A request

[Guest plu]

Dear Sirs.I am still running FS2002 and would like to fly the-800, I know it

[Guest Paul Heaney]

Why not upgrade to 2004 and run it?

[Guest amerton]

Peter,I'm sorry to answer negatively... We won't produce a cut-down version of the 800 900. I suggest you buy FS9. Independantly of the 800-900, you'll much enjoy it.anthonyAnthony MertonPrecision Manuals Developmenthttp://www.precisionmanuals.com

[Guest plu]

Hi guysThanks for your answers.I have FS2004, but unfortunately it dosen

[Guest amerton]

Peter,Getting rid of 3D clouds vastly improve frame rate. There are other tricks such as renaming the autogen file to something else... I suggest you read the faq posts in the MS FS forum.anthonyAnthony MertonPrecision Manuals Developmenthttp://www.precisionmanuals.com

[chumley 0]

FS9 should sing on that rig.I have a P$ 3.2, 512mb RAM, Radeon 9880pro 128mb and I cannot prise the frames away from 25 fps in general use i.e. default scenery, YSSY, 100% AI and 100% 3D clouds.Andy b

[Guest Ray CYYZ]

Peter ... FS 2004 can be adjusted downwards in performance to actually run faster then FS 2002. You just need to play with the settings. I was running it on my little AMD 1.4c with 512 Megs and a nVidia Geforce 3 (original) so I know it can be done.Go fly in England where the scenery is much lighter. Keep away from the photo level scenery areas and you will be fine. Reduce things like Anti-Aliasing, filtering, etc.It can be done. The Flip side to this coin is the 800/900 runs a fair bit quicker then the 600/700 on FS9 so you really should give it another try. You have the ram for it, you just need to adjust things and NOT go straight for the range enhancing stuff posted in the MSFS forum that kill performance on smaller machines.Ray

[Tabs 2,790]

Yeah there's definitely a problem with your setup somewhere - I got better FPS than that on my old AMD 1.4, 512, GF3 system... It screams on my 3200+, 1GB, 9800p now! ;)