Thats nice, but you had to go to the extreme to do it with technology that wasn't even around when the game was designed, am I the only one that sees a problem with this? It's like having to strap the Space shuttle engine to your car just so it can drive you to work 5 miles away, pure overkill.Bet Far Cry, DOOM3 and HL2 all run at 120+ fps, LOL Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Well, After building a new super computer FS2004 has finally given me the best frame rates ever. Below you will see my hardware specs. I have finally done it!!!!ASUS A8N-SLI PREMIUM3200+ VENICECorsair 1GB Memory XPERT modules 2-2-2-5NVIDIA 7800GTX (single for now)MAXTOR 250GB 16MB cache DIAMONDMAX 10NEC ND-3540A DVD-R DLThermal take water cooling BIG WATERThermal take Armor CasePC Power and Cooling TURBO SLI 510 WattI will soon upgrade to another BFG TECH 7800GTX in SLI mode. Even though FS2004 does not support it I will be prepared for the next version. I will also change my processor to a dual core version within the next 6 months. I have proved to myself this game is not processor intensive as most people discussed in the past.

Yeah, I was GIVEN this computer by a green looking guy that landed in my back garden.He said, "Don't tell anyone about it" Then he got back inside this disc shaped metal thingy and flew away!I get 250fps with 'FS 99'and everything loaded, while watching satellite television on one of my fifty 3 dimensional screens.Dave T. .........On the lovely warm Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/

I have proved to myself this game is not processor intensive as most people discussed in the past.I wasn't one of them...I've always thought FS9 was much morevid card dependent, than CPU. I know in my system, the vidcard is the bottleneck, not the CPU. Upping the CPU does help,IE: lots of traffic, etc, but $ for $, the vid card is whatreally gets it done. When I O/Ced my P4 2.4 to 3.0-3.2 ghz, the increase was rather small. Much smaller than I would seegoing to a better vid card. In fact, I see more differencefrom O/Cing the vid card, than I do O/Cing the CPU. "I do both".These days I usually run the CPU at 3.02, "slightly more stablethan 3.2", and the card at the max O/C I can get away with. Run 1 gig of ram. Overall, mine is pretty smooth in 95% of the scenarios... I doubt I will bother with any more upgrades till after FS10 is out. It's flying FS9 good nuff for me...MK

Well, I completely disagree. Granted, FPS went higher when I upgraded my video card from GF 3 ti 300 through 9800 Pro and finally 6800GT, but in only in areas that were already quick to start with (ie. open skys, high alt, where FPS was 50+ even in the GF3 era). In my experience, FS really bogs down in complex scenarios like max-AI, high-detail airport, complex add-on aircraft, multi-layer clouds, etc. In such scenarios, I have found I get the same low FPS whether I turn AA/AF off or whether I crank it up to max. Overclocking the video card makes absolutely NO difference. Alternatively, if I change CPU speed, I get a correlating change in FPS in such scenarios. As such, I don't understand the rationale for saying that FS is GPU, not CPU bound, in its darkest FPS hours.If anyone has a scenario that I can set up that shows otherwise, I'd be pleased to try it out. And don't be giving me no 38000ft look straight up at the stars scenario, I want a scenario where your FPS are at their low point. I still have my GF3 in the drawer for comparison purposes if needed ;)Gary

> I have proved to myself>this game is not processor intensive as most people discussed>in the past. What utilization (%) does your cpu run at then?

