Everybody has been so kind and helpful in giving me some advice about upgrading my PC, for which I am very gratful. I thought the least I could do is to publish my frame rates as a way of saying thank you. Unfortunately I only have a basic understanding of PC's and have not been able to tweak my system to increase frame rates, as I am not really sure how to do this.Having taken the plunge (with my wallet!)here are the results, which maybe of some help to others:I have bought a new AMD 64 FX-51 (3200) running at 2.2GHz with 1GB of Ram, with an ATI Radeon 9800XT 256 DDRAM Video Graphics Card and installed win XP Professional, and direct x 9.0b onto the system.In FS2002 (I don't fly FS2K4, as I only fly the superb PIC B767)With all the sliders set to max, 1280 x 1024 x 32 Bit, FStraffic set to 100%, flying the PIC B767. Here are my Frame rates (using the 3.9 ATI drivers)in 3D mode. Visibility set at 80 Miles, with Scattered Clouds.EDDF Aerosoft with FS Traffic (60 + planes on the ground!) 36 FPS after pushbackAt end of Rway 18: (EDDF) 46 FPSKLAS Simflyers Net at the terminal after Pushback: 24 FPS Looking in the air with clouds set to Broken: 75-100 + FPS British Airports EGLL (after Pushback) 60 + Aircraft: 27 FPSAt end of Runway 27R or 9L: 35 FPSAt default Kansai Airport: 77 FPS (with FS Traffic 10 planes +_)At the add on Kansai Airport with FS Traffic: 25 FPS.(These are the minimum Frame Rates).The only problem I have is with the fan which makes a very annoying sound, which sounds very similar to the Nvidia 5800's fan. I am not sure whether this is from the AMD FX-51 fan or from the video card fan itself. It only happens after running the system for an Hour or longer.I hope this is of some help to those thinking of dipping into their wallets!Once again many thanks to everyone, what a great past time this is !!Best Wishes,ChrisEGBB

Your frame rates sound great to me. My computer is only 800 Hz and frame rates are in the teens with some at 8. The sliders are pulled way back. New computer hopefully in march for me.RLJR

>In FS2002 (I don't fly FS2K4, as I only fly the superb PIC>B767)Too bad. I would be interested in performance of a system like this with FS9's 3D heavy clouds and aircraft with advanced anti-alised & smooth display systems (like PMDG's 737 or Flight1's Meridian). It used to be that PIC767 was the best quality out there but it no longer holds true.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Chris,TNX for posting that report. Sounds like I could gain serious framerate increase by doing a similar junking/replacement of my old P3 :)IOW, I didn't know such high f.p.s. like yours were even possible!

"It used to be that PIC767 was the best quality out there but it no longer holds true."Its not about quality but how realistic it is....For me PIC 767 still the best addon out there...Remember its a Flight SimulatorEd

>Its not about quality but how realistic it is....For me PIC>767 still the best addon out there...>Remember its a Flight SimulatorI do remember. For me quality and realism is practically synonymous. PIC767 at this point has fairly dated panels (a bit blurry) and its displays have aliasing artifacts - certainly it is not realistic. And though its flight modelling is perfect - others offer the same thing these days. But I agree that no one yet offers failure modes like 767PIC does - but for me it doesn't matter - I don't use failures.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg