What do you have to buy a new PC for? I'm running the 600/700 just fine on a P3-1.0GHZ Machine.

New PC for FS2004. I have P4 2.0Ghz with 1GB Ram and ATI 9700 but FS9 just doesn't work very well on my PC and the new 738 will bring it to its knees!

Ive got got as follows:AMD Athlon 2000XP512MB DDR RAM80GB HD 7500rpmGeForce 2 MX400 64MB (53.03)Interigated Sound cardWindows XP PROI reinstalled FS2004 last night and have most settings at or less than 50%... Im getting as low as 4-6fps on the runway... UNFLYABLE IMHO. I downloaded quite a few replacemnet textures for it and it seems to have done nothing. I have tuned off the 3D Clouds.. basicly everything that makes FS2004 better than FS2002 is turned off!I really want to know how people with lower PC Specs are able to get their setup working really well in FS2004.Ryan

Ok, like I said, look at my previous message, I'm running it in FS2004 just fine. I don't even use 2002 anymore.

PMDG, how about an express model of the 738/9 for users of FS2002? A lot of the features are nice but for some it just doesn't make sense to buy a new PC for FS. I have thoroughly enjoyed the 736/7 and the 1900 and would gladly pay for a "lite model" (no panel, default sounds) that I can use with my 736/7. What do you think? Murrell

The PMDG 737NG series will never be released as an Express product.Both the MSFS forum here at Avsim, and the PMDG support web site, offers dozens of tips and tricks to gain performance in FS2004.You know where Avsim is! The PMDG performance guide is here: http://www.precisionmanuals.com/html/support/E.htmVinPMDGwww.precisionmanuals.comhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/devteam.jpg

I'm running 737NG on my system with most sliders at 75%. Also running FSNav 4.6 and AS2004, getting 20-25 fps most of the time. Slows down to maybe 10 or 12 with heavy clouds, but only for a second. One thing that I found is running my FS folder compressed. Seems to take less bandwidth getting to the processor, but I'm no techie! It takes a lot of tweaking to get FS9 to give you good performance, especially on older machines, you can't expect it to rock straight out of the box. For the first couple of weeks, I wanted to throw it out. Try replacing the cloud textures and search out different tweaks. Research, research, research, you should be able to get decent performance. AMD Athlon 1800XP512 DDR@266mHzG4 Ti4200 128mB60 GB 7200 HDDLink AirPlusSBLiveXP Home17"Samsung (Primary)15"Dytek(Secondary, FSNav,PFD,ND,FMC)Saitek X-45

Been there, done that, but thanks anyway, never hurt to ask ;-)

I had an exact match for your system with the exception of 256mb more RAM and a better video card - GeForce 2 Ultra etc. In addition I had a PCI sound card installed.I updated to FS9 and never went back despite having FS2002 still on the HDD. I had the system set to 20 fps and sliders set to give me much of what FS9 has to offer. Frames occasionally dipped into the single digits but that was around complex airport scenery and 100% AI. I subsequently upgraded the VC to an ATI 9800PRO (part of a plot to extract more upgrade funds - worked!!) and fps were much the same.Basically - if you can change the VC and you will be OK with what you have.Andy b

Just so everyone knows - the beta version of the 800/900 runs BETTER than the release 600/700. They've made a ton of optimizations to the panels, model and the systems coding. It's not going to perform worse.

I'm a little baffled ... I found FS9 to run faster on my old machine then FS2002 after fixing the various problems with dynamic scenery.Gotta wonder why it runs slower on your system unless you are enabling more stuff then you had in FS2002. Not doubting you, just seems rather strange ... what happens if you drag all your sliders to the left (aka absolute minimums) in both with the frame rate limited disabled?Ray

>Ive got got as follows:>>GeForce 2 MX400 64MB (53.03)The most likely cause of your frame-rate bottleneck is the GeForce MX card. Unlike a standard GeForce 2 board (GTS, Ultra, Pro) the MX models had a processing unit removed, making them nothing more than GeForce 1 cards with faster RAM. If you do not have the time / wish / money to upgrade that card, I would suggest taking a look at all FS 2004 tweaks you can find, especially take advantage of the 'Target Frame Rate' feature. This will drop the details until the computer can best reach whatever target you set it for. Personally I use 20.Best of luck,

Ryan : I had the same problem with XP Pro. Installing Windows 2000 fixed this problem on my side. My FPS more than doubled. It should be the opposite, but well....My system is the following :Windows 2000AthlonXP 1600768 MB RAMGForce4 card w/ 128 Mb memoryOn the airports, I am usually between 13-20 FPS and in the air it is around 18-20 FPS. I kept the 3D clouds since weather is important for me. I turned the graphics down most of the time.ThanksOlivier

I want to upgrade the Graphics Card but having a VERY hard time to convince the others in this house! As Im the only one that uses such compex programs like FS. I also dont want to take the risk in spending money and then finding it hasnt improved performace... only a 1-2fps boost.I have the framerates locked at 15 and it never even reaches that. I have disables the 3D clouds. I have installed Autogen, tree and cloud replacement textures and it seems to have done nothing. I tried the PMDG737 in FS9 thismorning and soon quit once airborne.. its so jittery.. like FS2000 used to be.Im running FS9 in 800x600 16bit as this made FS2002 run MUCH better.Cheers,Ryan

Oh Dear...i just ran out to get FS2004 as i love the 6/700, and really want the 800 as it sounds like a good investment.....oh well "Lairy"Liam Reynolds