Nonsens, no system possible today to buy for money can create the FPS you talk about in any situation as an average. I can at anytime setup a situation that will completely bring your system to its knees no matter the CPU or graphicscard or ram or whatever you throw at it. I can very easy bring my own system to its knees, both cpu and graphicscard, just a matter of what i want to see on screen.OHN

Just to add a comment to this, i today installed Mytraffic 2.1 and FScene textures and FSgenesis mesh + Ultimate terrain. Try getting 40 FPS at average from KSEA with these addons, now that will be the day. Now were in the middle of 2 generations of the flightsim and offcourse at these forums i dont expect anyone just running FS9 out the box with out addonss.OHN

Still waiting for a GPU-driven scenario. Show me the money!!Gary

hey apo77,we see what hardware you use. but how about software? what addons are you using? any AI traffic other than default? PDMG 737NG (fps killer!)? third party airports??i wonder what fps you'd get taxying at simflyers KPHX with myTraffic and the PMDG 737?regards

Hmmmm. I tried the following just to see how CPU intensive FS9 really is. I now know for sure that this application was created by Microsoft for the purpose of making users, especially those who are in the know, or maybe not, to think they need more and better hardware to keep up. Chasing the FPS genie is fun but expensive! I tried using the following:Fresh install of FS9 with patch on sep. partition from Windows XP pro SP2. Nvidia 78.01 DriverASUS K8V-MX VIA Micro ATX 754 board1GB Kingston HyperX 2 X 512 @ 2-3-2-6 Athlon 64 3400+ Newcastle @ 2.4/512kXFX 6800GT 256 Stock clock 400/1000Western Digital WD2000 SATA With this setup, all sliders full no ground shadows textures @701024 X 768 AA 4X AF 8X leaving from Seattle in a 172, FPS set to unlimited all else standard settings 100% traffic. Saw between 30-40 FPS.Same system with the following changes:Add Athlon 64 3700+ Clawhammer @ 2.4/1MBReplace XFX 6800GT 256 with EVGA 5200 128MB1GB Kingston Value RAM @ 3-3-3-880GB WD ATA Drive Saw between 25-30 FPS.Last Switched to ASUS A8V Socket 939 with PCI Express 16XAMD Athlon 64 4200+ Dual Core 2.2/512 X 2Gigabyte 6600 256MB PCI-E VideoWestern Digital WD2000 SATA 1GB Kingston Value RAM @ 3-3-3-8SAW BETWEEN 35-40 fps I have a need for speed but I just do see it here. What do you, those in the know, think of using ASUS A8V-MX 939 with an Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4/1MB and 2GB Kingston HyperX ram over the 3400+ or for that matter the 3700+ socket 754 setup? Would 2GB DDR help? Would the Dual Memory controller help? I'd like to see some Better FPS too.Don't want to add all the Project AI aircraft and major Scenery just to watch 15 FPS any more.Thanks...Tony

DON'T DO SLI in FS9 !!!!!!I made that mistake up until a month ago or so. Two eVGA 6600GT's on a Athlon64 3500+ OC'd ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe 1Gb XMS3500C2PT with SATA Raid0. I saw a definite improvement as soon as I pulled the second GPU with increased FPS and less stutters. I've traded in the pair for an eVGA 6800GT and I couldn't be happier.My theory is, on one PCIx card you are running full 16 pipelines throught the first GPU. When you insert the second card, enable SLI in the driver or not, you split the pipelines in half, 8 for each PCIx slot. This game will not utilize the second GPU/PCIx slot to any great extent and you lose half your GPU bandwidth through the first PCIx slot where most of the game is being processed.If your rig is for FS, spend the money that you would have spent on two GPU's and get a better single card. You'll be happier. Hope this helps....Al

>I have proved to myself this game is not processor intensive as most >people discussed in the past. It has always struck me as a leapfrogging proposition, where there are some situations where the CPU/memory subsystem is the limiter, and some where the GPU is the limiter. I think this is still the case. Noel

> Finally 40-50fps with everything MAXED OUT in FS2004Great, but who wants to fly the Cessa all day. It's tiring reading posts like this. I have a very similar system but with an AMD dual core 4800 processor and everything tweaked to the max with Ntune,Tweak XP,Rivatuner etc. 14-16FPS is quite common at large airports with ultimate traffic and real world weather.The code has serious bottlenecks and is highly inefficient.John.