I've been reading a lot, but have seen very different answers.Can someone answer the following question for me:With similar settings on the same computer, does FS2004 run as fast as FS2002, or does it run slower?I currently run FS2002 on my machine, and am pleased with how it runs - about 30 frames per second. (altough the sliders are set fairly low). I would like to upgrade to FS2004, but I think that I've got the sliders about as low as I'd like them to be. Thanks!

This is a really complex question. The short answer is yes--in my case (with a very slow cpu, I might add), FS2004 runs as fast as FS2002--on average about 20-25fps. Certain aspects--namely viewing aircraft in spot view, are actually a tad faster. Believe it or not, so are clouds after I applied Chris W's optimized cloud textures for 2k4.The biggest problem is that many set their sliders at roughly the same level between the two sims--for example, autogen density and scenery density. The reasoning being, you can have the slider at 80 pct. in FS2002, so 80 pct. is it a good place to start in FS2004? The answer is no, because FS2004 displays richer scenery detail at any given slider setting especially where those two sliders are concerned. Therefore, 80 pct. autogen density in FS2002 may mean you'd have to set it at 50 pct. in FS2004 to get matching detail. That's just one example, but it serves to explain the issues I saw quite a bit after FS2004 was first launched.I only run MSFS on a P3/800. I built it while my wife was expecting our daughter many years back, and my emotional attachement to it outweighs any need for more fps. My daughter learned to read on it, learned to draw, and learned to use a computer at an age where most kids are just learning to talk. I literally have watched her grow up behind the keyboard. Anyway, I've become quite good at optimizing FS2002/FS2004 for that level of hardware. About the only reason I run FS2002 these days is for those old FSDS 1.z aircraft that don't display properly in FS2004. I have a couple that I still like, so I run FS2002. Also, in some scenarios I prefer the haze and solid deck emulation in FS2002 over FS2004. Still, my ratio of FS2004 to FS2002 flying is about 20 to 1. I also have some settings higher in FS2004--which reduces my performance but greatly increases my realism and the immersion factor negates any perceived loss in performance.If you were going to purchase FS2004, the only other advice I'd give is not to do it if you have anything less than a GEForce 4200--there's display issues with older graphics cards and the 4200 and whatever it's ATI equivalent is are probably the first cards of that generation to display FS2004 decently.The first thing I would do after installing FS2004 would be to turn off dynamic weather, set clouds to 100 pct. 3-d, and set the draw distance to 30 miles (which still exceeds FS2002's by some distance). Next, I'd install Chris W's optimized cloud set.FS2004 has given me hour after hour of enjoyment--and is stable as heck, running sometimes 10-12 hours in one session before I turn the PC off. It's my ONLY platform for GA flying, as the clouds and sky colors sometimes take one's breath away.Hope this post helps you..-John