I have to agree with several comments here. First, I have both a 700HMz P3 with geForce3 card, and a new homebuilt 3.2Ghz FX5900U system. I can obtain flyable performance on the 700 by doing a bit of slider work and not give up all that much eye candy. 44.03 drivers on the gF3, 45.23 on the FX.Here's the way I see FS9 after using it on both boxes: FS9 uses essentially the same "engine" as FS2002 for framerates. There are several framerate killers; autogen, AI traffic, clouds. I see FS9 as set up to use these sliders as adjustments, much like the brightness and contrast settings on your monitor. Full settings aren't usually the best. The lone exception here is autogen scenery which gives fantastic realism to VFR flying if you can push it. AI traffic at 100% is unrealistic (IMHO). Too crowded and much higher than FS2002 at max settings. I also find the clouds to be too "busy" at max settings and prefer to run them at low or medium on 3D settings for best realism. Other settings are similar, with max settings available but seldom realistic.If you are content to keep FS9 throttled back to FS2002 levels, it will run with the same (perhaps better) efficiency. If you push it beyond the ability of your system to drive it, you won't be happy. Keep framerates set down as low as you can live with and give the CPU some breathing room to work on the display. I run my 3.2Ghz hyperthread at 18 fps at 1200x1600x32 even though it will easily run over 30 most of the time. If you demand more framerate performance than you can see, you're wasting CPU cycles and the system will actually slow down rather than speed up. It's like trying to accelerate a car at a low speed in high gear rather than downshifting.MDavis

"If FS2002 was the sim that had just been released, I would now be crying from the rooftops just how good and fluid it is and how everyone should buy it immediately!"This comment reminded me of an epiphany I had myself--Microsoft should postpone the next release of FS by 2 extra years.Wipe that :-eek off your face and hear me out...First of all, we know that the minimum requirements stated on the box are a load of crock--that's the minimum comp you need to get the game to load, not to actually play acceptably. However, the problem is that MS is designing these games to run acceptably on computers that don't even exist for the first year of the games existence. Game developers will often do this intentionally so that their games will be competitive for many years into the future. But in the case of Flight Simulator this is not a practical strategy. Why? Because MS releases a new version every two years! What results is thousands of customers wasting their lives endlessly tweaking their machines to perform like something twice as fast. But let's imagine if MS had released FS2002 back in July as opposed to FS2004--we would be in simming heaven, and we wouldn't know what we were missing either in terms of those beautiful COF clouds that none of us can really enjoy anyway.What I'm saying is MS needs to get in sync with their market. If they would just design their flight sims to work well on computers that exist at release, they stand to become even more profitable.

>pilots. I wonder, if for once, Microsoft finally developed>something for the average computer and the problems lie with>all of the people with the upper end systems?This idea has occurred to me even though it seems unlikely. My system is quite modest: AMD 1.3 Gig, 768 Meg PC133, GF4 Mx 420 64 MbI am cautious about getting a better system from some of the posts seen here. I may just get a new super vid card and see how that goes.I am very satisfied with the way FS9 is performing on my system. I keep the frames locked at around 18 and I am able to fly my FSD Cheyenne with a lot smoother performance than I had in FS8. The only thing I've really lost is AA, which I don't miss. No I don't have everything maxed to the right, but I learned from FS8 that I don't really like Autogen that much, nor Water reflection/details, but I do like mesh detail, etc.It took me about a day or so to get FS9 tweaked to my liking.Chris' clouds are great, I never noticed the fast food joints anyway, and besides some of the default FS9.CFG file property defaults being totally screwed up, it didn't take that long to correct the values/add missing ones.

Athlon 1900XP/Geforce3Ti500/512DDRRam 1600*1200*32 res.Depending where & what, FS9 performs as well or better than FS2002, or again depending where & what .........worse.Keeping both sims on the HD along with FLYII, & no immediate plans to upgrade. It was either a CPU upgrade; or transponder/altitude encoder, prop governor & vacuum pump system for the "biggie" airplane. And the airplane won out.. :)L.Adamson

