Wilco, thanks Randy.Carl

>From my understanding of compression/decompression, the>textures would be decompressed before being "read," hence more>overhead with no gain at all.You're correct, however, you've missed a detail which makes this an apple/apples comparison. ;-)Let me give you an example with completely arbitrary numbers for simplicity of scenario:Uncompressed versionStep 1: Read 5 MB texture into Random Access Memory. 8 secondsStep 2: Simulator code "reads" (as you put it) texture. 1 secondTotal seconds: 9 secondsCompress versionStep 1: Read compressed 3MB texture into RAM. 5 secondsStep 2: De-compress into usable uncompressed texture. 1 secondStep 2: Simulator code "reads" texture. 1 secondTotal seconds: 7 secondsAgain what we're saying here is that enough time is saved during disk I/O (Step 1 in the above example) that the extra bandwidth spent in high speed memory becomes neglible in comparison. I'd wager that a slower CPU system attempting to run FS9 with compressed folders would not benefit from this tweak because my above example would reverse (a slow CPU would take more time to decompress a texture then to read the original).>I notice that most are reporting less stuttering, not higher>frame rates. And this makes perfect sense. Stutters are a result of a wait state and the slowest part of personal computers is the bandwidth provided by hard disks and removable storage. Additionally, the bandwidth provided by hardware storage is of a different type then what is provided from memory-- it's not just a difference in speed. Memory bandwidth is provided at a relatively constant speed level, whereas HD's (and removable storage) have a high speed burst of small amounts of data and a much lower streaming version of large amounts of data. Most stutters are due to I/O activity.A great way to test this is to have other programs loaded when MSFS is running. By lowering total memory, MSFS will rely on virtual memory (the paging file stored ont he hard disk). You will notice a massive increase in stutters. >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 perception of stutters is a subjective one and performance that is acceptable to a one individual may not be to another. However, IMHO, I believe that most people complain about stutters because, currently, FS9 allows us to exceed current PC technology with the sliders provided. Most people push the sliders to the right to get the "best" experience possible-- however, stutters, lagging textures, texture wait states, etc. are the result.You may have taken a more disciplined approach to your requirement of eye candy.

>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 works>>What happens when you install new aircraft or addons to>FS2004, do you need to uncompress the folder first before>installing?>>Great Tip!>>Paul CartierNot at all, Paul. Anything placed in the compressed folder are compressed and decompressed on the fly.

>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,>BillyOK, no problem. There are two important issues with a FAT32 upgrade to NTFS when one moves to WinXP.The first one is if you upgrade an HD's file system from FAT32 to NTFS using the command line (or upgrade during setup) "Convert C: /FS:NTFS", WinXP creates a 512byte cluster size which is very inefficient for NTFS. A general rule for NTFS is a 4096byte cluster size. In order to get this WITHOUT reformatting your hard drive requires a piece of software such as Partition Magic 8.0 (there are others choices as well). This software will allow you to convert to NTFS and then, change the cluster size to a much more efficient 4096. Second issue is the Master File Table or MFT. This is a hidden system database that is created when moving to NTFS. It is one of the main reasons why NTFS is so much more robust the FATxx. It services as an indexing system, alocation table redundancy and a number of other features I won't bore you with.Unfortunately, when converting from FAT32 to NTFS the MFT file will be laid out wherever your HD has free space which means it could be fragmented all of your hard drive. Using a piece of software such as Diskeeper, O&O Defrag, or Norton Speedisk (latest version), can defragment an MFT. The internal WinXP Defragger cannot.

>After reading the above post about defraging, I do agree that>it do make a big difference. But I run diskeeper and it's set>at auto or "set it and forget it" so defrag isn't my problem.>It keeps FS9 in check as far as defrags goes. There are times>when I forget defrag is running and installed on my machine.>But back to the new thory, I only problem I've incured so far>was the PMDG 737 using VC mode. The VC panel would show up>with missing gauges or textures. I fixed the problem by going>directly to the PMDG AC folder highlighting it and un>compressing it. The panel came back and i'm still flying>without the jerkiness at max settings.>>Just a small tidfit of info on Diskeeper. Though it is a great set & forget defragger, it does not group files in the same subdirectory together. So even though your files are not fragmented individually, as an entire grouping of files within a folder (such as C:FS9) they still are.Consider getting O&O Defragger-- it defrags just like the Win9x defraggers used to by placing folder files next to other.

>Okay I'm a novice so be gentle....>>I am converting my HD's on my system from FAT32 to NTFS and>have successfully converted my main drive © . However, when>I try and convert my second slaved HD (D) it asks me for the>volume label or drive name. I never named it, just left it>blank. >>Now, I right clicked, went to properties and found and wrote>down what I "thought" were the drive names (WDA 308AAC et al),>but when I enter those values it says it's an invalid volume>label name. Any ideas on how I can determine what the volume>label on my D: drive is? >>Thanks in advance.>You may have an odd volume label on your D: Drive which is causing you grief (i.e. a volume name with high-ascii characters)■Ω{φ ▼→←▬ <-- like that.Right click on your D: Drive in My Computer. Click Properties. Under the General tab, you will see a black space at the top, which lets you name the volume. If you have an odd volume name it should be written in there. You can completely erase the volume name (a volume name is an optional characteristic) this way you only have to reference the drive as "D:"

Yes, the best place to do anything on a computer is in RAM - not the hard drive...http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"Ah, the Luftwaffe - the Washington Generals of the History Channel." - Homer Simpson