MS F9 Patch..You know ,

[Guest Wizard]

most game ware companies would not release a product in this condition. Ther must be a patch coming. As you know many top end users are not getting 'exactly' what they want and the idea of getting bigga hardware is no guareentee.Oh, some P4 2.5 , 3 giger's are happy, but from what I read, not all. And you have the p3er's stating they are happy , sheesh, must be a beta testers with a patch.Tweakin is not a way of havin fun.The odd time I got "fluid" , it was great. Nice sim, but for the most partmost companies would not let a product that behaves as this one does, on the market.So, will it take a patch?MB

[Guest kilo_sierra17]

I don't know what your complaining about, I get 12-15FPS with my system and that is smooth, I have no stutters at all, sure I had to make a couple of changes but nothing drastic, anyone could have made the changes I did.

[JimmiG 244]

I have sent MS a mail about the random stutters that I and others are experiencing. It's not that the sim is slow, most of the time it's smooth but over certain areas I experience very low framerates (6-8 FPS). I did an experiment and found that many people are experiencing that problem. I hope they put out a patch for it.

[Guest B52Drivr]

Just to stick my 02 cents in here, I personally think 12-15 fps is horrid. If you arn't getting 20 fps in this sim, wtihout stutters, then you can't really be enjoying it.I presently have a 1l8 P4 which is overclocked to 2.3 and a ti4600 128vid card . . . it runs 2002 at 18-24 all sliders max'd with the addition of 2004 textures. (has made a great improvement in 2002)Now with 2004, I run anywhere from 1-20 fps, mostly in the 10 bracket with sliders about 3/4. To me, this is not good peformance . . . however, I knew when I bought 2004 that I was going to have to upgrade my system to a 3.2 P4 with Ht and some new heavy ram.And, that should let me run fs in the good range bracket. Considering that we will be with this sim for about 2 years, it is what I expected and I did the same thing with 2002 when it came out, going from a 900 to a 1.8. Go figure..Clay

[Guest wathomas777]

your absolutely right, no one would release code in such condition. Ask Derek Smart about Battlecruiser 3000I am quite happy with my performance.I am running on an Athlon 2400+ Compaq. A 498.00 dollar Wal Mart Special, I put in an Nvidia FX5200. Another $90.00 Wal Mart special, and a whopping $80.00 for 512Meg of PC2100 DDR Ram.There is no doubt, in today's market that this is a budget machine. A Sub $700.00 Wonder. Runs MS Flight Sim 2004 great.Most of the complaints come from users who have upgraded very unwisely, (Trying to upgrade a CPU to solve a video bottleneck or vice versa, adding RAM to an OS that is 5 years old). Most people feel that buying the best of ONE item will compensate for the weaknesses of another. FS9 uses the WHOLE system, and as a result, a moderate upgrade to the entire system can often yield better results than blowing all your cash on the hottest card money can buy only to find yourself using a monitor that is unable to display higher than 1024*768!!! (true story)Flight Simulator is a VERY intensive program, always has been. It's the customer's responsibility to make sure his hardware is capable of running it. A P4 3.0 Gig User who is getting single digits in FS has obviously got some settings too high, or has got something out of whack with the system.Software Patches need to be limited to something that is easily and clearly reproducable across ALL users, or ALL users of a given type. (Such as the Nvidia AA issue with the FX series cards, or the Graphic Anomolies seen in Hope AR, or the GPS gives a consistent 4 FPS drop in performance, regardless of what mode iti is in...).Patches are not "magic wands" just because a bunch of folks complain of "performance issues" doesn't mean there's an automatic "performance bug" that can be fixed. If a patch is to be released, it will address issues that are consistently reproducable, not off hand comments about smoothness or stutters, with no reproduction steps, or real world data to back up the complaint.A computer is not a human, you can't give it two asprin and tell it to call you in the morning. You can't do anything to make it FEEL better. All the whining and moaning won't do anything to get a 'patch' out. If customers want or feel a patch is necessary, then they need to provide accurate and detailed descriptions of the problem, steps to reproduce, pertinant hardware and software data used in obtaining the results.If you can't or are unwilling to provide such....keep your piehole closed.

