I have read a test in a computer magazine that reaches this test result.If memory is increased from 256M to 512M the performance in games actually decreases (Win XP). They tested 3D Mark. And I suppose this would hint to that upgrading from 256M to 512M would make FS2K2 perform worse instead of better.I find this result a little bit strange. How can more memory decrease the performance?

I really can,t imagine going back to 256MB ram as my PC stutters like you would not believe, with FS2002, (Fs2002 acts worse than Fs2000 with 256mb).Its almost non stop Hard disk accessing with only 256 and smooth as silk with 512MB, and thats a recently formatted drive.So personally if my FPS goes down when I install 512MB ram, then let it,,,,! Stutter free is more important than FPS.System Spec is (HOME BUILT)Athlon 2.4Ghz (Thermal Take cooling fan)MSI KT4V 333 mobo with 4-in-1 drivers (438 i thinks)512GB DDR 266 RAMGforce4 TI4200 64MB from Creative 40.72 Nvidia DriversSB Extigy USBHipper 450W powerbox80GB Seagate Barracuda HD20GB Western DigitalAOPEN CDRW 48x3DMark 2001SE score (10350, at 1000x800,16bit) Andrew

>So personally if my FPS goes down when I install 512MB ram, >then let it,,,,! Stutter free is more important than FPS. >But did it do that? I mean did the FPS go down when you upgradedfrom 256 to 512 M?

I'd suppose the FPS hit to be negligible, FS just runs so much better the more RAM you give it, 512 is excellent. It's the difference between having your views change almost instantaneously to waiting a few seconds for it to change. From your panel loading in 2 seconds to 15. With Windows XP anything less than 512 and you'll be suffering an overall performance loss.

I find that hard to believe since XP uses quite a bit of memory just for the OS, with little left over for the other applications at 256 MB. I have 1 gig installed of 2700 DDR, more than 512 MB doesn't help my performance much, but the additional helps with multi tasking on a 1.4 Athlon, ie. Activesky, FSSkyworld, FSfailure, FSFlightKeeper, Multigrab. Seems 512 MB is the norm nowadays anywayRegards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpg

im gonna have to put a big fat ##### next to that one, lolMy gaming performance has increased leaps and bounds when I upgraded from 256 to 512. Waiting for the right time to buy another 512 stick, so Ill be all set at a gig of ram. Running Win Xp Professional.

Let me tell you that going from 256 to 512 does improve FS preformance greatly. Take "Spot View". With 256 I get stuttering moving around the aircraft but with 512, it's smooth. Decrease? Naw, that artical does not have a clue. Best Wishes,Randy J. [email protected]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"AMD XP 2100 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ] K7S5A MB |[b]GF3 64 MEG |WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

Test results always depend mainly on what the tester wanted to prove.If they wanted to prove (iow., were paid to write) that a new CPU or videocard has more impact than more RAM they can prove that by judiciously choosing the test environment.

If when going from 256 to 512MB of RAM the reviewer lowered the performance specs of the RAM (bandwidth or latency), then a decrease in gaming performance "could" be observed. Also, 3DMark is not a game. It's a synthetic benchmark that does NOT necessarily indicate real-world gaming performance. It can measure memory bandwidth and show differences in latency.Here's a scenerio where going to the higher amount of RAM could show poorer results. If the jump entailed going from a higher clocked RAM (PC2700) to lower speed RAM (PC2100) on a system designed to utilize PC2700 RAM, you'd see a drop. Also, some motherboard chipsets and RAM modules default to higher latency when more than one or two sticks or RAM are used. I had a motherboard that would run my Cas2 RAM well so long as I only had 2 sticks installed. If I installed a 3rd stick of Cas2 RAM, it always went down to Cas3. While I had more RAM, it was performing at higher latency.So in short, if the reviewer didn't know what he/she was doing (or was unscrupulous), it is possible that going from 256 to 512MB. However, in my hands, I saw an increase in real gaming performance due primarily to less frequent hard disk access.

Using my home PC (XP), moving from 256 to 512 has meant no desktop crashes, and smooth performance. It's the only way to run MFS properly, IMHO.

I got rid of some studders and increased my FSP by a few. I'm with XP, GF4 4200, Athlon XP [email protected]:Banner is 6.6KB, 15 pixels (width) above limit. Cannot Display!