>For once I have to agree completely with Jwenting. (never>thought I would see myself type that....) :-)>If he weren't such an aggressive and downright rude individual more people would read what he has to offer rather than 'ticking and flicking' his contibutions.

I have seen the issue with menus, and it is not a Flight Simulator issue. It is purely an issue with drivers. If I disable AA, the problem goes away. Menu systems are implemented using standard Windows APIs. Making them appear and disappear isn't coded manually by the developers of Flight Simulator. This is not a bug in FS.This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. We saw this same type of thing when FS8 released. Jim

I must say... these types of threads are becoming more than a bit taxing. Folks come into the forums obviously frustrated, but postings like this are pretty much useless. Not much more than a rant session.Before we can decide what, if anything, is broke in this software package we must first develop a viable and easy to reproduce benchmark. And that is not easy with MSFS. There are so many variables (in all these postings about low frames and stutters, I have seen only a couple folks post all their hardware and in sim settings... and one setting I never see mentioned is AI. That alone will bring even the best system currently available to its knees).All these posts are accomplishing nothing useful to those having troubles running FS9. We must first benchmark, and then we can troubleshoot. Until then, it's all useless. And I, like others who are having few problems with FS9, would very much like to see all of my FS friends flying more and frustrated less.

Actually I think that MS is always about a year BEHIND the hardware/graphics technologies. Just look and compare the 3D/lighting effects in FS9 and the technologies used in, say, Unreal Tournament 2003 or the upcoming Half Life 2. Certainly, MS is behind in the graphical technology. I don't think FS9 takes full advantage of the current hardware, nor the previous. Think about this: when was the last time MS developed a new 3-D engine for FS? I'm not talking about the weather engine. I think FS2000 was the last major upgrade.Anyhow, I have not used FS9 on my older P4 2.4Ghz/533Mhz system, nor on my older P4 2Ghz/400Mhz system. I am satisfied with the performance of FS9, but some of the problems that I see are Nvidia driver issues.The ONLY patch that MS should consider is for the possible memory leak if this is true, missing bridges, incomplete or flashing building textures (see NYC area) that distract from the visual quality, and any serious FDE faults. Other than that, no such patch will be released for FS9. Cheers!David

>> I have seen the issue with menus, and it is not a Flight Simulator issue. It is purely an issue with drivers. If I disable AA, the problem goes away. Excuse me? What the heck does failure to properly manage position in a pull down list have to do with AA modes? (not that they are running). This pathetic crap exists in straight VGA 640x480 with NO video driver apart from default VGA.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36866.jpgWhy you want to stick up for this kind of slop is beyond me. This has NOTHING to do with the flickering problems with menu text with various high end cards. This is a pure and simple BUG that you would expect to find in something done by someone in the programming 101 class.

If FS had the same graphic effects as HL2, you would see frame rates in the single digits (low single digits) on almost all computers out there, if not all of them. There's quite a bit more processing going on with a flight simulator than there is in a first person shooter. There's no way that you can possibly have the same kind of graphics engine that you have in a first-person shooter.Jim

Relax there, Ray. I write software for a living and I know how menu systems work. I am speaking from experience here. The reason this happens is a GDI issue, not a menuing issue. It happens when the menus are being drawn in the 3D window. The menu windows (which is what a menu really is) are not rendered using the same renderer that the main window is using. The graphics driver is simply not redrawing the main window. Plain and simple. Jim

I agree with you, and for more the reason, MS needs to code FS to take full advantage of the hardware. I am not saying that FS needs more polygons than UT2003 or HL2.I believe MS is still behind the 3D curve. If the FS code took full advantage of pixel/text shaders and DX8/DX9 hardware support, perhaps the performance would be similar to FS2002 or better. Just conjecture here. Personally, FS9 runs fine on my highend system, but I believe the performance situation could have been better. I'd wait 3 years if MS needed the extra time to further code and optimize the 3D engines.Cheers!David