[JimmiG 244]

There are clearly two cases here:1. Those who do not have a powerful enough system2. Those who experience poor performance even on a high-end system#1 is pretty obvious. If you don't have a fast system, you can't expect good performance. Also, just as wathomas777 points out, a system must be balanced. Running the latest ATI or Nvidia videocard in a slow machine, or running a 3 GHz machine with only 128MB of RAM etc. will not provide good performance. The key is to find and eliminate the bottlenecks. If you have a P4 at 3 GHz and you're still getting poor performance, check the other componenets - video card, RAM, harddrive etc.#2 can be caused by a number of things. User-error, out of date drivers, software or hardware conflicts and incompatibilites etc. or it may also be caused by a possible memory leak/bug that I and others may have discovered in FS2004.My system is balanced with plenty of RAM, a fast CPU, a videocard to match it and a fast harddrive and I'm running a clean install of XP with all the latest drivers and optimized settings. Most of the time I do get way over 20 FPS (though I lock it at 24). However, there are certain circumstances that can bring my framerate down to 5-6 FPS. I'll be putting together a couple of "problem" flights as well as flights that work without problems, and post them for others to try because I'm fairly sure that it's actually a problem with FS, possibly a bug.

[Guest Bigshot]

Well said. FS2004 runs a whole lot smoother and better than FS2002 ever did. And there's a whole lot more to look at. The sky full of clouds is awesome and the fair weather clouds maxed out doesn't hurt the framerate at all. Notice I said the fair weather clouds. I don't know how MicroSoft did it; but my hats off to them on this one. It's awesome. I just need ATI to fix that rather annoying blinking in the menus cause I went full screen.PIV2.53 512mb PC1066 ATI9700 Pro

[Guest 747drvr]

It should be patched for the following...1. stuttering- Everyone has this problem.some get it worse than others but its always there.2. Possible memory leak when it comes to any autogen setting/ turning on gps window.3. compatability- its not compatable with most existing systems.the newer your rig the more probs.4. Bad programing code- several errors in programing i.e. "the miracle fix" is just adding a line into your cfg file you SHOULD have already had.5.Strange "bug?" in the terrian generator-- park a 777 at seattle engines off. spot view and wait...then like a small earth quake you will see your aircraft hop up and down.6. gmax-bad choice--- gmax was notorious for the sudden pop in textures on buildings etc when using fs8. Now simmers are complaing about the same thing now. gmax render to texture has got to improve.I know I am going to get flamed by the small but strange to me sect of individuals here who feel that ANY criticism good,bad,or indifferent constitutes a troll or ms bashing. I like the sim , I don't love it. But quality control is a good thing to use before releasing a product.12-15 fps is NOT AT ALL good performance its terrible performance.2 years is too short a time for a turn around for a new sim make it 3 to 4 years.How long has XP been around? Time too work out all the bugs.Now I am also VERY aware that everyones computer is different so there are bound to be problems.BUT when the majority of users are having the SAME EXACT problems then there is an issue that needs to be addressed by MS. Thats my belief and until, MS can trully say they have tested the product or put it through there own quality assurance labs( the WQHL thing) I think this might be my last sim. Im sick of tweaking ,Im sick of downloading fixes that should have been fixed in the beginning.If enough people wrote to them and INTELIGENTLY and without threats explained the problems they are having MAYBE MS will do something about it.I've flown sims since FS5 but like I said maybe my last.............Let the flaming begin

[Guest outtatimeiii]

I don't think Microsoft needs to make a patch for FS2004. Theres been a few games I have bought that REQIRE a patch to play! Example: World War II Online. Its a pretty cool game....once you get the 200 or so MB of patches....over dialup!! Its like they forgot half the game. Now if that was a 5 dollar discount game, I wouldnt really get mad BUT I payed 50 bucks for that game! Now THAT is unacceptable! FS2004 does not come close to that level, even IF it has stutters and flaws.I have been having a blast with FS2004, absolutely no stutters, and fps in the lower 20's with most stuff maxed. My comp is not cutting edge either LOL. It makes me wonder if Microsoft optimized for older comps rather than current spec ones, because it seems like more older comps run it better than brand new comps.

