I have just installed FS9 onto a freshly formatted external USB2.0 Seagate Barracuda 200GB HDD ATA 100 @ 7200RPM 2MB cache. I then plugged this into my Amilo notebook and did a test flight with the default Cessna from London Heathrow.I firstly tested the frame rates with everything on full and then gradually moved most of the settings back to between half and full. I also tried altering the resulution settings between 800x600, then 1024x768 and upto 1200x800, and locked the frame rates at 35, 30, 25 and finally 20FPS.Lastly I tried with the ATi settings by upping the AA & AF to 6x & 16x respectively.The best I could achieve was 14FPS even on relatively moderate settings. The odd thing was that there was no improvement in FPS by drastically decreasing the settings nor with the different resolutions either. Everything remained roughly the same. The result was relatively steady at between 7-14FPS but it never once hit the 20 mark.Even my old desktop Athlon 2200XP, MSI MS6380E Motherboard 1.28GB RAM PC2700 @333MHz, WD 120GB HDD at 7200RPM, MSI Geforce4 Ti 4200 15" NEC Multisync TFT manages 20-25 FPS.Is this due to the FS9 installation being on a USB Seagate drive and not the notebook's own HDD.Here's the Amilo Spec:Athlon64 3700 @ 2.4GHx 1600MHx FSBATi Radeon mobility 97001024MB DDR RAM PC2700 @ 333MHz60GB Hitachi HDD @ 5400 RPM (FS9 not installed on this default drive)15.4" Widescreen display @ 1280x800 ResWould love to see this run at 20FPS min. Your thoughts please....Scratch1964

Hi,Is there a reason why you're not installing FS9 on the notebook's internal drive? I can't be sure but it would seem that the USB would present some form of bottleneck to the sim. Normally, transfer rates from the hard drive are not so important (hence my comment on the previous post that you really shouldn't worry so much about your hard drive RPMs) but when your hard drive is crippled by the ultra-slow (relative to ATA or even SATA) transfer rates of USB, then it may in fact, be a problem.BTW, you mentioned "upping" your AA and AF levels but that would make your FPS worse, not better. Was this just a typo? If not, then maybe could you try running the sim with no AA and AF just to test what the performance would be like?And as always, please check whether you have the latest drivers for your GPU on the ATI Web site.Hope this helps.Edwin

EdwinThank you for your interest with my FPS issue here.I have since installed FS9 onto the notebook's own HDD and there is no difference in FPS performance at all. The reason for the installation on one of my external drives was to keep the relatively small 60GB internal HDD as free as possible and to keep virtual memory on a separate drive from the FS9 installation.The adjustments were made to AA & AF to see if this was a reason behind the poor performance but this made no difference either. In fact nothing made any difference somehow. I should however have explained, that, the AA & AF were increased to see if FPS would suffer rather than just have said that I tried increasing these settings. I realise that the context in which these comments were perceived was one of my expectations of an improvent by upping these settings, rather than just to have any kind of effect on the FPS - my apologies for the confusion.As for drivers, I am fairly certain that there are no new ATi updates (since mid last week) but I will check again.Failing that I am rather at a dead end here.Funny how my old desktop seems to like FS9 so much. Tried it out again this morning from Heathrow and with Global texture settings, Autogen, Add on Scenery and other density settings on MAX I still managed to average betweem 19-22FPS, peaking at 23FPS (locked on 23FPS)I have a burning curiosity to know, from your extensive knowledge, what kind of a visual difference I would notice in the likes of Autogen density, distant scenery, ground textures etc if I were to invest heavily in a Top notch motherboard, Geforce 7 series card (x2) and perhaps the fastest Athlon processor I can get my paws on???Nice talking to you again Edwin. I always value your opinion. Will check those drivers out today.Scratch1964

Hi Scratch,I'm running out of ideas (BTW, thank you for your compliment with the "extensive knowledge" comment but I don't think I deserve it at all!). I suspect your notebook's GPU is the bottleneck since a mobile Athlon64 3700+ is one powerful CPU. BTW, I just want to be sure you're comparing apples to apples here - what is the resolution you're using on your notebook and what is the resolution you're using on your desktop?I just checked ATI's Web site and the latest Mobility Catalyst drivers are 5.11. Are those the ones you have? BTW, make sure you uninstall your old drivers first (via Add/Remove Programs in Control Panel) before you install the new ones.You can search on this forum for the specs of my machine (in short, Athlon64 X2 4800+ and NVIDIA GeForce 7800GTX). I run at 1600x1200x32 4xAA 8xAF. I use Ultimate Traffic, ActiveSky V Enhanced (512x512 clouds) and FS Real Time with the PMDG 747-400 at highest refresh rates. The FPS I get are 20-25FPS on the ground in add-on scenery and about 35FPS in the air (locked at 40FPS). All settings maxed except cloud draw and sight distance at 80 miles as per ASV suggested settings.Hope this helps.Edwin