The promise on the box that it would work on systems above 450MHz is ridiculous. I think FS will always run best with more computer than is currently available, no matter what version. With each new upgrade I was thrilled at the performance boost but soon again I up the settings, add more addons and again I'm not satisfied. FS2002 didn't work as good as I would have liked either. I have done complete system upgrades several times and yes I am wondering when is it time to do it again. Many of my old systems are still running FS and they run and look terrible. I don't know how anyone could enjoy running FS on any of my old equipment, a 800, 1.3, and 1700. I guess I'm spoiled. :-)I have been quite happy with FS2004 on my current system. Basicaly running everything default but now as I add some more addons I am forced to slider it down some more to get it to run acceptible.My AthlonXP 2700+, 9700 pro, and 1gig of ram just isn't enough anymore. I don't know when they will ever have the hardware to run this sim and it's addons perfectly ??Still have to say I love FS2004 !!SteveCYYZ

I have only purchased fs9 this week.I have a geriatric 9 month old P4 1.7, XPhome, 512MB and a GF5200.After reading these threads I was not hopeful - the video card was supposed to be the worst for video drivers, performance, etc.Bought it , loaded it, loved it.Ok I'm using GA cessna, beechcraft, mooney, and haven't tried internet weather.fs9 defaulted to Seattle in a cessna. At default settings the fps was locked around 20 and that's what I got taxiing around and doing a circuit.The sky, clouds looked great; however the cockpit looked blurry and not very good - with more nervousness I started changing settings - Settings/Display/Aircraft - at this stage I have top settings for the Aircraft including Massive Textures setting on my 128MB card and I am getting about 17-18fps at Meigs - this is getting to be very nice!.I haven't started to change scenery settings (default mesh 50per cent ) but I guess Ill try that soon.Worst aspect - NVidea drivers causing the need to ALT/ENTER when needing to see Kneeboard, change aircraft dialog etc - but I cant't blame MS for that knowing how many variations of drivers are out there and nVidia claiming they will come to the party.Should you get fs9? Considering the well documented problems( I'm not trying to criticize the people who have troubles even with their top of the range computer which I'm sure must be very frustrating -and I sure hope ms comes to the party if ther are any Autogen/memory problems etc); but I would say give it a try there is a lot to like about it.ps not connected with ms in any way.

No debate there Jim, I know whats wrong, it just really annoys me that slop that bad got through a beta test the size Microsoft runs.Perhaps I'm just a little ticked off as I have to schedule installations of another Microsoft security patch because they didn't get that one right either on 20 odd thousand machines.If the UI does not signal the GDI to do a redraw, it's hardly the GDI's fault now is it? You might want to note that this cheasie little bug also exists in software rendered 2D windowed mode. It is not a 3D issue.

>Macman, >>It is very possible that you are experiencing stuttering due>to your RAID 0 configuration. RAID 0 will give you increased>performance when dealing with extremely large files (such as>multi-gig video files), but you will experience a performance>DECREASE when dealing with loading files along the lines of>what you load in FS.>>Jim>Exactly what i thought, so that's why I tried installing FS9 onto an ATA drive. But my XP OS was still on the RAID drive. So what i could try is remove the RAID config and try installing XP on the fast Barracuda...>P.S. After more carefully reading your post, I see that you>already thought of that and still have the problem. :)>>Was it here that I read somewhere that stuttering can be>caused by the AGP aperature size in the BIOS? I can't>remember.>That one I remebered from earlier versions of FS, but nope it did not make a difference...Fred

"It works as advertised, we wanted, no we demanded scenery...Microsoft told us it would cause FPS to drop, we demanded scenery Microsoft said FPS would suffer, we DEMANDED SCENERY, microsoft delivered!!!!!!!!!!!FPS have suffered."The SCENERY isn't causing the FPS to suffer. The FPS suffers because of a BUG with regards to HOW the new scenery is handled. The slowdowns are caused by INVISIBLE scenery still taking up resources because it's not releaed. Geez how hard is that to understand?It doesn't seem to take up a lot of memory, it seems to be mostly due to CPU overhead. I have never seen FS allocate more than just over 400 MB of memory and there is very little paging to disk.

