Tom tom tom tom .... you had to go and open Pandora's Box. Don't you dare gore my tweak, massage, frame rate simulator!!!! What you actually want a Sim that you can just load up and fly from the get go!Have this man arrested....you must be nutz or off your medications. Listen I really do not want to spend money on something that will work right out of the BOX. What would be the point.If I want to just fly ... I can just load up FS2002 which after upgrading to the latest CPU, memory and video card now averages 40FPS.Now no more of this nonsense I have to go tweak and see if I can get FS9 to average 15 FPS with all the sliders to the right and 3 super cells overhead with 100% AI traffic.Very angry and hurtTony

OK, whatever.Quote:"After deleting the default.xml file, I can max out all sliders and still get reasonable framerates. Without deleting the default.xml file, I get stutters as soon as I enable even Sparse autogen settings."I haven't tried deleting the default.xml file because I don't get stutters even on my 700Mhz box at "Extremely dense" autogen framerates. I would imagine that, yes, deleting any autogen file would disable some autogen demand on the system and give you more framerates. What does that prove? I'm not sure what you mean by "max out all sliders". I don't do that on my 3.2Ghz box because it destroys display quality, especially mipmaps and water textures, 100% AI traffic is way too high to be realistic, and maximum 3D clouds looks like an explosion of marshmallows, not realistic clouds. I would rather think there is a system bottleneck somewhere causing the overload.You mention "normal" autogen and then say that removing "default.xml" doesn't affect normal? I guess "default" isn't "normal"? What is normal and what is default?But, since you've uninstalled FS9 and sent it back for someone else to enjoy, I guess it won't matter. How many others have this problem? And has anyone bothered to send a question to Microsoft and ask, or search the FAQ?My intent in response is not to take anyone to task for what I think may be faulty information, it is to challenge assumptions that may help everyone arrive at a logical solution. If everyone was having stutter problems, then it would be a bug. But not everyone is, perhaps because few fly circles over a complex city area while watching the framerate counter for hours at a time.If you spend a weekend working through all the forum posts, you'll see hundreds of cries about "bugs" that need fixing. Usually, someone comes up with a simple fix, a video driver, a BIOS update, a SpyWare scan, etc. It's a rather fantastic program to have over 23,000 airports, roads, railroads, power lines, rivers, lakes and terrain covering the earth. One can't expect it to be perfect for $50US, but it gets better each edition. Sure, there are things I don't like, but I don't see many "bugs", just some features that need some more attention, like ATC.MDavis

Hi MDavis,It's too bad you werent' around when the situation was setup as you say 'a benchmark' for eveyone who wanted to do the test. You have not done the test, you have not seen the results, you have not seen all the poeple that cheered when the fix was found and stated how it allieviated the problem, and 'you'd rather think there is a system bottleneck somewhere causing the overload'. That is fine, and you may be right. It may not be a bug. But a good number of us, especially from the test resluts, and from my own observations in flying FS2004 and seeing a (mis)behavior that was not present in FS2002 now present in FS2004, are pretty darn certain it is a bug. If I am wrong and it's not a bug, I don't wanna be right. It's a bug. :-lol Sometimes developers don't even know there is a bug until testers point it out to them. THEN they have a look at it. Were there bugs in FS2000 and FS2002? What is so hard about thinking that maybe we have indeed found a bug when you have not partaken in the test and and would rather think there is a system bottleneck somewhere causing the overload?I can understand where you are coming from, but I'm just trying to make you understand where me and JimmiG are coming from too. As for the 'normal autogen', JimmiG is refering to the vector based(.agn files) as opposed to the newer xml based autogen. It was discovered the the performance degredation does not occur if you eliminate the use of ONE of the types of autogen. Either one, take your pick. In other words, the bug is present when using both types of autogen at the same time. The usage of the vector based autogen can be eliminated by changing a parameter in the FS9.cfg file. But since the xml autogen only accounts for about 5% of the autogen overall, why not eliminate it's usage and leave the 'normal(vector based) autogen' in place to alleviate the problem? Many people I have see have come back and said that after renaming the xml file they can now turn up the Autogen slider a lot higher, and the xml file only accounts for about 5% or so of the Autogen. Go figure.Since I don't have the source code and I am not a developer of this program it is indeed possible this is not a bug, but from the behavior I have seen, the testing I participated in, and from my own experience as a beta tester, I believe it is just that, a bug. Just as you seem to think that it may just be nothing more than a bottleneck somewhere. To each his own eh. :)Sincerely,Jim

