I ordered my GF4 4200ti a week or so ago - and have read the threads recently regarding upgrades with some interest, although they have generally lacked screenshots. Just to show you what a difference the upgrade makes I took some last minute screenshots with my old GF2MX and then duplicated them with the GF4 4200ti (after using NVMAX to retune it).......The pictures are as follows::::Birmingham (UK) - GF2MX / GF4 4200tiAnchorage - GF2MX / GF4 4200tiThe GF2MX shots represent the best quality I could get out of the card. Still working on the GF4 !!!!Hope you agree there is a vast improvement.. .. ..

I'm sold... even if I don't upgrade the CPU for now, I'm getting the card!!Thanks for the visual confirmation!!Chris

sorry but i dont see any differenceonly difference i can see is the new card it is abit more brighter

I've just made the same swap and also like the visuals.. but now my hard disk is on almost constantly while flying.. even when I pause the sim, the hard drive activity continues (in little dribbles).Only when I push the ALT key (to bring up the file menu) does all disk activity stop.. it continues when I return.. Has anyone else seen this?Abit GF4 4200 128 megDrivers: 29.42, DX8.1 (both came with the card)System: 1Gig Celeron, 384Meg RAM, Win98SE

To me the blurries look like they are almost gone which is good enough for me :)

The blurries gone are the big one-along with all settings at max and faster response. I can't say enough about this card upgrade-it only makes sense going from 32 megs to 128 that there would be improvements!http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

I too can't see much if any constructive difference in those shots.I'm know it is a better card in terms of smoothness and FSAA quality, but based on those shots, I wouldn't even bother taking the lid off....Chris Ehttp://website.lineone.net/~flightsimukAvoid AGP texturing = Better Performance ;)

Depends on your view of things I guess - one of the things that has consistently annoyed me about FS2002 is the fact that the scenery turns into a blurred mess after a short distance - in the shots Birmingham city centre is just a grey blob on the old card and textured on the new one. If you look at the Alaskan shot the best way to see where the "blurries" end is to look at the roads - crisp on the new card !!

The card is telling the CPU that it can handle more and larger texture files (which is also why you get more crisp textures, higher res mips are used).Because of your low system RAM (384MB only) the CPU can't preload all of that and is constantly accessing the drive to load textures and swap out stuff.Mind that with Win98SE you can only go to 512MB as Win98 cannot address more than that.Were you running Win2000, you could use up to 2GB at least (granted, only if your mainboard can house it).

Jeroen, I believe you are on the right track, it seems scenery related.. the disk drive activity slows down when I fly out over water and there are few new textures in sight, and speeds up in complex terrain. But.. when I look at main memory usage, I have 50-100 Meg free and no use of the swap file at all..I still do not fully understand.. this is unique to FS2k2.. in CFS2 and WW2 Fighters there is no disk drive access and everything is super smooth!

Jeroen, I found it... I had Cacheman optimization enabled.. from way back when..It totally strangles the new card with its 20Meg Vcache limitation.When removed, the problem was fixed!Now all works great with no hard drive access at all.Thanks!

Sorry,to disappoint you, but these shots do not proof anything. The shots are taken from different angles, different altidudes (!!!) and it looks even with different weather settings (the GF4 Anchorage shot has definitely a rduced visibility afaginst the GF2 shot). So don't fool youself.If you want to have a fair comparison take a shot, save the situation exchange the video card, restart the situation and then take the comparison screenshot.Regards,Wolfgang"Men always believe, what they like to believe"

"If you want to have a fair comparison take a shot, save the situation exchange the video card, restart the situation and then take the comparison screenshot."...and use the same FS2002.cfg file, because this is where all the FS2K2 display and other settings are stored. They are not saved in the *.FLT file.Stamatis

I do not want to "##### on your parade" so to speak :-), but I see no real difference in the pics. At least not much to warrant an upgrade.Stamatis

Stamatis, I do not have the before and after shots to prove it, but here is my subjective assessment after upgrading from a 32Meg GF2MX to a 128Meg GF4 4200 card..Visibility into the distance is definitely improved.. I can see cities from further away.. in the Los Angeles basin, I can see downtown buildings from LAX as well as buildings in the surrounding cities up against the mountain ranges.The performance is so much better that I have upgraded from 1024x768x16, locked at 20fps to 1280x960x32, locked at 24 fps. Both at 2xAA.4xAA works fine too, but has an fps hit.. this is fine for CFS2 which now runs at 50+ fps, but still not worth it IMHO on FS2k2.All this on a system with a Celeron1000, Intel 400BX chipset and 384MegRAM.. hardly world-class in today's terms.. but works great and MSFS2k2 is like a new simulator for me, very smooth and very "real".