"I must say... these types of threads are becoming more than a bit taxing. Folks come into the forums obviously frustrated, but postings like this are pretty much useless. Not much more than a rant session."I don't at all agree. Actually I think it's through postings like these that we can make things change.Because of the constant "rant sessions", we finally found a temporary workaround for the autogen bug (the xml file), and if we keep it up maybe MS will actually notice this and release a patch."If the UI does not signal the GDI to do a redraw, it's hardly the GDI's fault now is it? You might want to note that this cheasie little bug also exists in software rendered 2D windowed mode. It is not a 3D issue."The UI shouldn't signal anything. Things like these are entirely transparent to the app (FS) and should be taken care of by the hardware driver. The problem is entirely with ATI's drivers here. AFAIK, FS2004 doesn't even support software rendering anymore, only DX7 HAL and up.FS2004 suffers from several bugs, but it also seems to expose a lot of bugs in the display drivers because of how certain things are done.For the sim to really be enjoyable, MS needs to patch it up, but Nvidia and (especially) ATI need to get to work on their drivers as well.

Thanks to all who have posted constructive comments and suggestions. Asalways I find this forum stimulating and, usually, helpful. I am indebtedto all those more expert than I who have helped me over the years. Justimagine where we would be in our flight simming without the great source ofinformation this and other internet sites provide. These posts once againreflect how FS9 users are by and large polarised between those who haveperformance problems and those who do not. To recap: My main complaint hasto do with performance degradation on final approach and landing, in my viewthe critical phases of the flight. Generally, I can live with the occasionalstutter that occurs in other situations. My framerates fluctuate from 9 (onthe ground rwy27 Heathrow) to 12-20 (after take-off) to 4-8 on finalapproach to 1-3 just before touchdown. This latest test is with no add-ons, no antialiasing, afterapplying the default.xml.bak fix and with autogen set to scarce, AI at 70percent and most sliders at about half. I also run Enditall to close downnon-vital programs. As I have said, FS9 is virtually useless to me if I can't land the aircraft without a slideshow. To Chris Willis, Thanks, but I have tried without FSMeteo - no improvement - and using your suggested settings.Volker J, Yes the graphics do look good - except in the critical phases ofthe flight.Dave, Thanks for suggestions about Bios settings but the settings youmention are not available to me.Will, No I don't need a patch but, as you can see there are many simmers who like me think that FS9 does. You went out and bought a new system so that FS9 would perform up to expectations - I didn't. And I don't see why I should have to.Dick, Sensible advice. I just wish I could enjoy my landings.Vulcan, Thank you for your constructive attitude and useful suggestions. I will try going back to the 30.82 drivers and will consider getting a new card. Upgrading to WindowsXP seems daunting because of all the flightsim programs and add-ons I have on my hard drive. All this would be lost with an O/S upgrade woudn't it?JimmiG, Exactly! You noted: "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." That is exactly it, JimmiG, and most times on approach you fly the circuit. Regretably your tweaks (default.xml.bak and terrain_use_vector_objects=0) have only had a minimal effect for me.MDavis, Yes, a good explanation of why it happens. Perhaps WindowsME is leaking memory with repeated loading of autogen.Shooterman, Some very constructive advice, thank you. You said: "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!"OK, Ill try the 30,82s. I am using Enditall, Rivatuner and Spybot. FSMeteo is not the culprit. Will try FS resolution same as desktop. Upgrade to XP bothers me because of losing everything on my hard drive. Or am I wrong?Michael Verlin, Thank you for your opinion. Looks like WindowsME has to go.