I am completely new to FS, just installed FS 2004 and it looks very
promising indeed. I went solo after only one hour and crashed on landing,
but it was a start!
I thought my PC should be fast enough 1.9G chip with 1000 RAM.
But my Matrox Millennium 550 graphics card (2 years old) does not seem to be
good enough at any resolution, there is obviously an incompatibility (It's
not WHQL certified - whatever that means). Very poor modelling of the
landscape. I am about to download from Matrox the latest driver software.
Is that going to make the vital difference or should I consider getting
another card altogether? In which case how about the NVIDIA G FORCE or 5950?
Both these have been suggested to me as possibilities.

Also, am I being optimistic in hoping to eventually run FS with max
modelling at my current settings which are 24 bit at 1024X768?

Also (sorry to go on, but I have so many questions) is there a decent
handbook on FS2004?

Biggles

I think you have enough computer power to run FS2004, but you definitely
need a new graphics card. I recommend an ATI card, either a 9600 or a 9800
series card because they are able to handle the version of 3D graphics in
FS, entirely within the hardware on the card. Without getting technical,
FS2004 will look like it was designed to look and the aircraft will fly
smoothly.

JK

"david bazley" > wrote in message
...
> I am completely new to FS, just installed FS 2004 and it looks very
> promising indeed. I went solo after only one hour and crashed on landing,
> but it was a start!
> I thought my PC should be fast enough 1.9G chip with 1000 RAM.
> But my Matrox Millennium 550 graphics card (2 years old) does not seem to
be
> good enough at any resolution, there is obviously an incompatibility (It's
> not WHQL certified - whatever that means). Very poor modelling of the
> landscape. I am about to download from Matrox the latest driver software.
> Is that going to make the vital difference or should I consider getting
> another card altogether? In which case how about the NVIDIA G FORCE or
5950?
> Both these have been suggested to me as possibilities.
>
> Also, am I being optimistic in hoping to eventually run FS with max
> modelling at my current settings which are 24 bit at 1024X768?
>
> Also (sorry to go on, but I have so many questions) is there a decent
> handbook on FS2004?
>
> Biggles
>
>

Many thanks for advice John, presumably I can slot the 9600 or 9800 into the
same slot from where I extract the Matrox 550?

Biggles


"John Hall" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
> I think you have enough computer power to run FS2004, but you definitely
> need a new graphics card. I recommend an ATI card, either a 9600 or a
9800
> series card because they are able to handle the version of 3D graphics in
> FS, entirely within the hardware on the card. Without getting technical,
> FS2004 will look like it was designed to look and the aircraft will fly
> smoothly.
>
> JK
>
> "david bazley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am completely new to FS, just installed FS 2004 and it looks very
> > promising indeed. I went solo after only one hour and crashed on
landing,
> > but it was a start!
> > I thought my PC should be fast enough 1.9G chip with 1000 RAM.
> > But my Matrox Millennium 550 graphics card (2 years old) does not seem
to
> be
> > good enough at any resolution, there is obviously an incompatibility
(It's
> > not WHQL certified - whatever that means). Very poor modelling of the
> > landscape. I am about to download from Matrox the latest driver
software.
> > Is that going to make the vital difference or should I consider getting
> > another card altogether? In which case how about the NVIDIA G FORCE or
> 5950?
> > Both these have been suggested to me as possibilities.
> >
> > Also, am I being optimistic in hoping to eventually run FS with max
> > modelling at my current settings which are 24 bit at 1024X768?
> >
> > Also (sorry to go on, but I have so many questions) is there a decent
> > handbook on FS2004?
> >
> > Biggles
> >
> >
>
>

If it's an AGP slot, yes you can. Given your system, I'm sure it is.

JK

"david bazley" > wrote in message
...
> Many thanks for advice John, presumably I can slot the 9600 or 9800 into
the
> same slot from where I extract the Matrox 550?
>
> Biggles
>
>
> "John Hall" > wrote in message
> ble.rogers.com...
> > I think you have enough computer power to run FS2004, but you definitely
> > need a new graphics card. I recommend an ATI card, either a 9600 or a
> 9800
> > series card because they are able to handle the version of 3D graphics
in
> > FS, entirely within the hardware on the card. Without getting
technical,
> > FS2004 will look like it was designed to look and the aircraft will fly
> > smoothly.
> >
> > JK
> >
> > "david bazley" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I am completely new to FS, just installed FS 2004 and it looks very
> > > promising indeed. I went solo after only one hour and crashed on
> landing,
> > > but it was a start!
> > > I thought my PC should be fast enough 1.9G chip with 1000 RAM.
> > > But my Matrox Millennium 550 graphics card (2 years old) does not seem
> to
> > be
> > > good enough at any resolution, there is obviously an incompatibility
> (It's
> > > not WHQL certified - whatever that means). Very poor modelling of the
> > > landscape. I am about to download from Matrox the latest driver
> software.
> > > Is that going to make the vital difference or should I consider
getting
> > > another card altogether? In which case how about the NVIDIA G FORCE or
> > 5950?
> > > Both these have been suggested to me as possibilities.
> > >
> > > Also, am I being optimistic in hoping to eventually run FS with max
> > > modelling at my current settings which are 24 bit at 1024X768?
> > >
> > > Also (sorry to go on, but I have so many questions) is there a decent
> > > handbook on FS2004?
> > >
> > > Biggles
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>