I get very bad performance in 2D and VC. External with maximum detail and settings is just fine but 2D and VC I get half the fps of standard ugly FS 2004 aircraft.Easily beats the Citation X which also that is a performance killer.So how do I improve the 2D and VC cockpit performance. As it is now landings in cities is really a no go. I have tried many tweaks. Running 16-bit, reducing viewing distance both land and weather to 0. decreasing 3D cloud density everything. But running these aircrafts give me 2-3 times lower performance than default FS 2004 aircraft.

The reason you get a lot lower FPS when running these aircraft, is because they are a LOT more complicated than the default FS Aircraft. It's night and day in comparison.As for the Citation X, It's a MEGA Frame killer for me as well, you should expect best FPS on the Beech, a little less on the 737, and less than that for the Citation X.

Yes the virtual cockpits are much more detailed and high res in those but I still need better frame rates ;). I get the best framerates with the Citation X and B 1900D and 737NG is about equally bad. I got the mip map quality to quality instead of high quality so that maybe helps the fps on the Citation X more than on the other two.

Nameless..please use your name as per forum rules..thx ;).I've seen you post in another FS forum about this, but you don't give any system info, what are your system specs, and what have you tweaked in the FS9.cfg? Regards,Bob Jones

Nameless who me? My name is Oqvist.... Per Oqvist.I also drink vodka with no ice ;)Windows XPSystem specs is 2500+ at 2300 Gigahertz.Abit NF7-S rev 2.00 nforce 2 at 200 FSB1 Gig Corsair XMS 3200 at CAS 2 also at 200.9800 PRO 128 mbThe odd thing is I can run near full settings and considerable lower settings and still get about the same fps. Also 2D isn

Hey, If you've got a 2300 Gigahertz processor then you should be getting excellent performance. Seriously, consider updating your Motherboard Chipset driver. I've got the following system and I get 24.9 FPS Locked when using the 737NG or B1900D. I don't have the Citation, so can't comment.AMD AthlonXP 2700+512MB PC2700 DDR RAMGeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB I throttle some settings back, granted. Such as I have autogen set at Normal, and my screen resolution set at 1024x768. Everything else is set at Full. I also have the LCD Frame Rate setting in the PMDG Options Menu set at 25 for the 3D Panel and 8 for the VC. Flying is still very smooth and fluid!

[P CLASS=style1] Matthew Murray [/P][P][sPAN CLASS=style1]-|http://www.flightfactory-simulations.com|-[bR][/sPAN]

http://www.flightfactory-simulations.com/hosted_images/saab_340B_banner.jpg[/P]

Do you get 25 fps in let say Seattle? (KSEA)or anyway what fps do you get there?Yeah my CPU is overclocked 1000 % lol. I am currently running 1280x960x16 with 4x aa and 4x HQ anisotropic. That is the lowest setting I find give decent image quality on my 21" and that is fine with the default aircraft. When going countryside I would get mostly well over 40 fps.You aren

Hi Per,well, I've just tried out the PMDG NG 700 with VC, the Beech1900D with VC, and the default 737 at KSEA, and all I noticed, was a 3 frame difference from the default, I also had UT @100%.My system is very similar to yours..I was getting between 17 and 26 on the ground, and 35+ in the air on all models.AMD AthlonXP 2500+ OC'd to 3200+ @2.2GHzMSI K7N2 Delta-L mobo with latest nForce driversCorsair Twinx 2x512Mb XMS3200LL DDR @ 400PNY Verto GeForce 4 Ti4200 128MB (53.03) AA @ 2xQ and 2x AF Win XP ProMy FS9.cfg is set to [DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X.0]Mode=1280x1024x32TextureAGP=0//PanelAsTexture=0 800DisableSoftwareWarning=1[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=100.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=3TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=6I'm not sure what kind of performance you are looking for with the PMDG birds, they are highly detailed, and compared to the default..well enough said, and as such, will reduce the frame rate.Regards,Bob Jones

If I can get the fps hit within 3 fps I am in heaven. Where do you fly to check your fps? So I can make a valid comparison.The issue is that I get literally about max half the fps with 737 NG and B1900D as with the default FS aircraft. Both in 2D and VC. external I have no real problem. I will check out that settings and see what I come up with.

Per,I usually fly UK either EGMC or LGW using all default scenery and mainly the PMDG B1900 and FSD Seneca V, I'm not a jet flyer, I just paint em ;).As I mentioned earlier, the PMDG birds are a lot more detailed than the default, and as such, you can't really compare frame rates, I know the 1900 uses mainly default KA gauges, but the panel.bmp's are a lot better IMO.I get the same kind of frames using the FSD Seneca, and depending on WX and cloud, they can vary quite a lot, but usually stay between 19 - 35.Regards,Bob Jones

okay tried Seattle and the framerates was exactly the same as they always are. Between 5 and 15.Tried the through the alps modern scenic wonder flight and there the 2D cockpit was okay on the B 1900D however the framerate in the vc was easily cut in half. Also using low quality gauges that makes the b 1900D look worse than the Baron or KingAir 350 didn

okay tried Seattle and the framerates was exactly the same as they always are. Between 5 and 15.Tried the through the alps modern scenic wonder flight and there the 2D cockpit was okay on the B 1900D however the framerate in the vc was easily cut in half. Also using low quality gauges that makes the b 1900D look worse than the Baron or KingAir 350 didn

Okay took a flight at EGMC with your settings. I didn