Have had 256 X800 for about 1 hour now. FS9 better/same.Same I/O issues plague the sim with new card, but once you have filled the video-buffer with video it's pretty smooth, no matter where you look, no matter what the detail, etc.But change views two or three times, and it's stutters just like a 64 meg machine with a 8 meg card...but only for a moment.Cheers,btPS...3.2Ghz proc, Asus 800 P4T-E (or something like that!)

That's too bad. My 9800XT never stutters, even changing views two or three times.Hope this helps,JimActiveSky Supporthttp://www.hifisim.com/images/as2004proudsupporter.jpg

Hi,My experience of 128 vs 256 is this, the 128mb cards ALWAYS perform better, now I do not know about the X800 series, but for the 9800 series this is true.The memory that is used for 128 cards tends to be of a faster RAM, this makes the cards themselves quicker.As for stutters, I also get very, very few, if any stutters with my system.FS performance will ALWAYS put more emphisis on the CPU rather than the GFX subsystem, due to the massive amount of calculations that are going on "behind the scenes".I really hope you didnt just get the X800 for FS, that is a VERY expensive addition for just for FS :-eekDan.

>FS performance will ALWAYS put more emphisis on the CPU rather>than the GFX subsystem, due to the massive amount of>calculations that are going on "behind the scenes".>I have just upgraded my CPU from Athlon XP 1800+ to 2400+, andI notice very if any difference in FS9 performance. But shouldm't I?Though I did increase the target FPS from 20 to 25 and havn't noticedany problem with that. Maybe this is due to the new CPU?

The trouble is there are so many different variables in a system that even though you have a very similar spec to someone else you could get different performance.I would not now how much increase you would get with the jump from an XP1800 to an XP2400, I am not familiar with AMD cpu's.Dan.

What if you wanted to play FS2004 at 1600x1200 2x FSAA 8x AF, would an X800 Pro be recommended then?

Hi Jim...yes, you are right. The word "stutter" was a bad choice on my part.What I was trying to imply, was that the same texture load delay is visible at times even with this 256 card.Stutters, no.5 second delay for a texture load, sometimes.Any suggestions would be appreciated.bt

Hello bt,What I a most curious about is whether or not you got a nice increase in FPS!?!? If you have then I would think the money was well spent, expensive or not. If you have not ever monitored your FPS that's fine, I understand. Btw, what plane are you using when talking about this .5 sec delay for texture loading. Or does this happen no matter what plane you are using?Cheerio,JimP.S. How about a screenshot! :7

>>I would not now how much increase you would get with the jump from >an XP1800 to an XP2400, I am not familiar with AMD cpu's.>A substantial one I should think. I OC'd my P4c 2.6 to 3.38 (about the same increase as above) and got a very nice boost in FS9 performance all around.David

DanI've run FS9 with my old 9600 Pro 256 along with a utility that measured system RAM and video RAM usage. System RAM hit about 850MB max; video RAM never hit 120MB. I have most everything maxxed out plus TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=21 and TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400, and lots of 38M mesh and complex scenery. This makes me think that FS9 has no use for more than 128MB video RAM. A lot of people have said that MS9 runs better on 128MB than 256MB cards. Maybe (probably?) FS2006 will need more vid RAM but for FS9, 128MB seems just fine, while 1GB system RAM is desireable.David

Well seeing how many low res object FS 9 uses and it

Let us know how it works out. I know you've got a killer system already.David

Yep, you were right Jim. Too bad for me. That