stuff that we all found when the sim came out.  

My own personal opinion is that Microsoft came out with an astounding piece of software with fs2004... that almost cannot be run at the full settings it is capable of on todays readily available "mortal" machines.  At the moment, for most users it all seems to be about making "compromises" ........ unless you can afford to buy the absolute cutting edge game oriented machines available.

I think you almost cannot get "too much" machine to handle fs2004 at "Optimum".  You do have to define "optimum" and "at a high level" though.

To me "optimum" is likely the full capabilities that the MS programmers designed into it.  That setting is ALL sliders and checkboxes completely maxed, the highest level of graphic image resolution and refresh rate available, the highest amount of AA and AF available, AI traffic at 100 percent, and a frame rate where it matters (on short final into an international airport with lots of AI traffic in the area and on the ground) at a level that allows smooth seamless non-stuttering realistic flight........typically in the 30-ish range.

This kind of performance is VERY demanding on almost every component in the machine.  Machines to run this at this level will be very expensive.  Since you ARE an actual "air and space museum" .... maybe you have a budget to actually accomplish this objective . 

BTW.... check out Teamspeak over Roger Wilco.  I have both and think Teamspeak is the better option for realism and ease of setup.  One nice feature of it is a little addon application that lets you adjust frequencies on the radio stacks in the simulator.... and that changes channels on Teamspeak.  So when ATC says to go to 121.55....... you only hear the communications happening ON 121.55....not on all frequencies.

And the "minimum specifications" that Microsoft put on the fs2004 packaging is so far under-estimated that it a total rolling on the floor laughing joke.  Ignore that information completely in your planning process.

I am sure that you will get other opinions.  

BTW..... where are you and what is the name of the museum?  Need someone to design simulated generic cockpits for you  ?

best,

.....................john

Hi try this
www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/review/alien.htm
I am building a similar spec machine just so I can run acof near max settings. Good luck with the build

Quote:


Iroquois,

If you look at the originating message in this thread..... they were very specific what the machines are to be used for exactly....... running fs2004 in a networked environment with something like Roger Wilco running simultaneously (and it'll take FSUIPC and WideFS running to network them too)....... and it looks like totally dedicated to that purpose.  THAT seems to narrow down the ideas on what machine to select greatly  .  Don't need to consider other applications..... looks like these are simulated cockpit machines....... period.

best,

................john

I built my system for FS2004.  If it does other stuff fast then thats just a bonus to me.  I have seen bench tests with the FX-53 CPU and its is scoring about 3000 more in 3dMark01 if you know how to tweek your system.  I still dont think this will allow you to max every single setting in FS2004 though.

Like I said its just the dam clouds.  I just did a little test, @KSEA 100%AI clear skies I hold 24FPS on the way in using the Default Cessna 172.  Set to Fair skies it drops to 19-20.  Like I said though it still flies smooth.  I am unsure whether this is because of the CPU or the GPU though???  It just seems to me like you cannot get a good enough system for FS2004 unless you spend sooooooper loads of cash. 

I get over my few probs by lowering the Dynamic scenery to Dense, and reducing the cloud settings a smidge as said above.

If I could work out this new mobo I got I would overclock my CPU but so far I have been unable to do this    Its 2210MHz standard but quite a few people have them running @ 2400MHz, just got to figure out how. I think my PC3200 is the problem I probably need higher speed stuff now.

Quote:



Well sorry if I skim through these.   It's true though. There is no one ultimate computer. Every component has its strenghts and drawbacks and no two parts are exactly alike. Even with the best on the market, preformance could still be a bit better. It won't be long before we have 128-bit CPUs and and 1024-bit graphics cards that make images like on the holodeck on Star Trek and we'll be complaining that they're too slow.

If he's running all that stuff in the background, he'll need the 1gb of Ram. PC3200 is fine. Try to get a motherboard that will support 2gb or more. Windows XP is a big ram hog. It's gotten to the point where serious gamming requires more than just 512mb.