EdwinThanks once again for your advice here.Well I did indeed praise your "EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE" of hardware set ups. It appears you are quite right when diagnosing the VGA card as the potential bottleeck. However, all is not as it seems. Something rather sinister is happening either with the Radeon card or perhaps in my own memory slot (the one that is situated between my ears!) I could have sworn that I installed all ATi updates quite recently, but upon checking device manager the latest ATi driver installed is the version 6.14.10.6340 (for those of you running Radeon VGA's)dated 03/03/2004. I then proceeded to install all new updates. There are several of the catalyst drivers, all of which require Windows .NET v1.1 to be installed. When I attempted to install the driver updates I was hit with the following rude message: "SEVERE"...INF Error. Video Driver Not Found. Then a further message "Set Up Was Unable To Complete Installation. Try To Set Up Your display Adaptor With A Standard VGA Driver Before Running Set up" and that was the end of that. There are no other older drivers I can install and there are no Windows updates for the SiS chipset, ATi VGA or anything else.Funnily enough, there was no mention that I could see telling me to uninstall the older drivers. Didn't think it would matter not having any other catalyst drivers installed. ATi seem only concerned over the .NET installation as a possible reason for failure of the new drivers.Sounds very much as though I should take your advice and uninstall all drivers to leave a clean base for the new catalyst ones. Hopefully I can get away with installing just the latest v5.11. Have mailed ATi with all details. Should I await their reply or go ahead and uninstall all old drivers then install the catalyst v5.11The resolutions I try to keep to are 1024x768 on both displays. The tweaking with the Amilo was aimed at trying to get those frame rates either up or down.Was just thinking...as I get on well with the desktop perhaps I should just rip the old MSI MS6380E borad and 1.8GHz Athlon out and replace them. Can get hands on a reasonable CPU and board for around

Hi Scratch,If you are hesitant, then by all means wait for ATI's reply. However, my feeling is that they will tell you the same thing i.e. that you should uninstall your previous video driver and install a new one. It is common practice when installing video card drivers to uninstall the old one first (this is written in the release notes) to ensure that the entire set of driver files are deleted and replaced. I know of many people who just install the new driver (without uninstalling the old one) and it can result in all types of crashes or performance problems as new files are mixed with the old. It may be a bit of a hassle (e.g. you have to restart your computer twice) but well worth it to avoid headaches later.I just went to the ATI Web site and couldn't quite figure out where to download the latest Catalyst Mobility drivers. I got to this page: https://support.ati.com/ics/support/KBAnswe...uestionID=19546 but it only has a link to the installation verification software and not the drivers themselves. Perhaps you may be better able to figure out how to download the newest drivers yourself given that you know the exact machine that you have? Failing that, you could try to download the latest video drivers from the manufacturer of your notebook (if I remember correctly, it's Fujitsu?)200 pounds is rather small of a budget because ideally, you'd want to move to a PCI Express video card as well. Any chance you could up your budget? If not, maybe you should just save up for a bigger upgrade a bit later. At 1024x768 only, your performance gains would not be too noticeable anyway.Hope this helps.Edwin

EdwinThank you so much for your time and advice once again.Although I do generally scan through all release notes, with the idea of picking up on any potential hazards I have to admit failure, on this occasion, in having missed the advice to remove all old drivers prior to installing the new ones. I must go and read the ATi release notes again. I didn't realise this was a golden rule. I instead assumed it only necessary to remove old drivers if told to do so in the notes, and otherwise just to write over the old files. Thank you for putting me right. I clearly have much to learn.Indeed there are two links from which to download catalyst drivers. I had accessed the ATi home page then Drivers/software>WindowsXP>Radeon as well as Drivers/Software>WindowsXP>Notebooks With ATi Graphics....you are quite right about the confusion here. I will endeavour to sort through it. Will probably just uninstall all old drivers first (having created a back up first) and then go for the latest v5.11 drivers.The suggestion I made for the motherboard and CPU was from an idea of gradually improving the desktop set up. I would also hope to pick up perhaps a GEforce 6 series card (or better) in PCIe. The next stage then would be an additional monitor (min 18") and use the current 15" display as a second unit for gauges, maps etc. A faster SATA HDD and RAM would perhaps come later. I already have 2 x 512MB RAM Samsung PC2700 @333MHz plus an additional 256MB of the same. Although neither the fastest nor greatest I could make do with it for now. I assume the biggest drawback to my current set up is the old motherboard as it will not allow me to upgrade beyond a 1.8GHz processor. This is why I suggested that it be replaced first. However, I do take your point that I will need a decent VGA card too. Have just bought an expensive new set of irons for golf and seeing as the lady in my life does not fly at all I will have to justify the extra investment, especially having just purchased the notebook too.If I were to ask you to choose the best way for me to upgrade in stages, what would your suggestion be? Am I thinking on the right lines here (i.e. motherboard, CPU, PSu & VGA card first)? I see no need to throw out the old ATX case, 120GB Western Digital HDD, Samsung RAM, Soundblaster Audigy, 15" digital display or Samsung DVD Rom drive but I might get a better buy if I just bought an entire new system, although I may not be able to pick exactly the comonents I want.Will log onto ATi.com on the notebook and get those drivers installed. Am confident I will report back with succes.Many thanks to you for your time again. Always a pleasure.Best regards,Scratch1964