"I haven't tried deleting the default.xml file because I don't get stutters even on my 700Mhz box at "Extremely dense" autogen framerates"Again, that's because you haven't flown in such a way that autogen scenery is allowed to "accumulate". Either because of WHERE you fly, or HOW. If you fly over a city, then turn back and fly over it again, you WILL get much lower FPS on the second pass over the city. After the third pass, framerate will stabilize at 3/4 to 1/3 of the original framerate depending on such thing as Zoom level, altitude and scenery area. Please do a search on the forums, and try the BENCHMARK that I posted some time ago."I would imagine that, yes, deleting any autogen file would disable some autogen demand on the system and give you more framerates."That is not what is happening, though - The number of objects defined in the autogen.xml file is VERY small compared to the bulk of autogen hardcoded into the sim (or stored elsewhere, I'm not sure).It's not enough to cause any signficant difference in performance. Also, the behaviour is not just increased framerate. The framerate at first is identical, but as you fly, FPS won't degrade over time becaus e the sim is now releasing all autogen objects correctly.What is really happening here is that the sim is not handling objects defined in the autogen.xml file correctly - it does not release them from the tables after they have been displayed until you're about 60 miles away." I'm not sure what you mean by "max out all sliders"What I mean is, set EVERY slider to High, Extremely Dense or whatever the highest setting is, to put maximum strain on the computer. What you usually keep them at is not relevant, this is for troubleshooting." I would rather think there is a system bottleneck somewhere causing the overload.Me too, but unfortunately that's not the case."If everyone was having stutter problems, then it would be a bug. "So far, a high enough percentage has stutter problems. Those who claim they don't, have not tried the benchmark that I posted and they might find they actually do have the problem if they do try it."If you spend a weekend working through all the forum posts, you'll see hundreds of cries about "bugs" that need fixing. Usually, someone comes up with a simple fix, a video driver, a BIOS update, a SpyWare scan, etc."From developing software, and running IT/Tech at an office for work, I know that many errors are caused by such things. I too see a LOT of cries about "bugs" which are actually user-error, outdated drivers or other simple things.However, this particular problem has been reported by so many people, with so wildly different system configs (9x, 2k, XP, ATI, Nvidia, AMD, VIA, Intel, SiS.....) that it does seem very unlikely that it would be something that simple.I went through my computer making sure everything was working, because the first thing I suspected when I encountered this was a software or hardware issue. However, after making sure everything was working as it should, I still have this problem in FS9. ALL other games and apps work great, including FS2002, other sims/games, music apps and diagnostics software. All my drivers and BIOS are up to date and my XP install is just over a month old. There's nothing wrong with my computer or the software on it and it's not a chipset/video specific issue since users of totally different systems have experienced the same thing."You mention "normal" autogen and then say that removing "default.xml" doesn't affect normal? I guess "default" isn't "normal"? What is normal and what is default?"With "Normal" autogen, I mean the old FS2002-style autogen (generic buildings).FS2004 also adds two new types of Autogen:Vector objects (high-voltage power line towers etc.) and additional classes of autogen defined in an xml file (FS9Autogen}Default.xml). The objects defined in the default.xml file include such things as fast-food houses, warehouses, gas stations, barns etc.You can disable the vector objects through a switch in the fs9.cfg file, and you can disable the objects defined in the .xml file simply by deleting the default.xml file, or by commenting out/deleting entries individually in the xml file.After a few weeks of experiments and some input from others on this forum I found that disabling either type of autogen (vector or xml-defined) increased the framerate and stopped autogen from accumulating. I would go through each entry and see if a particular class of the vector objects causes a conflict with a particular class in the default.xml file, but that's just too much work and it's something the developers at MS should do, not me."But, since you've uninstalled FS9 and sent it back for someone else to enjoy, I guess it won't matter"I'm keeping it to see if Microsoft comes out with a patch. If they don't, I'll start making pirated copies of it and sell :-lol J/KJust to prove my point, I shall install FS9 on a work PC (Athlon 950, Matrox G400) and recreate the problem there."It's a rather fantastic program to have over 23,000 airports, roads, railroads, power lines, rivers, lakes and terrain covering the earth."What's more amazing is that MS, despite creating such a huge sim, managed to miss such a major and embarrasing, yet obvious bug that has caused headaches for so many.

OK. Add some RAM. 512 isn't sufficient with sliders maxed. I'll send you some testing I'm doing when I finish the table.MDavis

Why in the world should I add more RAM? No games require more RAM and I can run FS2004 with maxed sliders with NO paging at all (Total memory allocation including background processes - ~400 MB).Don't try to make it sound like I have a problem with my computer or a bottleneck somwhere because that simply is not the case - If I delete the default.xml file, I get EXCELLENT framerates everywhere. It's not because of reduced load or memory usage, it's because the objects that FS handles incorrectly are no longer viewed.I have actually tried removing one 256MB stick for 256MB total and played FS9. The loading times are slightly longer, and I get some untextured squares that last a few seconds when chaning view or panning, but the framerate is the same. Generally good. Sometimes when enabling "extra" autogen (the xml file again), autogen will accumulate and framerates will go down over time. When it doesn't, or when the xml file is deleted, framerate is pretty much the same with 256MB as it is with 512MB, except for slight pauses when it pages data in and out.512MB is enough for just about anything. I also do music production and movie editing on my PC and it works just fine. Another 512MB may speed up loading in FS2004 slightly because of a larger disk cache, but it won't affect overall framerate much. Will see how well HL-2 and Doom3 work but I doubt I'd need more RAM for those even.I would buy another 512MB just to say "I told you so" but it's not worth it. I'd rather wait for MS to release a patch (if they ever do), then say "I told you so".Do something useful and run the benchmark I posted some weeks ago.

