As you can see by my sig, I have a fairly reasonable spec system for running FS, but at times my FPS dips much lower than I would like. I'm hoping that someone here can point me in the right direction (hardware, software or just general configuration) to improve this situation.Firstly, a quick run down on my relevant FS and system settings:FS - Sliders hard right and feature check boxes selected, except for scenery water effects low, in game AA off, MipMap 4, resolution 1152x864x32 on primary monitor and 1024x768x32 on secondary monitors, 100% AI (airline only) with UT original install schedules, full realism execpt ignore crash damage (too many overspeeds with AS2004 in its earlier days), Chris Willis' replacement cloud textures.System - AGP aperture 32M, FSautostart with minimum services running, AA 6x and AF 4x perf on Cat 4.9 driver, latest drivers / bios installed, stock 3200+ and 400 memory speed for the test.Test scenario - parked at the gate at KORD in PMDG 737-800 NG, external view looking towards other full gates, fair weather (AS2004 not used here to improve repeatability), multimonitor enabled with panels spread out to left and right screens. See attached screenshot.Anyway, the upshot of all this is that I get a disappointing 7.4 FPS in this configuration. I am fully aware that moving most sliders right, turning features on and cranking up UT AI to 100% asks a lot of any system, but 7.4 FPS is quite a penalty to pay. I did a lot of testing yesterday, using fraps to average FPS over 30 secs and restarting the scenario for each test to ensure maximum consistency with results. I have a lot of number jotted down for changes that I made to my FS config and system, and the following is a summary of what I found:Effect of AF/AA - negligble. FPS ranged from 7.4 with no AA/AF to 7.2 FPS with 6X AA and 16X AF quality.Effect of AI % - significant. 7.4 FPS @ 100%, 10.5 FPS @ 80 - 50%, 16.8 FPS at 0%.Effect of display settings - varied. Default everything (ie. high) 10.1 FPS, minimum settings + default for hardware tab 16.8 FPS, max settings for everything except ground and aircraft shadows off 10.5 FPS, max settings for everything except ground and aircraft shadows off and autogen / scenery complexity set to mid level 12.0 FPS.Effect of CPU speed - significant. 1/2 speed (1.1GHz, 200MHz mem bus) 3.6 FPS, 2500+ and 333 memory 6.5 fps, 3200+ and 400 memory 7.4 FPS, 3200++ and 420 memory 8.2 FPS.Effect of AGP aperture size - negligble. 7.3 to 7.5 fps for between 512M and 32M aperture setting, depending which way the wind blew ;)Effect of weather settings - minor (I was surprised!). clear skys 7.6 FPS, best was fogged in 7.9 FPS, worst was gray and rainy 7.0 FPS.Effect of Misc settings - no sound 7.7 FPS, aircraft C172SP instead 8.6 FPS, video latency 248 thru 64 7.4 FPS, realism easy 7.5 FPS, resolution 1600x1200 6.9 FPS, resolution 1024x768 7.5 FPS, original FS clouds, 7.5 FPS, CH controllers disconnected 7.9 FPS, turn off multimonitors 7.4 FPS.Most interesting result - no AI and minimum display settings scored 50 - 60 FPS but looked absolutely terrible.My true desire is to have at least 15 FPS in this scenario without having to compromise my settings. Given that video card settings seemed to have no effect on my test results, I can only conclude that I'd need a CPU speed in the order of 5-6 GHz to push my FPS up this high. Yet, I see many who post here apparently never seeing single digit FPS in any scenario. Does video card really make that much of a difference? Is there something is my system or FS configuration that I need to tweak to unleash some latent FPS?Your comments are appreciated.Gary

Seriously the computer to max FS 2004 isn

We have similar systems. I suggest in busy airports to drop the traffic down to around 70% or so. I don't run everything to the max but have found some nice compromises and have a great graphics and flying setup. My framerates are fixed at 23 and seldom drops below 18 or so.

Thanks for the info guys. It seems I either need more horsepower or should turn the sliders down by your recommendations. I'd still like to hear from one of the "my FPS never drops below 20" crowd to see what tricks they have up their sleeve ;)Anyway, it seems the FS9 patch arrived just after I completed my test barrage, so I was able to do a before and after comparision with sparkling accuracy.With my computer running at 3200++ speed (210x11) and 420 MHz memory, I was previously getting 8.2 FPS. After the patch, I get 9.7 FPS and much smoother panning. This equates to an 18% performance increase at the time I need it most. Gotta be happy with that - thanks Microsoft :-beerchug Off to fly now and see how the patch goes with an end to end flight.Gary

The #1 tweak that worked for me was careful selection of the AGP aperture. Some people here were screaming that 32 MB was the best but in fact I found 64 MB to give me best performance. Although at first glance 32 MB worked equally well I quickly noticed that at cetrtain times my fps was cut almost in half. Make sure you spend some time *carefully* evaluating what AGP aperture works best for you. Do not follow crowds like a sheep.My #2 tweak was to set windows page file to the minimum size of 600 Mb.My #3 tweak was evaluting PanelAsTexture. Again, contrary to wide spread opinions PanelAsTexture set to zero resulted in significant perf. loss on my PC.You can say that I belong to the crowd that never sees fps go below 20. I run everything at max, AA at 4, AF at 16 (performance), mesh at 100% (I use optional 3-rd part mesh), clouds 100% (no 3-rd part clouds), but I don't have any 3-rd party AI installed (like Ultimate Traffic). I also never go with visibility above 30 nm because I don't like to see clouds being "drawn". I also removed Chris Arrington's airport enhancement package - was not impacting my fps but causing some stutter when many airports were in the area. My ground shadows are off and sound acceleration at medium. I am very fond of FS Water so my water effects are at max. The main lesson is to be very careful in applying any tweaks that are published out there and carefully examine their impact on your own system.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200, Audigy 2 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Michael,Per your #1 suggestion, I have tried various settings of AGP aperture size over the last few days, but have noticed little variation in performance across the range. I'm led to believe that this setting is very system dependent, which may explain why it was your #1 tweak yet did not reveal similar results for me.I have also found that either letting windows manage the page file or manually setting it does not make the slightest change to overall performance.PanelsAsTextures I have not played with as yet (maybe I shouldn't?).I realise that UT, and the amount of FPS-munching traffic it produces, is a likely cause of my FPS deficiency syndrome, but it's one of those add-ons that once you've had it full blast, its pretty hard to turn it down. Same with ground shadows being on for me, as they make the terminals and buildings look so good - especially with a rising or setting sun. It seems I am an eye candy junkie, and hopefully one day, before FS10, there will be a system out there that can truly run _everything_, FPS munching addons 'n all, cranked up to high.Gary

"PanelsAsTextures I have not played with as yet (maybe I shouldn't?)."Others (nVidia owners) may offer more info on this, but PanelAsTexture has made no difference on my ATI based systems. This tweak was discovered by JohnC, who runs a "resource challenged" nVidia based system. The tweak has made a big difference for him and others with like systems.AI make a big hit on system performance. The only real solution is faster CPU, FSB, memory, and video card. The "KaChing" gets us all at some point!! :-)Cheers,Greg