Can I Run It?

[Poma]

Hi Folks:

I am buying a notebook for school and the only game I wish to run is FS.  I'm looking at an HP dv4000 with the following specs:

Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) M Processor 715A (1.5 GHz)        edit  
Graphics Card Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator 900        edit  
Memory 512MB DDR SDRAM, 333MHz (2x256MB)        edit  
Hard Drive 60 GB 5400 RPM Hard Drive

Will FS run respectably in this configuration?

Thanks so much for your help,
Kyle

[ozzy72]

Hi Kyle, welcome to SimV. Well your machine should be able to handle it, I'm not sure what the graphics will be like using a media accelerator rather than a dedicated card though.
I use a PIII 1GHz, with 512mb RAM and a Ti4600 card and normally get 25-20FPS in FS9

Happy simming
Ozzy

[TacitBlue]

If FS9 dosnt run very well, try FS2002. I never used it, but I hear that it was less demanding, and almost the same quality as FS9.

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

If FS9 dosnt run very well, try FS2002. I never used it, but I hear that it was less demanding, and almost the same quality as FS9.

Almost?

Almost?

Almost?

FS2002 is NOT, I repeat NOT, the same as FS2004! Although less demanding than FS2004, it has poor graphics and I think the day looks gloomy. In FS9, the day looks inviting!

Cheers,
Ashar

PS: Didn't mean to offecd anyone...

[|| Andy ||]

I wouldnt go back to 2002 if u payed me..
but thats imo....

Poma, i think if thats one of the new stupid numbered chips.. It'll play it just fine, im woried about the Graphics Card though, but i doubt it'll give u a problem in FS9, i estimate 30fps..

ohh and.. this 'Should' be in the hardware section, me thinks

[Poma]

Thanks for all of your helpful replies--I'd rather have a separate graphics chip myself, but it's hard to justify getting a larger and more expensive notebook for one application--then again, it is FS, not just any application.

[ozzy72]

Ashar with a little work FS2k2 can be just as good as FS9. There are some amazing freeware add-ons that take it to the next level and bring it on par with FS9. I was hard pressed to tell the difference between the 2 on my machine.

[alrot]

Almost?

Almost?

Almost?

FS2002 is NOT, I repeat NOT, the same as FS2004! Although less demanding than FS2004, it has poor graphics and I think the day looks gloomy. In FS9, the day looks inviting!

Cheers,
Ashar

PS: Didn't mean to offecd anyone...

I was just

[Saitek]

True, but as Mark said. Put all the latest and best 2002 add ons on and you are almighty close.

[Wing Nut]

Agreed.  FS2002 can be quite nice at times and even has certain advantages over FS9.  Personally, I dislike some of the FS9 autogen, especially the bridges.  Not that they're bad looking, but seeing the same bridge 20 times when flying a route gets old quick.

[commoner]

True, but as Mark said. Put all the latest and best 2002 add ons on and you are almighty close.

...mmm.....Close?.....how close is CLOSE?......like 10 light years close?...........That's how CLOSE.........IMHO...........commoner

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

Well, the sky certainly seems pretty gloomy at day time. Most commercial (payware) add-ons look better in FS9 and almost all the goodies are for FS9. Let's see, Ultimate Traffic is good, only if you fly Commercial, FSSkyWorld 2004 is pretty good, for FS2004. FS2002 lacks the abiltity to make a good weather generator. Clouds in FS9 are a different story. Yes, the 3D clouds are a bit of a pain becuase they kill fram-rates, but the nice simple clouds are decent and require no frame-rate hits at all.

Not meaniing to start an argument here, I have to say FS2002 cannot compare to FS2004.

Cheers,
Ashar

PS: Don't forget, I used to hate FS9 up until a few days ago when I discovered how to make my frames stay high. If you look at any previous posts of mine, you'll see that I have always (was) an FS2002 fan. Now I simply hate it...

[microlight]

FS9 was developed from FS2002 (FS8) and although there are undoubted improvements in things like weather and scenery, it's certainly not a different world IMHO. I have both running on my machine and have a lot of very good addons in my FS8 installation (clouds, sea textures, scenery) which I would be sad not to use.

Of course the reality is that a number of older planes that I fly do not work in FS9, so I will happily still use FS8 for them. Also don't forget that you have to pay for things like Active Camera and FSUIPC in FS9 whereas they are free for FS8. This is not a big issue for me as there is a freeware alternative that does most of what Active Camera does, here in the download section. I used to use FSUIPC mainly in FS8 for correcting bugs and for traffic information for Lee Hetherington's fantastic TCAS gauge, but the gauge has a module for FS9 that provides this information, so that's no problem now.

There's no telling how the machine will run: mine is not a top end spec these days but it actually seems happier with FS9 than it is with FS8 Pro. Bear in mind that there are plenty of folks out there who are quite happy to run FS98 (FS6) or FS2000 (FS7) without all the bells and whistles that FS8 and FS9 give you. I still have FS3 which I run from floppy disc occasioanlly when I want to see how we used to do it in the 1980s!

[commoner]

[quote].......

[Tom_M]

it's hard to justify getting a larger and more expensive notebook for one application

A dedicated graphics card would boost your computer's performance in pretty much everything- graphics applications, media players, Flash, even the desktop and Windows- because with a graphics card, all this strain is taken off the CPU.

Also, if you're being charged around