I've got FS9 pretty well tuned at this point, and I am happy with the consistent performance using the default aircraft.However, I have purchased a couple payware planes, and they just aren't usable for me because of the very signifigant hit on performance. For example, I had the FSD commander in FS2002, and upgraded to the Gmax version tonight. I used the utility they provide to transfer the plane over to FS9, and took it for a test drive.Basically, my frame rates were down by 30-50%, and landing was very difficult because of the stuttery performance. I have also tried the dreamfleet cardinal (not yet fully FS2004 upgraded) with similiar results.Now, I fully realize that these planes are very detailed and that detail comes with a performance penalty. I don't expect to magically have them perform the same as the default aircraft. But, going from a steady 25fps (around KSEA) to a stuttery 12-18fps just doesn't seem worth it, and it's disappointing. I could always dump a bunch of sliders, but I've already got them set pretty conservatively.So, all that said, my questions are:1) Is there some trick I'm missing to make the performance impact with these planes less severe? Things like decreasing the texture size and gauge detail has no effect for me.2) Are there any payware planes that offer a high-fidelity flight model with perhaps a bit less eye candy. I've got the freeware C172 from RealAir (which is great), but want to have a plane in my stable with a bit more oomph.

Not really, that is the price you pay for having a very complex model desplaying more polygons on the screen, maybe try more Ram. Having said that, I find many of the payware planes fly fine on muy old 1 gig system. The Cheyenne is a bit heavy as well as the Eaglesoft jets, in 2 and 3D view (great fps in spot though). The Seneca is fine also. Now the Porter is a hog and just barely usable on the old system, but a sweet ride on my new high end system.I actually bought the Eagle soft bizjets after installing FS9 and seeing that it performed better than FS2002 ever did. I thought they would be FPS killers, but turned out very nice. Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

Let me say that what you have found Is the reason that turns me right off fs9..........I agree that the default aircraft run ok with frame rates ( but they are so basic I dislike having to use them)I have the Piper Archer Installed and my frame rates drop to around 9-15, and as you have noticed becomes very annoying to use ( stuttering etc) also I have the 747-200 Instlled ( almost Impossible to land)But using these same aircraft In 2002 give no problems at all ( so whats the fix?????) nobody has a solution In add on aircraft and fs9 poor performance / Frame rates Bryan(Pentium 4, 2.4)

[DISPLAY.Device.RADEON 9500 PRO (xxx x.x)]Mode=1280x960x32AntiAlias=0TriLinear=1TextureAGP=0 PanelAsTexture=1<--------------Have you tried enabling the "PanelAsTexture" function within the FS9.cfg?

If you are not after VC cockpits delete them in the aircraft cfg. This can bring an enormous performance boost (up to 50 %!!! more fps) in 2D mode.Wolfgang

This is really strange.. I also have a P4-2.4, but do not experience any problems with payware aircraft in FS9..The Archer, Cardinal, Marchetti all fly just fine with 25 fps locked.I have no idea what is causing your problems, but it is not simply FS9!If you want to try a payware plane with "oomph" and good framerates, I would start with the RealAir Marchetti.. less "oomph" but still good framerates: Dreamfleet Archer. The outside views give me better frame rates than I had in FS2002, and the cockpit views are not noticeably different from FS2002. Do you have an fps problem in both 2d and virtual cockpits?Give us more detail please..Maybe someone else can unlock the underlying issue..My config: P4-2.4, 512 Meg, Ti4200 w 128 Meg, WinXP Pro.

