Last night I was doing a complete reinstalltion of Windows XP. I usually do this every 6 months to clean out the system of old junk and outdated files/drivers. Afterwards I reinstalled FS2004 with the 9.1 patch. Anyway let me get to the point.I usually configure FS2004 with maxed out settings. I mean every single slider is maxed out including the clouds. I have the FPS locked at 25fps. For the first time last night I noticed something quite interesting. If I create a flight at a very graphics intensive airport, JFK for example, and attempt a takeoff I notice that the graphics lack smoothness and fluidity. You can see the runway move by but it's kinda choppy. Ok now here comes the interesting part. I usually switch to the external tracking view during takeoff just to see how smooth things are looking and I usually do a complete visual orbit around the entire aircraft. I then returned to the cockpit view and I noticed that suddenly the sim was perfectly fluid and smooth as silk. I decided to restart the same flight which placed me at the edge of runway 4L at JFK however this time before takeoff I switched to the external view and did a complete 360 visual rotation around my aircraft. Afterwards I switched back to the cockpit to prepare for takeoff. To my amazement, the takeoff looked fantastic. Perfectly smooth, no choppiness or stuttering. Simply beautiful. I tried this experiment several times and at various airports. Sure enough I noticed that if I do not initially perform the complete 360 external view then my takeoff will be choppy.I am not sure what is going on here exactly. Perhaps when you do an external view, as much of the scenery as possible is placed into system RAM (1GB) or perhaps it is placed into my video card's ram (128MB)thereby greatly improving overall performance. I'm just guessing here but perhaps someone else could shed some more light on this. This makes me wonder if perhaps adding another 1GB of system RAM or upgrading to a 256MB video card might yield even more interesting results even though from what I've read on this forum that having 2GB of system RAM does not yield any major results nor does a high end 256MB video card. I don't know but it is very interesting to understand what's happening here because I think it may lead to enhanced performance for everyone (at least I hope it will).These are my current specs:Pentium 4 3.2Ghz Extreme Edition1GB RAMATI 9800 PRO (128MB) with CAT 5.4 video driversThank you.

I went from 1.5GB of RAM on my old PC to 2GB on my new one. I would never go back. For me 2GB minimum... may bump it up to 3 GB when I purchase my 4GHz system.From what I have read 256MB on a graphics card does not do much for FS9 when compared to 128MB. Would be interested in hearing counter points on that one because I am on the fence for when I make my next purchase.

>I went from 1.5GB of RAM on my old PC to 2GB on my new one. >I would never go back. For me 2GB minimum... may bump it up>to 3 GB when I purchase my 4GHz system.So are you saying you noticed a significant difference in FS2004 when you upgraded your system ram from 1.5GB to 2GB?

Hi Superfort; Not trying to answer for anyone else here, but a lot of the differences in setups I believe are due to Vid card specs and AGP apperature settings. I'm running a 9600XT....BUT it's 256MB ..AND 256 bit. The aperature setting maps how much RAM is available for Video carduse. From tests I've run It will use what is allocated. I cranked upthe aperature settings to 512MB and it would use almost all available"phyisical memory" when in complex scenarios. In my case when I cut aperature settings back to 64MB I have plentyof physical memory left...and textures load quicker. This might notbe the case for someone with the same "card" with say 128MB and 128 bit. Hope this has not confused the issue for you. Regards Denny

Hi Denny,"The aperature setting maps how much RAM is available for Video card use."Actually, it does more than that. Most importantly it plays a vital role in mapping the GART table. With today's systems GART mapping is much more important than AGP Aperature size. More info ]here.Superfortress, your system is indeed caching textures to your system RAM when you do that outside 360 thing. But many of those textures are not exactly the same as what you see once you jump back into the cockpit. So, while you are helping the texture loading somewhat you really should look at how your system is configured in order to eliminate the disparity of texture loading. Firstly, make sure you are using the latest chipset drivers for your motherboard, and if you are then try reinstalling them. Also, there are many helpful sites on the web that offer info for configuring your system's memory caching capibilties. As is the case with any system tweaking do so carefully and always set a restore point in XP.Cheers,Greg

>Hi Superfort;>> Not trying to answer for anyone else here, but a lot of the>differences in setups I believe are due to Vid card specs and>AGP apperature settings.>> I'm running a 9600XT....BUT it's 256MB ..AND 256 bit.>> The aperature setting maps how much RAM is available for>Video card>use. From tests I've run It will use what is allocated. I>cranked up>the aperature settings to 512MB and it would use almost all>available>"phyisical memory" when in complex scenarios.>> In my case when I cut aperature settings back to 64MB I have>plenty>of physical memory left...and textures load quicker. This>might not>be the case for someone with the same "card" with say 128MB>and 128 bit.>> Hope this has not confused the issue for you.>> Regards>> DennyWell I have the 9800 PRO and I have the aperture set to 128. I've actually played around with many times from lowest (64) to highest (256) and I dont think I've noticed any difference in performance but lately I have been finding various ways to maintain smoothness in FS2004 so I will probably do some more experimenting with the aperture setting.Regarding memory, I have 1GB of RAM and I notice that FS2004 is only using about 250MB of it. Is that odd? Should'nt it grab more memory than that?

>Hi Denny,>>"The aperature setting maps how much RAM is available for>Video card use.">>Actually, it does more than that. Most importantly it plays a>vital role in mapping the GART table. With today's systems>GART mapping is much more important than AGP Aperature size. >More info>]here.>>Superfortress, your system is indeed caching textures to your>system RAM when you do that outside 360 thing. But many of>those textures are not exactly the same as what you see once>you jump back into the cockpit. So, while you are helping the>texture loading somewhat you really should look at how your>system is configured in order to eliminate the disparity of>texture loading. Firstly, make sure you are using the latest>chipset drivers for your motherboard, and if you are then try>reinstalling them. Also, there are many helpful sites on the>web that offer info for configuring your system's memory>caching capibilties. As is the case with any system tweaking>do so carefully and always set a restore point in XP.>>Cheers,>>GregI'm a fanatic when it comes to system tweaking. I always make sure I have the very latest driver even for the most insignificant stuff. I just did a complete system reinstallation so I am currently very up to date. Yesterday I noticed something else that's strange yet quite beneficial (at least to me it was). I started a flight from JFK with realistic updated weather. Turns out the weather was cloudy and I run FS2004 with maxed out cloud settings. I have my FPS locked at 25. The takeoff was somewhat choppy. I decided to restart the same flight but this time I set the FPS to UNLIMIITED. Now the takeoff was smooth as butter even with all those 3D clouds and maxed out video settings. On another occasion I lock the FPS at 10 or 15 and it's still perfectly smooth. I'm trying to understand what all of this means because I see so many people, including myself, struggle with FS2004 tweaking that they barely enjoy the actual sim. To me it seems that FS2004 was programmed at a different time for different hardware. Not only does it not take full advantage of today's hardware but I think it's causing slight incompatibilities which manifest themselves as these strange behaviors that I'm slowly discovering. I can't complain though because after having spent so much time on tweaking I can finally say that I am very pleased with FS2004 performance even if I have to do odd little things here n there to get to work just right. I would love a deeper insight and further understanding of what's really goin though. Thank you.