>I wonder if the optimization process is anything like laying >and waiting for concrete to set. Unfortunately, mostly no. Sometimes you really have to rewrite parts of the software completely to make it faster, eg you may have done something simple but resource intensive and have to now rewrite the whole thing to make it faster. Sometimes the actual programming to make something faster can take a lot longer, because you are programming sophisticated models to make things faster. Also, there are often many points in the engine that can speed things up significantly, so a lot of reprogramming to do.>What you said above seemed to have been how FS98 worked out, >if you remember right? A good graphics card made all the >difference over a poor one. What I rather meant is that you get good performance with an old card, but also with a fast one. The old card won't look as pretty, it only will do the basic things. Newer cards could take advantage of new features and make things look prettier... While you have some control over detail in the graphics options, it would be good if MSFS actually would use completely different algorithms that are suited for different hardware (the terrain is a good example, different algorithms for rendering terrain are differently suited for different cards)Cheers, Christian

Chris,I think we have pretty much figured out the FS2004 is a rehashed version of FS2002 with an upgraded weather system, a few more detailed cities, and a few extra commands added to the ATC. What is your realistic assessment about framerates for the upcoming version of FS2004 given the above facts and that Microsoft says they are going to spend more time on system optimization.Robb

Hi Gosta,I have often wondered about the "minimun recommended hardware" on the side of the Microsoft FS box. Isn't it somethink like 300Hhz for FS2002? I guess if you disable most of the options it will work. Back in the days of FS95, I would have killed for a 300Mhz machine. I remember an article from back in 1995 that featured the upcoming 166Mhz and even the mind boggling 200Mhz Pentium CPU. The name of the article was something like... "The disappearing hourglass," referring to the curser hourglass on windows 95. Back then, I was using my first Microsoft FS, the infamous FS 5.1 on my new Pentium 75Mhz. Robb

Hi Robb,yes I think it's something like that - it actually doesn't say on my CD case, and the box went out long ago...I'm sure it won't be too long before we'll have forgotten what 'Mega' means...Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Robb....Something I found interesting when I switched to 2k2:I found if I set up 2k2 to the same level of detail FS2000 offered--IOTW maxed, minus the AI, Autogen, Water Reflections, and effects--2k2 ran about 30-40pct faster than '2000 did, minus 2000's hesitation.I ran 2000 for the longest time on a P3/450 and was more than pleased (going to a '800 made the hesitation more noticeable), so I suspect that it may be possible for a '300 to run 2k2 with less of a reduction in sliders than one would expect.I think the big problem, is we get these new products, see all the new toys we're given, and go crazy sliding the sliders to the max. I have to admit I first did that with 2k2, and given my slow system, I saw a slide show. Then I set up just to match FS2000, and realized that the minimum requirements were right--for someone used to FS2000.Now I get a lot of mileage out of my '800 by matching my scenery "extras" against the complexity of the normal scenery I fly over. So at Sky Harbor, a rather plain MSFS airport, I can crank up Autogen and AI and get the same fps experience as I would at LAX with those features off.I believe it is possible that even FS2004 will run "well" on my system. Fly2K had a pretty sophisticated cloud algorithm, and my system handled it very well. Unless Microsoft messes with the rendering engine and bloats it with code, the min. specs may still be possible. Granted, I wouldn't see the AI or Autogen in its full glory, but part of the hobby for me is doing the impossible with the least investment in resources :)

I think you are getting closer to the information I was looking for. I guess I did not ask the question correctly or did know quite know of what I was asking myself.I remember the initial reports of FS2002 as supposedly running faster than FS2000 in terms of framerates. This was taken from an initial review of FS2002 back in April of 2001 I believe when AVSIM or Flightsim.com had a look at it. When I read this, I was so excited that I went out and got a top of the line Athlon 1.2Ghz thinking that not only would I get great performance out of FS2000 but that I would be more than sufficient to run FS2002. When FS2002 was finally released, I then realized that the initial review of better performance was clearly overstated. But, if I take it from what you are saying, then, yes, FS2002 does run faster with equal options.FS2002 was a major jump from FS2000. FS2004 seems like more of a minor jump, so with MS saying that they are adding an optimization phase (for the first time) we might have ourselves a program (FS2004) that will again be faster than the original one (FS2002) with all settings the same - and possibly much faster because reportedly they did not have a special "optimization" phase between FS2000 and FS2002. With this logic, then, it would not be unreasonable to expect FS2004 to run as fast as FS2002 with all options maxed. Would that not be sweet?!?!?! That way, I (on others) would not have to continue to make expensive upgrades for at least another two years.What do you think?Robb