Just an update here on the latest situation.The problem seems almost certainly to do with Fujitsu Siemens themselves. There is a compatibility file to download for the Catalyst v5.11 drivers (accessed through Software/drivers>WindowsXP>Notebooks with ATi graphics. On running this I receive an incompatibility message and referal to manufacturer. I then log onto fujitsu-siemens.com and search for all drivers for the Amilo A1630 notebook. There are lots of BIOS updates, but only one graphics set of drivers and this set just happens to be exactly the ones I have installed on the system anyway.I also removed all ATi drivers, then attempted to install the catalyst v5.11 again but still received the same "INF error" message. Under the notes there is a mention of some manufacturers blocking downloads of the drivers in order that their own preset settings are not altered or removed. Clearly I am unfortunate in as much as choosing the short straw so to speak.Have any of you had a similar problem with VGA updates? Is there a way around the problem. I would be quite happy to lose some of the pretected Fujitsu settings as a sacrifice in return for better FS9 FPS. Its annoying having an Athlon 64 3700 sitting there somewhat idly just because of this.Maybe I should count my losses and get rid of the culprit, i.e. sell the Amilo, then have to reinvest in something that isn't hostile to driver updates. I can't see Fujitu Siemens being able to offer anything under the circumstances.Scratch1964

Hi Scratch,Thanks for your post and with the details provided, I now (slightly) better understand your problem. It boils down to the fact that you need *mobility* Catalyst drivers and not the standard Catalyst drivers. The standard ones won't work because the INF file within that set won't recognize your mobility (i.e. notebook) GPU. Now add to that the fact that the compatibility "checker" deems your notebook GPU to be somehow changed by Fujitsu. That means, as you correctly concluded yourself, that you require specialized drivers that can only be provided by Fujitsu.And unfortunately, that's all the support I can offer you because it just depends on Fujitsu. If you have no better use of the notebook, then indeed perhaps you should consider selling it and then reinvesting that money into a high-end desktop!Sorry I cannot help. Best of luck anyway.Edwin

Scratch,One idea that just popped in mind: why don't you try the Omega drivers? These are modified from the Radeon drivers provided by ATI and are NOT sanctioned by them. However, some people have found these drivers to yield better performance. I doubt it'll help compatibility but I did read on the Web site that the Omega drivers support all Mobility Radeons. I am skeptical about the claim but since you have no alternative anyway, the Omega drivers may be worth a try. You may download them at: http://www.omegadrivers.net/Please let me know how things go.Thanks,Edwin

Evening all.Another update to follow...Firstly I would like to thank Edwin for his genuine interest and time taken in helping me...Edwin - your help doesn't go unnoticed and as very much appreciated!I have downloaded and installed the omega drivers sucessfully, and without any compatibility issues I am pleased to say. They run absolutely fine. Edwin you were right to suggest these.Having just tested FS9 once more I am still unable to get to 20FPS no matter what I do. The graphics are very sharp indeed but once the Cessna begins to move then the usual stuttering problems begin and FPS are only at around 8-10. There are so many settings to tweak that its bewildering. Prior to purchasing the Amilo notebook I have no experience with ATi whatsoever. I did set AA and AF in both Open GL & 3D to minimum (2x) and turn just about every other setting off where possible. I also set Tweaked FS9 settings to medium, turned off AA, rendering etc and did get a slight improvement to around 17FPS. Surely an Athlon64 3700 / Radeon 9700 / 1GB RAM combination can manage more than that!?! The Omega drivers were certainly worthwhile downloading as this has solved both the problem of being unable to use the catalyst drivers as well as being restricted by Fujitsu's own outdated VGA drivers for this machine. At least I will not receive any further INF error messages now.Here is a link to a post I put on the Fujitsu site and two very helpful replies received.http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/support/forum/notebooks.htmlTo view, just click on the Amilo A1630 link from the list under my ID 'Scratch1964.' What is the general opinion on the first option bearing in mind that I have a Radeon mobility set up? Is DHModtool the answer? I am inexperienced with many of these things and know nothing about this software.I wonder if I might check BIOS settings to see if I can give either CPU or VGA more power. What other settings can I change to boost FPS?Perhaps I need to replace the Radeon with something better. I believe there is a very good post in the MSFS General Discussion Forum> FS2004 & WinXP Optimization Guide V2 by OneTinSoldier that lists all kinds of possibilities for improving performance.Any further suggestions would be very gratefully received. Thanks to the whole community and paricularly to Edwin for your time and interest in helping me to put things right.Scratch1964

