I have been simming since the first sim and the arrival of a new simulator was always a joy. Not with FS2004!I spent more time trying to fix this game than flying. I read everything related to FS9 on different forums and I tried a lot of suggestions to improve the game.I changed my video card... small improvement. FS9 has a problem, not my computer.I tried going back to FS2002 but my passion is dead. I'm not the only one in this case. MS, to make $$$, issued a rotten product and nobody at MS has the courage to say something about it.Very sad...

<<<>>>Sorry you're disappointed, and I share your frustration, but I'm also sorry you join the "let's bash MS and accuse them of making money" camp. Flawed or not, a sim of the complexity and sophistication of FS2004 for less than a hundred bucks (much less in most areas) is probably the best gaming value known to man. Heck, try renting a real simulator! No, I too have gone through this tweaking nightmare too, to little avail unless I upgrade my two year old system dramatically, and that makes me unhappy; but stick with FS2002 for a while until computers that can run FS2004 are two-a-penny. It'll only be a few months, probably!Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

Of course, it depends on your expextations about the simulated experience. In my case, I've disabled the autogen XML file, the VectorLines in the cfg file, using only one notch below NORMAL for both scenery density and autogen, along with first notch cloud density at 100%. With this, I make very good and fluid flights down to the runway, with enough to look outside for the visual experience.For what it's worth, you may consider looking at this guide:http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?DLID=...&CatID=msfs2004Hope this helps!

Aside from the well known Auto-gen problem MSFS2004 is a pretty clean product considering it's size and complexity. When I first loaded it up I too was very disappointed with it's performance but by doing some testing to see what works on my system and by applying some of the corrections and tweaks found on this and other forums I've been able to tune it for butter smooth performance locked at 28 FPS.Bottom line is, you've just got to work with it a little just as I'm sure you did with 2002 and every other release to come down the pike. If you have any ambition left (and clearly you do or you wouldn't have bothered to post) you might try my tuning guide over at:http://www.digital-flight.com. It's a compilation of things I've found around the forums that have worked for me plus a few optimizations of my own.Athon 2200+256 MB RAMGeForce Ti 4200 64TonyDigital-Flight

There is no question that FS 2004 was a step forward in some things, and a step backwards in others. But on the world's hardware and software side, things continue to move at a lightning fast pace. And I believe with this sim, MS built into that future as best that they could. And I do not fault them for that.FS 2004 does not run very well on my machine. But would I give up the ship right now? Not on your life!!!The immediate future holds... PC based 64 bit processing, massive photo-real scenery delivered by DVD, 5-7 ghz. machines, mind-bending video cards, display based 3-D (without glasses) and/or other multi- monitor and/or panaramic effects, multiple PC or processor usage, and etc.Further, it is obvious that the rest of the real-world aviation business community has discovered that this "game", is destined to be much more than what it is now. Just look at vender endorsements, real world equipment duplications in software for FS 2004, new "true-to-life" hardware offerings and FS based cockpit equipment, dramatic display improvements and inventions, etc.And I've always predicted, a cheap generic (raw-unfinished) stepper-motor and gear based tilt platform will evolve shortly that will eventually allow MSFS to replace multi-million dollar simulators in many, if not most, cases. And, it will even be affordable for home builders and enthusiasts. (Oh to be 25 years younger - I know what I'd do.) You've rode the ride up... hang in there for the big rewards.They are just not that far off. 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

Hey, neat site, Tony ... new to me. Which all goes to show that even if this IS the 4,235th "Boo Hoo! I hate FS2004" thread, no thread is ever wasted ...Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

*MS, to make $$$, issued a rotten product and nobody at MS has the courage to say something about it*Bye, bye then. At least we will have one less MS basher.David

Hi,Quite a change since August where you posted:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=search"My system is a Pentium 4,1.5 and and "old" GeForce 2 and FS2004 is running very smoothly, in fact more smoothly than FS2002.Of course I get only 12 to 18 fps but the main thing is that it's smooooooth!No stutters... just a nice ride!!! I will upgrade my card one day but for now I'm an happy simmer."So here is my suggestion.Delete everything you have done from August 14th when you posted the words above, and you should be happy. :-)I have a measley AThlon at 1.2ghz, 512mb Ram, but I did replace my old GeForce2 for a FX5600. The sim runs great for me. So what vid card did you change to?What are your total system specs?And what exactly needs to be fixed in your opinion?What other programs are running when MSFS9 is running?What OS are you using?Biggest of all, quit trying to find a magic tweak to fix what aint broke.It seemed to meet your expectations back in August, so put your computer back to Your august specs.I disagree with it being FS9 having the problem, and I think it may be your computer, unless of course the post you made back on August 14th is not true. ;-)So you can either run away or stick around and we will try to help.Your choice.Regards,Joehttp://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