"Testing after using any form of slew without a complete restart of the sim simply is not the way to go."Again - I've tried normal flyng too. I just found it quicker to reproduce the problem when using slew.(Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again?)

For one I am glad I am behind in the Graphics techology, because if they where right up to date my 1 Ghz Duron processor and may others would never be able to enjoy FS2004. And can only tank Microsoft that they don't keep up to date and a year behind. I think Microsoft are doing us low end of the market PC's a big faviour.I think if they did keep right up to date then anything less than maybe a 2.5 - 3.00 Ghz processor would be the minium needed to run FS2004.Also flight sims are very hard on computers unlike a lot of other games where they can exploit up to date graphics etc.Anyway the gaming industry cannot keep up with the new graphics cards anyway, and takes quite a bit of time before the games to exploit the latest graphics cards, and by the time they do there's allready another better card out there. Techology is racing miles ahead of the game developers.So think even game developers are many months behind in the latest techology anyway.

Never has there been a version of FS launched to so much hype and apart from one earlier program, never has a version required so many columns in the forums of tweaks and fiddles - accompanied by a crescendo of complaints. My system just couldnt cope unless I dumbed everything down to the extent that it looked plain awful and far less appealing than 2k2, so in the end I changed my system for a high end set up. The new Athlon 3000 and the GeF 5900 are delivering high frame rates with sliders over to the right. But I shouldnt have had to do it, and I was lucky to be able to afford to do so. Yet even with the latest Nvidia drivers and sound back to basic, I cant stop the flickering,shimmering and dancing of airport poles,towers,light posts, you name it. If anyone has a tweak that doesnt require me to dumb down to FS95 standards I would be grateful.

> If anyone has a tweak>that doesnt require me to dumb down to FS95 standards I would>be grateful.Yes, I have a "tweak"......The same "old" Athlon 1900XP/Geforce3Ti500/512DDRram computer I purchased to run FS2002. FPS with FS9 are right along the lines of FS2002 and "nothing" is dumbed down, since graphics in the majority of cases look improved compared to FS2002.As to shimmers, change display settings as mentioned by others. I had a heavy case of them for one day, after making changes. But changed back & havn't seen them since. Un-fortunately, it's been much to long to remember the cure.Until I upgrade............ if I do, graphically intense airports & traffic will naturally slow my systems fps down, but so did FS2002. I'll just have to live with it! :)L.Adamson

"(Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again?)"Possibly because some of us disagree with with your testing methods?Testing in slew mode is an artificial benchmark. I'll test as I fly... and the facts are I don't see the problems you speak of when I'm flying. I'll not argue that there aren't the issues within the code that you mention... I just don't SEE them.Cheers,

Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again?Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again? Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again? Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again? Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again? Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again? Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again? Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again? Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again? Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again? Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again? Why does it feel like I have to type the same thing over and over again?:-lolI DID test in normal flight as well. Click the link called SEARCH on the forums, seach for my post and bencmark. It includes instructions on how to benchmark in SLEW mode AND normal mode. I got the exact same results both times.You do experience the problem, but you haven't flown in such a way as to allow autogen to accumulate. It involves circiling over the same area twice, and to really notice it you need to have a zoom setting of 0.7 or less.

So do we know what the resource cause of this is? From what I've read, it seems as though this should be a memory leak issue. However, I read a post that says that the frame rate drop is caused by CPU spiking. That doesn't make sense to me.I wonder if anyone who can repro this easily has gotten some good troubleshooting information via Perfmon logs and a simultaneous user dump that can be analyzed in a low-level debugger?Jim

Hi I have the same trouble and I use windows xp,with 1024 ram mem1.7 clock.I tried fsuipc 3,07 and still have 1 to 3 frame rate in landing.people we need a path,or don

JimmieG,You're having to repeat yourself because you refuse to see any other perspective on this issue.What I SEE is perfectly normal and fine for me. I don't SEE the problem you are concerned with. I don't fly in Slew mode, nor do I fly after Slewing. I learned years ago that MSFS doesn't handle this sort of thing well. What you are experiencing is nothing new in FS9.You and I clearly fly different configs... I don't like flying at less than 80% zoom because of the fisheye effect I SEE. Certainly flying (or slewing) at lower zoom settings can tax the system (based upon system and sim configs).Finally, I did read your previous thread. I found it curious and informative... but discounted your testing parameters. Because I don't fly that way, and realized early on that we have our systems set-up differently.Just to close this matter... I never did say the bug you reported doesn't exist. It's just that it isn't an issue on my system and the way I fly. I don't SEE it.Regards,