My machine just doesn't get it for FS-9 at 1.8 ghz. It works OK with all the sliders backed off quite a bit. But I have maxed them just to see what it looks like, and I can see that I'm missing a great sim.No blame here thought. MS has pushed the envelope for those who want to pay the price. I think that's basically a good policy.I just think 3.2 ghz is near the end of it's cycle as king, and I'm waitng on the next bump up.From what I see, I think this sim was built even a bit into the future (hardware wise). And I think that's OK.Bob (Lecanto, Fl)AMD, Athlon XP, 1800+MSI, K7T266 XP ProPC 2100 DDR, 1024 MBXP, Home Edition Elsa GLadiac 920, GF3/64Mb andPNY, Verto nVidia TNT 2-M64/32WD, 100 MB, 7200, Ultra 100Sound Blaster, Audigy MP3+CH Prod, VPP Yoke - Sound CardCH Prod, Pedals - Sound Card

>My system:>Athlon AMD 1900XP>Epox-8KTA3L+>512 SDRAM>GeForce3 TI200>Detonator Driver 40.72>DirectX9.1b on WinMECouldn't help but notice in all that you are using the wrong card drivers. I am left wondering what other details in readme and manuals you also haven't read, what modifications you made that so utterly banjaxed your system, and why you expect MS to fix not their sim, but your EXPECTATION of their sim? Think: Do YOU need a patch?I have a very similar system to yours, and am entirely happy with the performance. Clearly whatever is going on with your installation it's not the fault of Microsoft.Allcott

Hi Tom,I just want to share my experience with you even though you don't want to upgrade.I had an XP1800 on an Abit board with a similar graphics card to yours but running 30.82 drivers and got reasonable results using Chris's relacement clouds. I suggest you try those drivers.I also upgraded to WinXP, WinME has had bad press since it was launched but I have never used it so cannot comment on its imapct on FS, Win98SE worked for me up to FS9.I upgraded my CPU to a XP2500 and only saw a 2 fps increase in my standard demanding test scenario. I finally replaced the graphics card with an MSI GF4 Ti4800SE (8xAGP) and saw a big increase in fps, FS9 is now fluid even with add-on airports, original clouds, add-on aircraft (PMDG737NG) and real weather.I will say that I use FS with 2 PCs so FS Meteo runs on the second PC and the PC running FS has only the bare minimum of programs runnings.If you are prepared to upgrade I would suggest a better graphics card with 128MB of on-board RAM.Your comment about the minimum system specs on the box suggests you are new to FS. If you have had previous versions of FS you will know the laugh about the specs for FS2000 and FS2002.I went to the Birmingham FS show just after FS2000 was released and a number of us asked MS to show us FS running on a box with their minimum specs, needless to say they didn't. So there is little point in quoting the minimum specs. If this was anything other than software I suspect you could report MS under the trades description act because certainly FS2000 would have been a slide show on a minimum spec PC, not a flight simulator.Bottom line, with your system you should be able to get reasonable results but will have to sacrifice some 'eye candy'.Hope you get there.Rgds

That's strange. I currently have an XP1800+ with 512MB of RAM and a GeForce FX 5200 (about the same as a GF3), and I get right at around 25. Granted, not many sliders are set too far to the right, but I never get into single digits unless I'm flying through 3D clouds.I don't think there's anything you can do to push a machine harder than using Flight Simulator. I think that if you want high framerates with right-tilting sliders, you may have to upgrade to a more powerful box.My .02. Jim

Well I have investigated the framerate problems for long enough to feel comfortable saying that there IS a bug in the FS2004 engine code which affects autogen. This is why people get insanely low framerates on approach.Deleting the Autogen.xml, or editing out certain autogen types works for now, but MS NEEDS to fix this. I will NOT accept waiting for Flight Simulator Patch 2006 for this to be fixed since it's a fundamental flaw in the graphics engine.So, why doesn't everyone experience these problems? Because it depends on HOW you fly. Since the problem is related to RELEASING autogen objects that have already previously been displayed, you will only experience this when looking back towards the area you just flew over. This is also why many experience this during approaches where there is a lot of turning and circling being done. You also need to have Autogen enabled for this to happen.For example, yesterday, I made two flights. One over Maine, I was constently getting 25 FPS (locked).The next flight was over Oshkosh. The flight started at a nice 25 FPS over Oshkosh. Flew east for about an hour, then I turned south. Now, as I looked out my right window (west), framerate dropped to about 8. As I looked forward or left, framerate snapped right back to 25. Forcing the sim to reload autogen (by turning it to None, then back to extremely dense) solves this but involves pausing the sim, going into the menu, wait for it to reload, then repeat once again.Again, this is a serious bug in FS2004. Deleting the autogen.xml file works, but it makes the autogen more dull.When this bug doesn't show, such as when taking care not to fly in a way that the sim can't release autogen scenery, or by deleting the default.xml file, the framerate is great.

