FS9 is great, if you have the machine to run it. I can totally understand why you wouldn't get any enjoyment out of it with your system. Honestly, Microsoft should really revise the minimum specs for the game. Put fs9 on the shelf, and eventually when you get a new machine, reload it and give it another try. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

FS9 runs way better than FS2k2 with much more eye candy. You just need to upgrade all the components in your rig. Once that's down, you won't have any blurries, shimmers or framerate problems.

I'd even argue that a rig upgrade isn't even needed.... I can manage 20fps in FS9 with the same rig in most areas (except I only have 384 megs of RAM). Textures stay sharp and realistic (my 4200 has 128 megs of ram if that makes any difference).I do keep FS2002 for some old FSDS 1.x add-ons.Posts like Outer Marker's always leave me wondering.... For one, I doubt 20 fps in FS2002 is really happening with "all sliders right" on a P3/800.... Show me proof of that--LAX with an average bit of AI traffic at the gates and in the air.... 20fps is possible in a generic airport like Sky Harbor--I actually hover between 25-30 in FS2002.With AI traffic, I manage 12 or so fps with AI traffic and the airport terminals/gates in view. Only without it will my fps bounce between 18-20 at LAX. Less congested areas, AI has less impact on performance and I'm more likely to enjoy 20fps.In COF--I get exactly the same performance as long as I match up the sliders so my scenery detail is approx. the same vs. FS2002. You cannot max all sliders in both sims and expect the same performance (although applying the Autogen and cloud tweaks, performance comes pretty close).I'm content with COF.... Same type of system, different story--maybe because I've listened to and learned from those who've dug into the sim and have given us a clear path for setting it up for best performance...

The reason you are getting "crappy brown scenery" is that the options have changed from FS2002. I had the exact same experience until someonegave me the correct settings for a Ti4200:extended terrain textures: onmipmapping: 4anisotropic filtering: 4 (this one turns the "crappy brown" into detail)As for drivers, you have two choices:30.82 with Rivatuner to set AF52.16, no Rivatuner required..You said you had tried various settings, but this did it for me,and FS2002 is now deleted off my system.

Sorry- I can't agree with you.FS9 runs fine on my PC(AMD XP2000/512MB DDRAM/Ti4200-128MB/WinXP) but,and perhaps more importantly,when it first arrived(FS9 that is),just for fun ,I loaded it into an old PC I keep for my grandaughters to play games on and it worked just fine on there.OK - the frame rates were down(but not unacceptable) but the graphics were still good.The aircraft flew (and taxied- even at speed) properly.What was this old PC? A 700Mhz AMD CPU,256MB SDRAM,ATI Radeon 9000/128MB Graphics card and a very ancient 2 button joystick.Not exactly the speediest combination.To be perfectly fair the settings were left at default levels but it was still quite acceptable and certainly better than the FS2k2 copy on the same machine.I think that the graphics card was probably mostly responsable for the satisfactory performance but the point I am making is that this was a 4 year old PC with an absolutely bog standard copy of WinME,basic chipset drivers,probably quite out-of-date GPU drivers/sound drivers, and it did a quite reasonable job.All the above said- there is no doubt that your FS9 experience will improve greatly if you upgrade the system before making to many more judgements.However- a brief perusal of the hundreds(thousands?) of posts on here dealing with performance issues with FS9 will show that even a few those with the latest,fastest,biggest etc etc etc can still have problems ,while many running quite modest systems are getting good results.My conclusion( been said before by myself and others) is that a very large proportion( but not all ) of the problems with FS9 are down to the user and ,most likely ,the desire to push things beyond the capabilities of the PC in question. Dave

First off, I deleted FS2002 long ago. I love CoF. I have found the right mix of settings make the sim "tolerable" for me. I generaly post positive and respectful comments on this forum and try not to complain as it's not in my nature to complain that much :-) The following comments aren't meant to be a complaint, just me kind of scratching my head :-){scratching head}Now, what troubles me, is that there are "crappy brown textures" at all. I realize MS built the sim for future hardware technology that they are privy to knowing is on the horizon, but it really blows me away that I need to look those brown textures until I can afford to upgrade my video card. I already have an FX 5200, but 4X AF brings it to it's knees. I don't know, it seems to me that looking out the windows of your aircraft and seeing acceptable ground textures is just an elememtal part of the sim. I didn't spent $50 on an IFR trainer, I spent $50 on a VFR sim.{/scratching head}