[JimmiG 244]

outtatimeiii, I also get great performance most of the time, except for certain areas.For starters, try this:Max all sliders, and start at Portland International. Activate slew and move to about 2000-3000 ft. Now use the 1 and 3 key on the numpad to rotate the view (press Num-lock if you have to) and note the framerate as the view rotates.

[Guest Wizard]

The sim does not run on MS min req...adequately to enjoy alll of its options.There is no gaurentte upgrading to the top, like some of the specs seen here, will help.I have more power than MS asks for..the sim does not run smooth.The frame rates are never the same for me. I have been to some airports at nite ..12-=15-20 fps. I have 3d clouds going 12-15 20 grate love it. Land a plane in a rural airstrip, The sim hogs down to a 4-6-8 slide show..there is no scenery there.So system or not, you can not prove a larger system will help. Anyway that was not the point when I point the sim.Is it the cpu, ram, card , or the simP4 1.4 256 m rambus GF 440 128m. Oh, it is a small system, but I have had most of fs sims and this is a dog.

[Guest Bigshot]

_________________________________________________________________1. stuttering- Everyone has this problem.some get it worse than others but its always there.2. Possible memory leak when it comes to any autogen setting/ turning on gps window.3. compatability- its not compatable with most existing systems.the newer your rig the more probs.4. Bad programing code- several errors in programing i.e. "the miracle fix" is just adding a line into your cfg file you SHOULD have already had.5.Strange "bug?" in the terrian generator-- park a 777 at seattle engines off. spot view and wait...then like a small earth quake you will see your aircraft hop up and down.6. gmax-bad choice--- gmax was notorious for the sudden pop in textures on buildings etc when using fs8. Now simmers are complaing about the same thing now. gmax render to texture has got to improve.____________________________________________________________________First, you shouldn't ever have to worry about getting flamed for asking questions and stating particular problems you are having. That's what these forum are for. Just don't be all inclusive cause I'm having none of the issues you just mentioned. NONE of them.1) I have no stuttering. Did at first, but turned terrain autogen down from extreme to very dense and then again to dense. I like dense autogen with terrain complexity maxed out because the sim runs smooth everywhere, even the big cities and I got my clouds maxed out. There's a balance that is different for everyone that has to be worked out with each new version of the sim.2) No signs of any memory leak on my rig. Not running any addon sceneries.3)Runs better than FS2k2. Hasn't crashed yet. Only issue is blinking in the menus when in full screen mode. ATI will fix that.4)What lines. No need for any lines other than the commonly known enhancements like Pauls terrain_default_textures=5 and terrain_extended_textures=8 tweaks. They work great in FS2k4 too. Too many fish stories and miracle cures going around on the forums. Either you have good enough equipment to run it or you have to turn the sliders down. No inbetweens.5)Never had this one happen. Have to try it.6)No problems with gmax textures. There's a bandwidth_mult slider in the fs9 cfg file. I set mine at 100. Gives priority to the video textures. You need a big video card if you want things to happen instantly. I have no pop in textures with that simple adjustment and great framerates.

[Guest kilo_sierra17]

Go and lock your frames at 15 and tell me if it is not smooth, I know it isn't smooth like 20 or 25, but it is still smooth and then if I get not stutters it's hard to tell that I am getting 12-15.

[JimmiG 244]

"Land a plane in a rural airstrip, The sim hogs down to a 4-6-8 slide show..there is no scenery there."This is exactly the problem I and others have experienced. Great framerate in complex urbna areas, at international airports etc. but for some reason, framerate at certain scenery areas is very poor, even if it's just a dirt strip in the middle of nowhere.

[Guest RichD]

You must have a different release than the one I am running because mine is bug free as far as I can tell. I am running it on a P4 2.8 with a G4 Ti4200 and 512 mb of memory and I am having zero problems. I had two minor texture problems when I first got it but they were solved by changing the sliders. I had to turn FSAA off to get it to run smooth but that is a problem with my video card not the program. Sorry you are having problems but there are lots of people running it with no problems so what does that tell you. Could it be your hardware or your setup?Richard