One trick to try....Complex payware panels are often broken down into several "sub windows", although you usually see them as one panel. One screen usually has the main gauges, another light switches, and perhaps another holds a mag compass. Try closing the non-essential screens by "right clicking" them and selecting close. One panel was broken into three screens. By closing two of them, I picked up 8 fps.The PanelAsTexture switch (I was the one who originally suggested it right after FS2004 was launched) doesn't seem to give consistent results, but closing non essential pieces of the panel does.I used to think this was a FS2004 issue--it isn't. If I match my sliders and location so that the scenery detail approximates what I saw in FS2002 (I usually pick a remote airport like Billings, MT), I don't detect any panel hit at all as long as I keep my fps lock at 25 or so. I was able to reproduce the same issue in FS2002...complex panels hitting fps. But FS2002 displays less detail, even at max settings, than some of FS2004's minimal settings. I was comparing apples to oranges at first. When I unlocked my fps slider in FS2002, I found a consistent hit with "multiple window" panels. The number and complexity of gauges didn't matter, just the number of sections or windows the panel was broken into...Last thing to note--any panel which displays the FS2004 gps window is going to chew up performance. The FS2004 gps chews up performance "big time". I've disabled the gauge in most panels, and instead call up the gps via a hotkey. For panels where I at least want to "see" the gps, I've pasted a static bitmap, but I still call it up with a hotkey.Hope this helps a bit....-John

I may have found an answer....The problem seems to be when running these payware planes in windowed mode.Here's a quick break-down of an FPS test, sitting on the tarmac at KSEA (1280x960 for both the desktop and full screen mode). I used FRAPS to measure the average fps over 20 seconds for each test.---------------------WINDOW------FULL SCREEN Default Mooney---------25-----------25FSD Commander----------18-----------23Dreamfleet Cardinal----16-----------21As you can see, the default mooney has consistent fps in both modes, but the commander and cardinal definately take a big hit when run in a window. I also tried some flying situations, an the difference in fps with these add-on planes in windowed mode vs full screen is even more dramatic.Perhaps there is somethign with the complex avionics of these planes that doesn't like windowed mode, or perhaps it is something with my system. Whatever the case, the fps penalty (particularly on the commander) in full screen mode is very slight.I understand the new omega drivers fix the problem with flashing screens on the Radeons in full screen, so I'll be downloading those. Note: I typically run only in VC mode and that's how these tests were conducted.

Hi Jimmy,Keep in mind the Cardinal is not yet patched for MSFS9.I am running a 1.2ghz Athlon, WINXP Pro, 512mb Ram and a GF5600, and have no problems. My Cardinal runs just fine.Also, if you really are interested in improving your frame rates, you need to provide us with more information.For example.WithSystem: P4 2.4/512MB/Radeon 9500 Pro/You should be getting upper 20's at least.You will need to list your settings from your Display, ie textures, resolution, etc.....ALso, I have read elsewhere that MSFS9 performance degrades as you approach or fly at lower altitude levels.MSFS has always been a compromise of slider decreases for increased performance.It has been my experience that If I want eyecandy I have to compromise, but if I am flying inside the aircraft, my compromise is less.I am afraid that until MS release the SDK's, you may be limited as to what is available.You may want to try some MSFS2002 planes, as many work pretty well inside of MSFS9. Heck I am flying around in the MS2000 Porter still inside of MSFS9. I love that 2D Panel.Also, you have not isted whether you run in windowed mode, what OS you are using, and what other programs you are using.I close everything I can when I sim. I lock out my network, close virus, printer, and as many services as necessary. I find with this I get acceptable results, and with my measly system at 1.2, surely there are answers availbale for you.List it all, and we will try and help you out.Regards,Joe http://aboutpolitics.net/images/bannerav.gif.About Politics.net - FORUMShttp://pub207.ezboard.com/bpoliticsgivemel...tyorgivemedeath.Contribute to the Richard Harvey Scholarship Fund.http://www.avsim.com/pages/scholarship.shtml

Hi, Joe. THanks a lot. See my above post.Just for the sake of completeness, I am on Windows XP, run in VC mode most of the time, and don't really have any other add-ons running. I am actually pretty happy with performance in FS9, and have it pretty well tuned, so I was a bit disappointed in the performance with my add-ons .... however, as you can see, I think I can get pretty good performance simply by running in full screen.

One thing you can do is to turn the VC gauges to low. These paywares are sometimes have pretty good graphics that you can turn the VC down and still be able to read the gauges clearly.

The Carenado Centurion is a great GA aircraft in all respects, pretty much the only things I fly anymore. While the "high res" version is actually pretty FPS friendly, Carenado is nice enough to include a lower textured version for people with slower systems.Great plane, you can't go wrong with it.Best,Joel

Must be something related to your system. I have the Commander and Archer and get the same performance with them that I get with the default aircraft.Richard