Hi, I have downloaded the Windows precompiled binary installer of Flightgear 0.9.4 from the project's homepage.I've tried to run it on:(a) Pentium 3 533MHz, Intel 82810E onboard video, 384Mb RAM, XP Pro- very slow frame rate, :( AMD Athlon 700MHz, 416Mb RAM, nVidia riva tnt2 32Mb with openGL drivers installed , XP Pro- I'd hoped this system might run the latest version a little better, but no, runs about he same as (a) above. One odd thing is that it regularly errors out saying it couldn't find runways. Also, regularly crashes with a runtime error caused by fgfs.exeBasically, do I need to think about seriously upgrading my hardware or should I be able to run fgfs (albeit slowly maybe) on something like (:( above? Flightgear's unusable on it the way I've had it running so far. I did read the comment somewhere that the developers are more interested in building for future hardware to avoid instant code obsolescence?Other question I had was.. not being a capable enough programmer myself, is there any mechanism to put in a request for the inclusion of a particular airfield? Ince blundell near Formby, Liverpool UK, plain grass strip at 270 degrees would be nice guys ;-)

I can't give you any detailed answers as all my systems run Linux but the specs do seem a little on the low side for the current versions of FG. The default KSFO airfield area is also very graphics intensive, putting a high load not just on the video card but also on the cpu because of the number of 3d models in the area - buildings, bridges, radio towers etc.Does the situation improve any if you try a different airfield a long way from KSFO? (this would really need to be > 50km or so, depending on your visibility settings, to ensure that none of the KSO area stuff is being rendered)You could also try reducing the visibility further and turning off 'specular reflections' via the view menu to see if this increases the frame rate.If doing any of the above does improve the frame rate, even if it's still unusable, then it would look to me that your h/w isn't up to it.If you don't get any improvement at all I'd start to suspect that for some reason your h/w acceleration isn't working with FG.For reference, with an Athlon XP 1900+ (1.6 GHz), 512 MB ram and an ATI 9200 256MB video card, and running in a window slightly under 1600x1200, I get frame rates of between 6 and ~30 fps around KSFO, depending upon the view (internal/external), which way I'm pointing (i.e. towards down-town SFO, or away from it) and which a/c I'm flying. Like I say though, this is on Linux.

>Hi, I have downloaded the Windows precompiled binary>installer of Flightgear 0.9.4 from the project's homepage.>>I've tried to run it on:>>(a) Pentium 3 533MHz, Intel 82810E onboard video, 384Mb RAM,>XP Pro>- very slow frame rate, < 1 frame per few sec I guess>- output 'freezes' for a second or so between frames (sound &>all)I also have a machine with intel 810 onboard video. It does rununder Linux, but only at a few frames per sec. What you describe above sounds like its running with software rendering. I don't know about the OpenGL driver state for the 810 under Windows. Under linux, I have to tell the driver how much main memory it should use for graphic mem. This 'graphics card' doesn't have its own memory.>- I used to run fgfs on this system really well, (3 odd years>ago)>- Am I correct in assuming the hardware requirements have>risen considerably?Since the last 3 years.... yes, the requirements have certainly risen.>(:( AMD Athlon 700MHz, 416Mb RAM, nVidia riva tnt2 32Mb with>openGL drivers installed , XP Pro>>- I'd hoped this system might run the latest version a little>better, but no, runs about he same as (a) above. One odd thing>is that it regularly errors out saying it couldn't find>runways. Also, regularly crashes with a runtime error caused>by fgfs.exe>>Basically, do I need to think about seriously upgrading my>hardware or should I be able to run fgfs (albeit slowly maybe)>on something like (:( above? Flightgear's unusable on it the>way I've had it running so far. I did read the comment>somewhere that the developers are more interested in building>for future hardware to avoid instant code obsolescence?The Riva TNT2 is a bit older AFAIR. 32 megs of video ram is not a whole lot nowadays. Most of the video ram is used up by textures, and their use is increasing...>Other question I had was.. not being a capable enough>programmer myself, is there any mechanism to put in a request>for the inclusion of a particular airfield? Ince blundell near>Formby, Liverpool UK, plain grass strip at 270 degrees would>be nice guys ;-)You might want to consider subscribing to the fgfs mailinglists. I think there's one or two tools to create airports and taxiways (Taxidraw is one, I think)Manuel