If I get the following system can I forget about low fps and stutters and setting the sliders at almost max and use which addons I like?Asus A8V DeluxeAthlon 64 3200+ (planed upgrade)1 Gb RAM 400 MHzRadeon 9800 Pro 128MWin XP ProThis is certainly not the case with my current systemSoltek SL-75DRV5 MBAthlon XP 2400+1 Gb RAM 333 MHzRadeon 9800 Pro 128MWin XP Pro

no but things will be better than your old/present system, just dont expect a massive leap. i went from a XP2200+ wih a G4 ti 4600 to a XP3000+ with a 6600GT and while there was an improvemtn it was not the massive improvment i was expecting.

With add-ons, lots of traffic, and add-on airplanes, don't except ANY system to get rid of low FPS. No matter what anybody says. My FX-55 with a ATI X850XT dips into low FPS with traffic, add-on scenery and airplanes, weather with all settings maxed and 100% traffic. It is just impossible to get good performance with all the goodies using the garbage FS9.1 engine

Yep, I'm afraid Big Al is right. This week I upgraded to a system almost exactly like you're contemplating:XP ProAsus A8V deluxe mainboardAMD64 3500 Venice (overclocked from 2200MHz to 2354MHz, almost an AMD64 3800)ATI 9800 Pro card (had that already)1gb ram (had that already)Audigy2 ZS sound (had that already)Result? It all runs very nicely, but I'm still getting micro-stutters flying turns in the VC, and large amounts of AI and real weather still kill my frames stone dead. Arghhhh!I hope the next version of FS will have a new engine to make it all better, the FS9 engine just sucks in this respect.BestGrahame (EDHL)

>Result? It all runs very nicely, but I'm still getting>micro-stutters flying turns in the VC, and large amounts of AI>and real weather still kill my frames stone dead. Arghhhh!Do you mean traffic with AI? So how much compromises is needed?Where can expect to have to compromise? Is traffic a big fps killer?For example I useAddon scenery like megascenerey and F1 FE and FSGenesisActive SkyAddon planes like F1 C172 Realair SF260 and Scout F1 Meridian and DF727. The latter really killed my framerates. My slider is about the middle. My experience is that putting the sliders to left gains little in performence and sacrifices much.Addon planes I hope to be able to run isAerowox B200A36 BonanzaPMDG 737NGI also consider addons like My Traffic 2004. Will that overload my resoutces.>I hope the next version of FS will have a new engine to make>it all better, the FS9 engine just sucks in this respect.>I fear the next FS version will demand more resources and not less even with code optimation. this was my impression when we went from FS2002 to FS2004.

I'm running 50% AI (I use My Traffic) and have any amount of addon scenery and mesh (all of FSGenesis, VFR england and Wales, Misty Fjords etc etc), the mesh and scenery doesn't seem to make much difference, and with MT you can scale it up or down to suit, depending on where you are.I find what kills frames the most are heavily-detailed airports like the german airports series, and of course real weather. I have Active Sky, and when I use that, and the weather is bad, with dense clouds and rain etc, my frames are halved. The only thing that really bothers me though are the micro-stutters when flying turns in the VC, as I prefer to use the VC whenever possible.I think the code in the next version will have to be radically re-written, just making the code FS has now more complicated, with more features, will just kill lower-performance computers stone-dead.If they just further develop it like they have done up until now, you're going to need a Cray2 to be able to run FS10 decently :-)BestGrahame (EDHL)

>I find what kills frames the most are heavily-detailed>airports like the german airports series, and of course real>weather. I have Active Sky, and when I use that, and the>weather is bad, with dense clouds and rain etc, my frames are>halved. Then heavily detailed airports is the first thing I will sacrifice.When it comes to weather I have always thought that it's drawing the clouds that kills the framerate. Do you online weather when you write real weather? Is it Active Sky per see that kills fps? Could a solution be to use FS9 native weather?

I have a moderately slow system (Athlon XP 2500, 1 GB PC2700 RAM, Geforce 6600GT 128MB AGP 8x) and can tell you that the top three frame-rate killers for me are, in order:1. Clouds2. Highly detailed ground scenery like add-on airports3. Other aircraftActiveSky draws better overcast layers, so it draws the clouds thicker. The default FS2004 weather engine is horrible about making "overcast" into "scattered." Try tweaking with your various weather settings, cloud draw distances, etc. to find something that works for you. You can pull your cloud draw setting in 10 or 20 miles and get a surprising frame rate boost.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

>..... Is it Active Sky per see>that kills fps? Could a solution be to use FS9 native>weather?>.....Once you use Active SKY (ASV) there is NO WAY you go back to regular FS9 native crapfor surelike going back to paper airplanes of FS4allen