I imagine this post is going to be quite unpopular, but I must insist on being honest. These are my honest findings with regard to FS9. First off, my system is not the greatest... It is a lowly PIII 800MHz with 640MB RAM, and a GeForce4 TI 4200. However this system is enought to run FS2002 at 20FPS locked (and gets it all the time) with all sliders maxed. This was my basis for comparison.It took 14 minutes to install FS9. That should give you some idea of the "substance" of this application. FS2002 takes just 8 minutes. Wanting to try everything, I started with the multimedia. This part is fantastic. It was very engaging to read about the historic aircraft and to watch the movies.Moving on, the disappointment starts. The ground textures in FS9 are blurry and like to shimmer as if it were a hot day. If you reduce Mip-Mapping, you get a blocky mess of crap. If you add weather, you get nice clouds and great eye candy, but no frame rates. If you reduce the sound to medium, you get worse sound than FS2002 on low!Yes, I tried 3 nVidia drivers, yes, I read all the posts about performance tweaks. I tried them all, and to be honest, some helped... others were a waste of time. So I whacked FS9 on my work PC... same specs, but 2.8GHz processor. Guess what? Better frame rates, but same crappy graphics.In no way can you convince me that FS9 uses 31m resolution meshes. Add-ons help immensely but whacked the frame rates.All in all, the only thing I liked was the smarter ATC. To be honest though, I prefer the on-line controllers. They are so much better!So I submit to you this... unless you have a real need to upgrade to FS9, FS2002 is more than adequate. In fact you will have a whole lot less trouble getting the eye candy you want and the performance you desire using FS2002.My only regret is that I spent $50 for the priviledge. I'm not pointing fingers here... I think FS9 has some great Discovery Channel type content. Beyond that, the simulation environment is VISUALLY less realistic than FS2002. The planes are all more unstable than they were in FS2002 which is just silly. You can't steer anything above 40 knots without it windvaning all over the runway.If you want a better ATC sim, upgrade. If you want a better visual model, stay with FS2002.Your results may vary, but do not make the same mistake as I did. I thought I would be the exception... the one person who could make it work... the one who would not have any shimmer problems, the one who would experience full compatibility. It was not to be. The problem posts in this and other forums are all founded. There really is a lot to be fixed for FS2006. Until then my fellow simmers, I shall remain in the FS2002 skies.Perhaps your results are different. More power to you if they are.-- Outer Marker.

Got to agree with John. I ran 2002 on a P3 800, and I find 20 fps with all the sliders right a little hard to believe. My brother is now using my old 800 with an ATI 9200. FS9 is doing a pretty consistent 16 to 20, slows down at some airports etc, but still quite flyable. His sliders are down some from my P4 2.5, but when I look at his, I'm hard pressed to see a visual difference. There have been many posts on running it on "slower" machines, the best (imho) being by John.

I knew my post would be unpopular. I'm really bummed it didn't work for me... I'm even more bummed that you guys have to search so hard to find "tolerable" settings. Why should you have to? I did try it on a P4 2.8GHz as you all read in my post... that made no difference. Frame rates were up a bit, but graphics were still not pleasing. I can't use 52.16 drivers longterm becuase they freeze up Enemy Territory and Castle Wolfenstein, although I did try them.The water is inconsistent... really good in some places, and really bad in others! At least FS2002 was consistent. Also, somebody please convince me that default Dulles airport in FS9 is better than default FS2002!!! The bloody terminal is missing!I'm really not complaining. In fact, I'll get off my soap box. I'll just post some screenies (unedited from FS2002).Want to see some graphics done right? Get CFS3!!! Get Medal of Honor, even Call of Duty! All have a superior rendering engine.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/49428.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/49429.jpg

Bert just had a look at my Ti4200 settings and turned on the anisotropic and set it at 4 as you suggest(other settings were already as you suggested).I can't say that it make any really noticeable change in what I'm seeing( not that I'm disatisfied anyway ) but the question I have is -- What exactly does this setting do? Can anyone explain this in reasonably simple terms please.Dave

I really didn't think it would Dave... unless you have latest GeForce FX series of cards, or one that supports DirectX 9 API calls to the mip-map. That slider is of no use to us!The way you change the mip-map level in FS9 is to set your graphics card to generic Windows 2k/XP on nVidia. Then you can use it!Many people don't realize that the hardware sliders really don't do much of anything unless you have a directX 9 card.

This is simply incorrect. These sliders work just fine, even with a two year old (non-DX9) Ti4200 card.. and no fancy changes in the FS9.cfg file.

Dave, put yourself above a large urban area such as Chicago, say at 4000 feet. Turn off the cockpit (with W) and look at scenery as it gradually blurs into the distance. On my system there is a big difference between no AF, where the scenery has little detail, even up close and blurs at medium distances, and 4xAF where I get very good detail nearby and a natural looking gradual blurring as I look into the far distance.Someone once posted side by side screen shots which showed the effect clearly.. but hopefully even these attached shots with descreased size due to forum limitations get the point across. Suggest you do your own test at home at the resolution you normally fly at (1280x960 in my case).One shot take with 4XAF, the other with no AF.

Thanks BertOnce you point out the difference it's pretty obvious.I put your shots up side by side - big difference -most noticeable in the middle distance, then tried on my own setup- just as big a difference.Thanks againDave