Hello all,I know there is a similar post that was just put out, but I'd like to know who has went from 512MB of RAM to 1GB of RAM and noticed a considerable difference in FS2002 performance. Framerate difference would be a plus, but just over all, like transition from view to view, then view to menu. Any help would be appreciated, thanks!MaulWho Wants To Fly The Big Jets In & Out Of Chicago O'Hare...I DO! :-wave

Every little bit helps. I am running 768MB, but had to upgrade to Windows XP. Win98Se will handle up to 512.Brent Hebert

Win98Se will handle more than 512.... with a 2-line edit to system.iniCheers,Paulhttp://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/sbird.jpgOfficially licenced by British Airways plc for use of name and logo

Paul,How will Windows 2000 Pro/FS2002 play with 1Gb of RAM vs. 512Mb?Robb

I've used both ways and am back to 512MB. The added Rambus made little, if any, noticeable difference for me. I usually use 38-meter mesh and one of the complex add-on aircraft such as the PSS A320 or the Dreamfleet Archer. And even with the SimFlyers scenery I didn't see a noticeable change. So, the US$200 sticks of memory were returned. All mileage is, of course, variable and if you can either use cheap memory or return the expensive stuff it can't hurt to try adding more and see what happens.DougNorthwood 2.2a at 2.508Ghz Abit TH7II-R512MB Samsung 40ns PC80064MB 3.5ns Gainward GF4 Ti420042.01 Drivers with WinXP ProInwin ATX with Enermax 431W PSU

Doug...I threw in another 256 meg's to bring my system up to 768 Megs out of curiosity. Windows 98SE handled it without a need to edit the ini.file. It truly made no difference to any real-world game play (loading of textures into memory, etc) and so I took it out and am now back to 512. Going from 256 total to **512 SURE DID** make a differece. Beyond that? I didn't see anything.Going from a 500 Celery to a 1.4 is MORE than night and day. I don't go below 15 frames anymore whether at KORD at taxi of above. No more.I now have all the sliders (including ATC) bent right over to the right. Before the CPU upgrade, this would have been a no-show. I only got 3 frames at KORD before, with detailed aircraft and sliders at the right. What a difference, huh?Cheers!Mitch R.

To answer your question, I did the same upgrade and noticed very little in framerate improvement. What will boost your frames will be a better video card (this is even more so than getting a new processor). I've heard others on this forum express frustration about upgradeing their machine to 3.6gigs and finding FS did not improve much in frames. You will find Windows able to handle file swapeing a little easier but you will not see much in framerate performance. Get a better video card...Les--Pentium 4 SCSI 1.5gig1gig of RDRAM100gig HDGeforce 4 TI 4200

HelloI run XP pro with 1Gb memory, when FS2002 pro and FSNav, activesky and some other addons are running , I still have 700 Mbytes available. I CPU speed is the most important , I run a P4 2.4 on a Mobo ABIT IT-7 Max 2 and it is 100% in use! Video is GF4 TI 4600.Of course with all settings to max and in a standard scenery it gives +- 40 FPS , with heavy sceneries it drops to 10-20 FPS

I'm currently running 640mb SDRAM in Win98SE with a 1GHz pentium III and a 133MHz front-end bus, all without any modification to the vcahe lines in the system.ini files. Interestingly, when I tried to add the final 128 mb of RAM, modifying the system.ini file as recommended, my computer seemed to boot faster, the desktop icons loaded instantly, but MSFS would crash and I would get an error box saying program{unknown} has caused a fault in so-in-so module...etc. I've tried squeezing this RAM in in all manner of edits, but the bottom line seems to be that on my system, at least with the present components, motherboard, etc, 640 mb is the most I can run. I do agree with the video card update ideas mentioned in the other posts here, as I've had positive experience doing that myself.Alex ChristoffN562ZMinneapolis, [email protected]