I have tried this tweak for FS9 and have noticed the single best tweak so far for FS9. I am able to turn up my sliders without a preformance hit like before. Try it out and see! http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=143032&page=What you will need to do is through windows explorer locate you FS9 folder. Right click on the FOLDER and choose properties. Then choose ADVANCED. Under *COMPRESS OR ENCRRYPT ATTRIBUTES* check the box that says *COMPRESS CONTENTS TO SAVE DISK SPACE*. It will take some time depending on your system etc, mine took 14 minutes. I really did not expect any change but was so impressed I thought I would post ;)[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/196432/winglets_lg.jpg [h3] AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF2 MX 32 MEG and still runs GOOD!|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"[/h3]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. Windows will need to decompress each file each time before using it. It adds overhead and can only slow things down (if the amount of time it takes to decompress is noticeable).But then, performance is in the eye of the beholder. If it works for you, good on you.Don S.

Makes no sense to me either BUT,,, it does work! I'm running a 3.0Ghz/800MhzFSB machine w/1gig Ram. I had everything pretty well maxed out before trying the compression and it flew FS2004 very well. But after trying this tweak, I get 0 stutters. Everything is maxed except Viewing distance set to minimum because to me it's more realistic. DOn't have a clue what the frame rates are because I don't look at them (it darned near drove me crazy when I kept up with them) I have the frame rates set at unlimited and everything is totally fluid, no stutters. I fly the PMDG737 almost 100% of the time.George StoddardPS The posts on this topic say you have to have a fairly high end system for this to be of any real benefit.

It did not make too much sense to me either but I could not deny the fact that it made it run better.[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/196432/winglets_lg.jpg [h3] AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF2 MX 32 MEG and still runs GOOD!|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"[/h3]

"puters" are strange huh Randy:)George StoddardPS Randy, I've never thanked you for all the helpful advice you have given on this forum. I've picked up a lot of info by just sitting back and reading. To add to the fun, I enjoy reading some of you "backhanded" comments to the less reasonable folks in here.George

The compression routines in XP are part of the NTFS file system, so arugably they're running all the time. It may be that the overhead on decompression is low enough not to matter. I do know that MS worked pretty hard to optimize this functionality - they even recommend using it on servers.I'm going to try this tweak - worst case is that I have to decompress the directory later.

Randy,Well I tried the compression tweak on my Dell 3.0Ghz machine, and FS2004 is running GREAT! my studders are GONE! I dont understand how this works but.. it worksWhat happens when you install new aircraft or addons to FS2004, do you need to uncompress the folder first before installing?Great Tip!Paul Cartier

Ok...So I hear that this will not work on FAT32 systems which is what mine is. My question is how do I make my computer NTFS if I install win98SE then the WINXP Pro upgrade? when I reformat my HD i thought you could only do it in FAT32... is NTFS better for my system??? Please, a little walk through would be more than apreaciated!Thanks a bunch,Billy

>I'm going to try this tweak - worst case is that I have to>decompress the directory later.Initial response is favorable - I didn't see a lot of FPS increase, but sim seems smoother.The only time I get stutters now is when I have FSMeteo going and it does a major weather update.We'll see how it goes.

>Ok...>So I hear that this will not work on FAT32 systems which is>what mine is. My question is how do I make my computer NTFS if>I install win98SE then the WINXP Pro upgrade? when I reformat>my HD i thought you could only do it in FAT32... is NTFS>better for my system??? Please, a little walk through would be>more than apreaciated!>Thanks a bunch,>BillyIf you upgrade to XP, you'll probably be given the choice of changing your filesystem to NTFS.Do this. NTFS is in every way superior to FAT32.Only warning is NOT to play with the encrypting file system until you're sure you know what you're doing.

>This doesn't make sense to me at all. Windows will need to>decompress each file each time before using it. It adds>overhead and can only slow things down (if the amount of time>it takes to decompress is noticeable).>>But then, performance is in the eye of the beholder. If it>works for you, good on you.>>Don S.Actually there is logic to it. You've assumed that your are using more CPU cycles for decompression then without. You'd be right. However, that's only half the story in this case.Whether this idea is effective or not boils down to whether the CPU cycles that are lost during "decompression" are compensated for by significantly less CPU cycles spent on I/O reading in the significantly smaller FS9 textures.

Assuming you don't need the data on your harddrive:When you get XP, boot from the CD - then install onto your partition and tell it for format NTFS (either Quick or not - but Quick is a WHOLE lot faster).Converting from Fat32 to NTFS works, but can leave the MFT fragmented - I always advise a clean install.http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."

>Actually there is logic to it. You've assumed that your are>using more CPU cycles for decompression then without. You'd be>right. However, that's only half the story in this case.>>Whether this idea is effective or not boils down to whether>the CPU cycles that are lost during "decompression" are>compensated for by significantly less CPU cycles spent on I/O>reading in the significantly smaller FS9 textures.>From my understanding of compression/decompression, the textures would be decompressed before being "read," hence more overhead with no gain at all.I notice that most are reporting less stuttering, not higher frame rates. I wonder if the compression is causing either the frame rates to "smooth out" in some way or redistributing CPU cycles between scenery display and performing other CPU-intensive tasks in FS2004 such that the stuttering is reduced.I can't say that I've really experienced the stuttering that so many are complaining about, so I don't really feel compelled to try this out. I only have a 1.4 GHz Celeron, old SDRAM (512 MB), and a GeForce4 Ti4200 video card, so I don't have the highest frame rates, but they are acceptable without noticeable stutters with the settings I use (including no AI, no ATC, weather downloaded only from Squawkbox without FS2004 dynamic weather, 20 fps frame rate lock). The stuttering comments remind me of FS2000 where it was the more capable computers that were affected, with the stutters apparently caused by the variability in frame rates.Don S.

g

>If you upgrade to XP, you'll probably be given the choice of>changing your filesystem to NTFS.If I were to reformat my HD by setting as slave on my other comp and doing it like a floppy disk I think it formats as NTFS. But I thought to install windows it had to be FAT32. So i would then "format C:" which would put me into FAT32 and then install windows. Should I still do this and then just do the thing you mentioned above in the windows install?>Only warning is NOT to play with the encrypting file system>until you're sure you know what you're doing.Does this mean you dont reccomend me using this tip? (compressing FS9) is it dangerous? Thanks for all the awsome help guys!!!Billy