You should never loose your passion for FLYING! Here is the dividing line. MS has been putting out great FS packages for years and will continue to do so. Each one getting better. It is the FLYING the way you want to vs. the TECHNOLOGY aspects that drive us all nuts at some point in time.I am still using FS2002 and will continue for a while yet. Why? Because I like to add options and aircraft that I like to fly making it "non standard". To create a non standard platform takes weeks and sometimes months before it all works the way you want it. I got mine stable about a year ago and I have techno "duct tape" around it so that when I want to FLY, I sit down and FLY, not play the slider, settings, video board, games again.MS knows that when they enhance a package that it is going to consume hardware resources. We know that also. You cannot have newer features without some kind of sacrifice or additional expense. Nature of the beast. Back to FLYING, you take an experienced commercial airline pilot that FLIES all day long. When he gets home he still takes out his old C172 from the shed and enjoys it. He fixes it, tunes it, babies it, etc. Same way I feel about 2002. It works, it's fun, it is stable, I know all my aircraft, my flight plans are all perfect, I can get in and enjoy FLYING vs the TECHNOLOGY.I will get to 2004! I want to. Thanks to Microsoft for all the great experiences I have had in simulation. I know it will take time and money to get it the way I like it but I know when I get there I can continue the enjoyment of FLYING!

I hear you.I was one of the first to find out about the autogen problem, but I still don't know what to do about it. Hmm...let's see...-I can delete the default.xml file alltogether and edit out the vector objects too - Bye bye 2004, hello FS2002.-I can assign a button to 'refresh scenery' - picture this: you're owning a car that requires you to stop every 5 km, shut down the engine, open and close the glove compartment, then start the engine again. It doesn't matter if you're alone on a quiet road or in heavy traffic on the autobahn, you still have to do this every 5 km.-I can edit out objects from the xml file - with most objects deleted, framerate drops to about 15...but when deleting the file alltogether, it doesn't go below 30...Are those red barns really worth 15 FPS?None of those solutions permanently FIX the problem. Until a fix is out, from Microsoft or from third party developers, FS2004 stays off my harddrive.It's not about flying anymore. It's about tweaking and fixing things and I get enough ot that at work.I actually bought X-Plane 7 recently, but to be honest, it's also full of bugs. Too much tweaking and too little flying there too.So, now I've picked up roleplayng games (RPG). Really recommended.I also resumed music production (did some, several years ago, but I gave up on it). What else? I read a lot more now. All sorts of books. Oh, and listen to more music. And walk the dog...There's a whole world of things to do outside your computer rooms, people ;)

I'm really feeling out of the loop now, because I still don't see the so-called "auto-gen" problem................. ;( And I've flown back across scenery areas many times in the last few months.......Oh............. I havn't really "tweaked" X-Plane V7.10 either & it performs as I expected, since I've used the demo's for years, before buying this edition.Guess my two year old CPU really is that good, 'cause I don't expect to upgrade any time soon..edit........But.... I don't spend "all" that much time sim flying anyway, since this is the topic of discussion. It's just good for relaxation, but these forums are even better for that purpose.L.Adamson --- Athlon1900XP/Geforce3Ti500/512DDRram

My system isnt that hot as well the 133mhz SDRAM lets me down big time so my 1.6GHZ pent4 dosnt do all that much...What I have found to my surprise is that the settings FS9 sets when you first start the game work very well (i dont tweak anymore)All I have done is set the res to 1024x768x32b and got rid of that default.xml.And its hanging around 19-20fps locked at 20fps. running downloaded weather updated every 15mins.I would like more detail but I know its a waste of time my system cant handle it.. :)

If I were you I would give it some time. MS is coming out with Dx 9.1 shortly(very very,shortly)And if you have an Nvidia card then wait for a few days they are supposedly going to release a driver that knocks the socks of ATI's products(we'll see) But these two things in combination are hopefully going to improve fs9 performance by alot.See MS builds these on an ultra powerful mainframe but must of us don't have that kind of power so it takes awhile for software and hardware to play catch-up. My only issues are a weird new stutter and the infamous autogen problem.But like I said give it time. Go play your rpg's (I like Rainbow Six, personaly) give your self a break then check back in a few weeks.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/44484.gif

It would seem only a few are dissatisfied with FS2004. I began on a 700MHz TNT3 system Win98 and just built a 3.2Ghz FX5900 Ultra system. It ran fine on the 700 with some adjustments (full autogen) and rocks on the 3.2 with any settings I choose. No flickers, no menu problems. I have stated previously that I believe the flight engine is identical (with some .mdl, .air and .cfg mods) to the FS2002 engine.Microsoft would be crazy to build a sim based on the "average" PC setup today (what, maybe a 1.6Ghz average?). They added lots of eye candy for those who will upgrade in the next 2 years, yet left FS2002 performance there with no degradation for those with older systems. They could leave out the autogen completely, dumb down the panels, dump the railroad tracks and achieve great framerates for the average user. But the sim would then not be an upgrade of FS2002, would it?We have gotten to the point where machine (assembler) coding is far too time consuming and difficult to implement in a $50 game. C++ or such compilers are good, but there is a lot of overhead that can't be eliminated. You can simplify (reduce the features) or you can build it and put in sliders to adjust for individual systems. Microsoft would be nuts not to push the current envelope. Sorry if that leaves some out. What are the alternatives?MDavis

Sounds like another FPS fan! I love Raven Shield too! often on Tribe Independance (VET or ELITE). :-)