hello everybody.
      i was living in saudi arabia. now i have came to pakistan for higher studies. i am going to buy a new Pc.according to my budget my configuration is as follows.
intel p4 2.4 ghz
512 mb of ram
80 gb hard disk
geforce fx 5700 256mb
17'' true flat monitor LG
5.1 speaker system

         but i am little bit confused about choosing a sound card. which sound card is better for me. a realistic sound, you know deepo sound. does this system run the flight simulator all setting maxed out. i have already mastered flight sim 2004 in saudi arabia. so now i want a perfect sys. i am also going to buy 3d glasses. will anybody is using. so what are the feelings about 3d glasses.

Thanks for reply.
        you didn't gave me idea about a sound card. and  Also That i am going to buy geforce fx 5700 256mb.and 512mb memory is it ok. to run fs2004 at 25+fps.and fits all upcoming games e.g prince of persia within warriors etc.
thanks
Capt. Farhan

Quote:


Captain,

There are lots of threads about "running fs2004 maxed out" that you can find here on SimV (and elsewhere).  Unfortunately...... there is just about NO machine available except from some Crays at Sandia National Labs that will run this program "maxed out".  Most people have done a number of "tweaks" in order to get acceptable framerates.

Your mention of 25+ framerates would simply be a DREAM for me with the system specs listed below on the trailer in ths situation of short final into a big airport with AI maxed... and that is a very similar machine to what you are proposing.  "Away from things" up in the air and out in the boonies I get very good framerates.......can run in the 60's........ but that really doesn't matter in that location.

So that machine should run it OK... but by no means "maxed" or "perfect".

As to a sound card, I too have an Audigy II ZS Gamer.... with Logitech surround speakers... and the sound is great.  But the SPEAKERS matter a lot.... at least as as much as the sound card.  If you use headphones... then a GOOD set makes all the difference in the world.  Look for a wide frequency response... particularly in the low end.

To me, the 3-D glasses seem more like a "novelty"....... I think that with the technology at the level it is, it is "not ready for prime time".     From reading Skittles "review" above........ that just confirms my thoughts for me.  Personally, I've gone the route of building a simpit for more immersion and realism.

best,

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

thanks for your reply. thank you very much.
but my system is ok which i have written above. geforce 5700 256 ok

Skittles,

My definition of "acceptable performance" of the commercial product out of the software giant and yours likely differ........ and that is where we go different ways on this whole concept.     Acceptable performance is a subjective term.

Anything less than a solid 20 FPS for me is not realistic at all.  So I sort of agree with Captain Farhan that the 25+ he mentioned is the real target that would make things pretty "happy" in simland. 

And for me that 20-25+ has to happen consistently from about the middle marker onto the ground and to the gate at the big places like KJFK or Seattle or the equiv., with AI maxed, planes qued up on the taxiway behind the hold short as I land, and other runways in use with planes landing or taking off.

As I did say in the post above........  I get pretty good framerates when I am away form anything that would put demands on the system.  But... who cares!  Bush flying in Alaska I often get in the 60's...... at FL 450 and up, ditto.  Again "Who Cares".  I can also run it with max settings out in the boonies and still get 30 FPS consistently.  Again "Who cares?"

Maybe it is also that for me, the simulation is very much about takeoffs and landings and commercial traffic and big airports and "heavy metal".  As I said... I do some bush flying in Alaska... and on out of the way strips with maybe one AI plane around and no autogen buildings, no special elaborate Gmax scenery, and no "special effects" and so on.... it flys "OK". 

But even a bit in the boonies, something like the payware "Emma Field" just kills my framerates.

I just chime in on this subject so that people do not get disappointed as to what they have actually bought from Microsoft.  I've been reading posts on this issue since the program was released... and the majority of users have significant issues with framerates, in my opinion. 

The Microsoft marketing stresses all the fancy new features and eye candy... so Microsoft sets the expectations high in order to sell it.  But I think the reality is that most people have to turn stuff they just paid for down or off.

How much have you invested in this sim?  I know that I have spent a LOT of money trying to get this thing to work well.  Most people can't or don't WANT to have to spend another $75 USD on top of their base purchases of machine and software .... just to get the product to work OK.

Your system specs are a bit above the average persons.      That you can't maintain 25+ FPS without resorting to the turn down or off concept and by hiring ramsa to fine tune the system....... it a powerful message about the demands of this program.

So I have no problem with you disagereeing at all.... to each his/her own........ just wanted to clarify where I am coming form.

best,

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