I still use FS2004. I am using a Nvidia 7900GS (256Mb) videocard, along with an overclocked Athlon FS57 (3.0 Ghz). I am getting a significant difference, of up to about 8 to 10 fps, with 2D over full screen 3D views. Why is that? I use 16X AF and 8X AA. When I turn off those features, it does not seem to make a difference in fps. Again, why the 2/D -- 3/D full screen difference?Thanks in advanceRH

Becasue 2d is rendered flat, meaning the panel display does not require the copious trigonometric calculations to place a 3d object in space.Allcott

The PNY 7900GS I have is very overclockable. Will overclocking it help?Thanks,RH

Whilst overclocking your video card may increase FPS in non-complex areas it will do little, if anything, for complex areas where you need the FPS the most. The fact that AA/AF at max or off making no difference to performance in such situations should be a very strong hint that this is the case.Gary

I thought perhaps that my videocard was the bottleneck. I overclocked my FX57 from the standard 2.8Ghz to 3.0Ghz and saw no increase in fps. I suspected my videocard was the culprit. But, I guess not, especially when turing of AA and AF and seeing no fps increase, so it looks like my FX57 and 7900GS are maxed out as far as FS2004 is concerned. And, yes, even with my setup, there are times when the fps dips too far!I should have invested in a Conroe but thought an FX57 would take me to the promise-land.If anyone else has more insight, let me know.Thanks,RH

You should have seen at least some boost in FPS going from 2.8 - 3GHz, as FS9 performance is very much determined by CPU speed, but since it is not that huge an overclock (< 10%) you may have missed it with the variance of the FPs counter.How low does your FPS go anyway and what are your settings? For reference, I usually see 40+ FPS most of the time in FS9 with my conroe rig, but I can still bring it down to the low teens at some major airports with heavy layered weather and AI all over the place. I have all sliders right except weather which is on ultra high so that I don't see single digit FPS on these ocassions.GaryPS. The one thing that did bring me a respectable FPS boost before I had my conroe was to drop autogen down one notch from the right.

Thanks for your reply.I set Seattle International, default Cessna 172, 30 miles visability, clouds few, no wind, no rain, and all settings to the right, as far as they will go. The only add-ons I include are Flight Environment for the higher performance, lower quality clouds. I set my counter in 3D and full screen at the beginning point at the end of the runway. Using this, I get between about 23-27, whether at 2.8 or 3.0Ghz on my FX 5.7. Again, I also use the Nvidia 7900GS at 16x AF and 8x AA and all other settings at high quality. The fps don't change when I move it to 0 AF and 0 AA at high performance settings. I also use a 150Ghz Raptor and 2Ghz of high quality Corsair 2-3-3-6 RAM. When I use my Level D 767-300ER with real weather that inludes a lot of clouds (even the high performance Flight Environment clouds) at dafault airports like JFK and ORD, my fames will occasionally drop as low as 8.5 but stay mostly between 12-16 and as high as 22. As soon as I take off and get in the sky, my frames go significantly higher. Also, I use EndItAll2 to get rid of background programs prior to my sessions.All this is fine now, but I wonder what will happen when I include higher quality airport sceneries and traffic programs.I suppose there really is no winning in this hardware MSFS game. I just spent 1200 dollars on this machine I thought would finally run FS9 at high frames (20+) in all situations and settings but realize that I should have invested another thousand for the top of the line Conroe to do that.FSX is so far away on my radar that it is pathetic.Thanks for your insight and any other insight you, or anyone else, might have. But, I think this is where I will stay for awhile.RH

Seriously, those are not too shabby FPS for what you are throwing at it. Again, for comparison sake, my previous A64 3700+ used to get 22ish FPS on the ground at Seattle with the default flight and sliders set as previously advised, whereas my new C2D gives me 45+ FPS at the same spot. I also run a very widescreen setup (3360x1024), but I can change to single screen (1680x1024) or smaller windows thereof with neglible change in FPS, so FS9 is just very CPU dependent. But as stated previously, I can bring this beast down to 13 FPS without trying too hard. FS is just a very tough game on computers!Gary

Thanks for your insight. I will just stay where I am and not bother tweaking anymore.RH