My system:Athlon AMD 1900XPEpox-8KTA3L+512 SDRAMGeForce3 TI200Detonator Driver 40.72DirectX9.1b on WinME+FSMeteoFirst thing, i am not slamming you, i totally agree with the one thing you mentioned, Microsoft states that this sim "WORKS" on systems above 450mhz.Lets define "WORKS"You installed it, you flew in it...therefore it "WORKS"Not works well, not works great but it does work.You stated that with the sliders below half, you get the stutters and the slow down in FPS on approach.Cause..Windows ME and your 512mb RAM, and your GF3 Ti200, and your 40.72 drivers.Before you go and sell your FS9, try these things first.Keep your sliders where they are.Get the 30.82 drivers for your cardGet RIVA TUNER for your cardGet the name brand of your RAM, if you cant find it, get rid of the RAM!! It may be just crappy RAM.GET Enditall, and close down all non vital programs while flying FS9Get SPYBOT, and get rid of the spyware on your computerGet Rid of FSMeteo, do a search on this forum keyword FSMeteo, you will find that THIS program is a STTTUUUTTTERING magnet, as are all the weather maker add-ons including the generic FS9!!Make sure your Flightsim resolution is the same as your desktop, or vise versaAll of the above are free fixes(if they work that is)Windows ME is outdated and is a bad program, think about upgradeing to XP in Canada the XP Home upgrade is $124.99, the upgrade works just as well as the full version. This will greatly improve your flightsim, both FS9 and FS2k2 and FS98Graphics Card, GF4Ti4800 128mb 8AGP in canada $160, Ram Crucial 512mb(dont know your speed though so i will go with the lowest)75 bucks, max is around 125 bucksOut of all the above $ fixes the one that will give you the best bang for your buck would be the XP upgrade!. Because no matter what other purchases you make, Windows ME will always be your bottleneck!MicroSoft has some issues to fix or address in FS9. Yes.But with the tweaks that you have mentioned and that i have tried, this sim beats FS2k2 by a long shot!!You mention you "installed" the less intensive autogen?? Did you try this fix autogen folder in FS9 rename the default.xml to something like default.xml.bakin the FS9 config this line under the graphics headerTERRAIN_USE_VECTOR_OBJECTS=0Unless of course you really like to see the powerlines and the McD's on your approach, and from the sounds of your FPS you have lots of time to look at em..LOL..sorry sick humourLet us know how you make out.Cheers

I'll agree that this certainly looks as though there is a problem (I haven't verified that I see this behavior, but I will), but remember that the only way you can verify that something is a bug is to examine the behavior along with the source code to see what's going on.Jim

It was either a CPU upgrade; or>transponder/altitude encoder, prop governor & vacuum pump>system for the "biggie" airplane. And the airplane won out..>:)So how long before your ready to take the maiden flight?

The 3.2 is kind of pricey. I paid almost $700 for mine. Crazy? Well, I just finished writing a book and used my advance money to upgrade my computer. It was worth it to me.My recommendation? Buy a 3.0GHz if you don't want to spend a lot of money on the 3.2. The i875P and current socket-478 will likely be used for the foreseeable future, so all you'll need to do to upgrade is buy a new processor.If you do have to upgrade the motherboard, it shouldn't be an issue if you get a good case that allows you to do it easily. I got a Coolermaster TAC-T01 Wavemaster for my new computer, and upgrading the motherboard should be simple if I have to do it down the road. I don't anticipate having to for quite some time.Jim

I had WinMe on my system since it was released. I was never able to render Flight Simulator free of stuttering (FS2000, FS2002 and FS2004) during the entire period. This despite several significant hardware upgrades. At the end I was running a P4 2.0 with 1024 Mb Ram and and an ATI Radeon 9600Pro.Over the Labor Day weekend I decided that enough was enough. I ditched Win Me and went for a clean install of Win XP Pro. The difference after the change was dramatic. Frame rates in the mid 20's at altitude and of long duration, no stutters even at demanding spots such as any of Simflyers airports.In my opinion the problem is NOT FS2004 or your hardware, it is the operating system. Win Me has had a poor reputation, and my experience is entirely consistent with that. Win XP is based on Windows NT. It is much more stable. My opinion. Take it for what it is worth.Michael VerlinHistoric Jetliners Group

yea, im not gonna get involved with this thread except to make this point..we shouldn't have to rename delete whatever for the autogen problem. this should have worked from the begining.