Hi Scratch,Glad to hear that the Omega drivers work and thank you very much for your kind words. Just doing what I can and offering you all that I know! Unfortunately, I don't think I have any more ideas.Actually, now that you seem to have tried everything, I'm beginning to think maybe that is all that your notebook can offer. Your CPU is indeed very powerful but the mobility 9700 may not be. After all, the desktop 9700 is quite dated (~3 years?) and I suspect the mobility version is almost as old. At the time, mobility GPUs may not be as powerful as their desktop counterparts so the performance you are seeing may indeed be all that it can give. Furthermore, AA and AF were not as widely used/talked about as it is now so your use of them may be crippling its performance. (It's only very recently, i.e. the last year or so, that ATI and NVIDIA have actively tried to decrease the frame rate 'cost' of enabling AA and AF.) Try disabling those and see if that will edge the frame rate above the 20FPS point. (Incidentally, the FS9 Antialiasing option should always be OFF or unchecked. AA and AF should always be set in the display drivers options instead.) Also, be careful about your cloud draw and sight distance settings. They can make a huge difference in performance - even on my high-end desktop set up, I leave those at very low settings (in fact, ActiveSky recommends such low settings in order to get rid of sudden changes in the weather).Good luck!Edwin

EdwinThank you once again for a very informative post. I must say that I am learning fast here. The more I learn the better I can appreciate FS9.Putting things into perspective I think perhaps my perceptions could have been better as could my approach to these problems. Indeed, frame rates can be greatly improved by making the right tweaks to settings. From reading the suggestions in your latest post I soon realised that I am not quite getting things right. I did manage a considerable increase to 25FPS with a further few test flights from Heathrow, flying the Default Cessna last night. The problem is knowing exactly how to measure the FPS. What I mean, is that, if I am to use the FS9 FPS tool as opposed to, for example, the one found in FS Manager by Rana Hossain then M may receive a different reading. When I read of postings of others comparing frame rates I always wonder if they are referring to the average, or maximum and then also exactly which of the viewing options are they using? Do they apply zoom in or out? Are they assuming only the FPS figure in the air or along the runway too? What altitude do they fly at, etc, etc, etc.My results looked something like this.I Started with Cessna 172 at Heathrow Airport 11AM GMT. From the moment the screen came into view (i.e. cockpit view on runway) the FPS were only 11-14. I then switched to Spot View and they rose to 14-17. Moving along the runway and at take off in spot view FPS drops to 13-15. By the time I am over the Heathrow terminal building at 500ft altitude the rate drops to 10FPS. As the Cessna ascends to 1500, 2000, 3000ft and so on the FPS pick right up to between 21-27. As I fly out east over London at approx 6000ft the rate is between 22-26 and then as I approach water and begin to fly out accross the mouth of the river Thames and as autogen buildings become less the FPS settles at 25-27. If I switch between views the FPS are as high as 32-35 for cockpit, VC & tower, and fluctuate at between 22-29 in spot view (view from rear left, alt. 2500ft, 1.0 zoom, terrain - mixed land/water). I locked frame rates at 35FPS as I found this gave the highest reading.There is certainly a noticeable drop by switching between views and dropping the aircraft to lower altitudes over cictes with high levels of autogen. However, if it is reasonable and correct to measure frame rates with no additional add-ons whatsoever, using the default Cessna, taking readings whilst at altitude (as opposed to measuring only on the ground) then I must assume that the only problem I had was the drivers, and that thanks to the help of Edwin this has now been rectified.I will post my settings later but think i've said enough for now.Edwin - Thank you once again for your interest and valuable knowledge in this matter.Scratch1964