I tend to agree also.I've done the FS9 patch to FS2002.I've have managed to get FS9 running "fairly" smooth but that is with high priority startup and taking out all add-ons. FSUIPC, ADVDisp, ActiveSky etc. Went back to basics. This is also with the Chris's 3D cloud fix and Bart's Taxi/Runway fix and a s--t load of tweaking.I haven't tried adding back any of the above yet to see what was causing the pauses, because it doesn't matter. This pig sucks it up and I'm not going to run add-ons with FS9 until something is fixed or I blow out a bundle of $$ on hardware ( not spending it on this release ). If I recall FS2000 ran like crap, we all raved about it and lived with the stutters.I have a Athlon XP2600 512meg ram GF3 W98se.I like clouds, airports with gates and loads of eye candy (thanks you FSSE ) and lots of aircraft at the gates (thank you Ultimate Traffic), cities with buildings and ground textures that don't look like a paint spills, charts visable in my cockpit, weather radar, a navigation program, Radar Contact, Active Sky and Game Commander.I run this in one session and it runs smooth.FS9: Nice sun sets, better clouds, enjoy the active 3D cockpits.You add it up.FS2002 will be getting my flight hours.FS9 needs some major fixing.

You'll love it! I bought an Alienware about two years ago. When I got it, it was also a hotrod. Today, it's grandpa's old jalopy when it comes to flight sim, but I still love it. Jim

Went back to fs2002 last night to actually fly and not tweak. Fs9 will probably go on the shelf and in about a year or so it will come back out when the hardware that can run it is affordable. For now, the clouds and textures sure do make fs2002 look nice. I'm tired of tweaking and wasting my time with this. It's like trying to run a marathon in flip flops. The running shoes will come. :)I JUST WISH I COULD GET THE MOONEY BACK INTO FS2002 :). Anyone figured out how to move the planes from fs9 to fs2002?Todd

XP is the answer, I am not 100% sure of how much it is exactly with 98/ME - but I think 128/256M is all the memory it will 'use' so even if you have more the machine will never make use of it...XP on the other hand will use whatever you install and with 512M 2004 runs very smooth here using a 1.8G AMD chip a Geo4 with 128M and the other standard stuff you would see in a modern machine. I tried using the driver settings for AA but actually found better FPS letting applications control AA and turning it on in 2004 (but according to many peoples comments on it that should not be the case, I guess all that means is what worked good for someone else may not work as well for you). To compare, my wifes machine is a 1.2G AMD with 256M and a ATI 7500 having 64M - still using XP it requires a little turning down to get decent FPS but is not BAD so I feel pretty confident switching the OS to XP (or if you feel silly versions of 2000 also will use all the installed memory and provide more controls for you to adjust in terms of security and admin crap).

May sound stupid and may not help, but try going to PCPitStop.com and running the "full tests" - if you have some missed strange setting on your HD or something like that it may help you out.In fact it is a good idea for anyone to go there and run the tests as it gives a lot of suggestions on how to improve your speed and just how well your machine is running...

Running FS9 here on a dual boot machine( Win ME/Win XP) with 512 MB DDRAM-WinME can handle this no problem.Got FS9 installed in both OS and the only difference (given same settings) is that XP averages 2-5 FPS faster.For reference - my system below-DaveAMD Athlon 2000XP (@133/133)ECS K7S5A Mobo 3.1 :04/29/02 Rev BiosSiS 735 Chipset Rev 12 x 256mb DDR RAMGeforce4 Ti-4200-8x 128mb DDR AGPAGP 1.16 WHQL . 4403 Detonator XP Drivers2 x Maxtor 40GB HDD (7200rpm)LG 8x4x32 BurnerLG 52xDirect X 9.0 final Windows ME/ Windows XP dual bootBIOS Settings- DRAM Timing Ultra. CAS Latency 3T,RAS ACtive 6T,RAS Precharge 3TL1 Cache Enabled.L2 Cache Enabled.Sys BIOS Cache Disabled.DRAM Drive Slew Rating - Fast

Well the truth is out. I have been tweaking this monster for two weeks and it is time to just put it away for about 12-14 months. I love the weather and clouds! It is really beautiful. I have it to where it averages 13 FPS, with the Freeware GlobeTwotter Otter and the (oooh I cannot think of it.....piston engined twin Freeware...just beautiful) I have the PMDG B737 installed and that brings FPS down; to an average of 9 FPS. I have done all the tweaks and run it in 12 by 9 resolution.Luckily Hard Drives are cheap and I kept my FS2002 with all the goodies. I am going back to that and just leaving FS9....for the heck of it on the old HD. To get it to run as smooth as FS2002 would require me to have it look worse than FS2002...plus I have Chris's clouds in FS2002! Great clouds Chris!It was a good experiment. But time is just so valuable that all the tweaking takes to much time away from flying.Tony

I' can't cite any technical backup for this, but I have a hunch that with many simmers, DX9.b may be less than user friendly. I do believe that was the case for me. I went back to DX9.a and think it works better. btw, I am not at all happy with the performance I am getting out of FS9...but, I blame that on my relatively puny 1gig mobo. I'm upgrading to a 2.6 and will report back then...Sherm

Amen, The funny thing. I can run fs2002 with the textures, water effects and clouds of fs9 with AA and it looks better, runs better- ect. I sure do like the weather effects though. And that Mooney-booo hooo. :)No worries. Time.Todd

Dark,if you love the autogen and trees...it can all be imported from FS9 to FS2K2. Along with a lot of effects, the water reflections and some other stuff. You will not get the clouds, weather machine, colours and ATC. But you can make FS2K2 look a lot better.And the most stunning thing about it: It improves frame rates by what I would say 10-20%. Go for the merge all you frustrated guys. I am back at FS2K2 and enjoy the sim more than I ever had have before.I can have an overcast cloud layer. Great fps. The sky does not look like a cartoon. I am not in a 0 visibility soup fronm one moment to the other. I can undock my panels whenever I want to and to whatever monitor I want. And it looks great. I am a very, very happy camper. Alex

With ME you can put in (and the system will report) as much memory as you wish but 98 and ME only use so much (I am unsure of the actual figures, 128 or 256). However I am unsure if that would apply to applications running in the OS, fact is FS9 may very likely use all the memory that is really there. Now 5FPS is not much but it would explain the fact that the OS is running at a lower level.The main reason you get good results lays more on your video board, and while I do not see the CPU speed listed I suspect it is better than 1.2G and as such the actual amount of system memory present plays 3rd or perhaps even 4rth fiddle...As I said above on my AMD1.8Gw512/Geo4w128 System I can crank the controls up near the top and still have 20FPS near all the time.On the AMD1.2Gw256/ATI8500w64 System I have to back off some but can hold high teens with above standard settings and a few lags of acceptable nature with maybe a jitter here and again.(I did say above the system had a ATI7500, but I moved that card to my sons machine awhile ago and forgot)On his machine however, which is a AMD900w128/ATI7500w64 the settings have to be turned WAY down and still there can be long periods of less than 10FPS, even 5, with unacceptable lag times.Some place in there is the point at which you start to have enough system for the program, and as always more is better...Has it been brought up that if you run a million background applications (or even 1 or 2 you don't need) that it can have a DRASTIC affect on systems that may be 'near the line'...?

This first shot is FS2004The second is Fs2002The third is fS2002 with 2004 texturesSherm