I think I have a fairly fast system for FS2004, as follows:Asus A7N8X Deluxe moboAthlon XP 2500+2x 512MB PC2700 RAM (1 GB total)GeForce 4 Ti 4200 128 MB 4x AGPWindows XPWeather add-on: ActiveSky 2004My problem is not with ground framerates, it's 3D clouds. I am running the supposedly frame-rate-improving FSW "FS2004 fix" clouds, and I'm *still* only getting 5-7 fps in 2D cockpit views when penetrating them, in any plane, whether stock FS2004 or add-on. In spot view outside or in VC view, it drops to 4-6 fps and causes severe sound stutters with ATC traffic.I've tried tweaking the graphic settings thusly:Cloud draw distance: 80 down to 50 miles3D cloud percentage: 100% down to 80%Cloud coverage density: Maximum down to HighEven at the lower settings I'm only gaining about 1 fps. If I switch over to the crappy-looking "simple clouds", I can easily lock my frame rate at 30.0 in most situations. But anytime I have 3D clouds mostly filling the screen, I'm guaranteed to get single-digit framerates.Is there anything I can do to improve my 3D cloud performance, other than dropping the settings so low that there's no point in using them? Is an older 4x AGP GF4 Ti 4200 simply not enough card anymore?Lewis "Moose" GregoryColumbia, South CarolinaDVA 1427/Solent 644

Your card is a little old, but clouds kill everyone's performance. Try turning down the 3d percentage to 30%. It really still looks good, and makes a big improvement. Also try turning down the draw distance to 40. For reference, I have an ATI 9800 pro, and I can't run much above 40-50 miles. Also, do you have antialiasing on? That is a framerate killer with older cards, especially around clouds.

I'm getting far better performance than that, on much less of a system. I've attached a screenshot with a simple deck of clouds, and my specs are at the end--but you'll get the idea.A few things you should look at---First, max your 3-d cloud pctg. I know that's opposite of other advice you've been given, but you've pointed out how lousy the 2-d clouds look. Any savings you'd get in fps are minor--less than 5 pct.-Second, if you are forcing AA, disable that feature and go back to MSFS's default AA. It works fine on my 4200, and it extracts minimal fps penalty.-Lower your draw distance to 30, then work your way up from there. Cloud draw distance can take a good 10-20 pct off of the fps for every ten miles--especially on slower systems.-Do not use real weather or dynamic weather if you want good performance in clouds. The more cloud layers drawn, the poorer performance will be and both features tax the sim with cloud layers. Still, I can have fps like what you see below with two 3000-4000 ft layers of cumulus or stratus as long as I am outside of major cities--which extract a performance penalty of their own with their highly detailed airports.-Most important--install Chris's clouds. They allow you to have thicker decks or more layers with minimal visual loss. Seems like 99 pct. of us use them.Hope this gives you a start. You can have--and you deserve--far better performance in clouds. And don't let anyone knock that 4200--I love mine :)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/69635.jpg

The odd thing is, I *am* using Chris's clouds, if those are the FSW replacement clouds for FS2004! I even switched from the "FPS and Fix" clouds to the "Highest Performance" clouds and got only a tiny improvement (0.5 fps).In the situation like your screenshot above, I could probably lock mine at 30 fps. The 5-7 fps I get is only when I am penetrating a solid overcast, or anytime a solid overcast is filling my screen. Honestly, I may have to look at some settings in ActiveSky 2004, it's possible that AS2004 is building some tremendous number of cloud layers to simulate a thick solid deck. When I cut the cloud layer limit in AS2004 from 5 to 3, pull the draw distance back to 50 miles, and change the coverage from "Maximum" to "High" along with using the "Highest Performance" clouds, I can roughly double my frame rate--from 4 to 8--during a penetration of a solid overcast. So that's a marked improvement, still not great but better. I can *almost* hand-fly at 8 fps. :)I'm not running any AA, either hardware or in FS. My 4200 really won't handle it well. I run 1280x1024 windowed because my desktop is 1280x1024, and I'd rather not resize; and windowed because I fly online with VATSIM a lot and need to keep FS2004 windowed to access other software (Servinfo, HostSB, etc.). Most of my other display settings are at or pretty close to max, I may tweak some of those as well.Thanks for the tips. And if you're getting good frames like that with a P3/800, I salute you! You've definitely got your settings tweaked correctly!Lewis "Moose" GregoryColumbia, South CarolinaDVA 1427/Solent 644

Go Radeon 9600 (cheap now) or 9800 if you can afford it. You video card is really bottle-necking it.

Since you have GF4 ti 4200 you might want to consider bringing down the cloud density to medium. The GF4 ti4200 was never fast card to being with. I had and like you I always had problems with anything the resembled clouds. It did not matter if it was FS or not. The Gf4 is also a directx 8. I would say that yes the GF 4 needs to be retired . Mine is in my closet :). To get a good performing card for FS does not mean you have to get a Radeon 9800 XT and spend $500.00. You can get a nvida geforce FX 5900 for around $250.00. It is not a fast but also the benchmark scores between the Radeon 9800 and GF5900 are not enough for me to want to go and spend another 200 dollars. The radeon 9600 is a good choice but for just a little bit more you can get a GF FX5900. I have a GF 5800 and it is 100% fast card than my old 4200. I do not run my clouds at 100% though . I run main at about 70 with a site distance of 100miles in As2004 . The performance is great for me. My resolution is set to 1152x864 on my 19 inch Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 930SB.AA is 2X and AF is set to 4X . Good luck

Last night I did a few tests.... Even with clouds maxed, I could not get the fps to fall below ten when trying to penetrate a solid overcast--and that's with density and 3-d level set at 100pct. But, I was flying well outside a major metro area (I was over the Sacto-Stockton area). By reducing the thickness of the overcast from 5000 ft. to 2000ft, fps jumped up into the teens in the soup, and higher above or below. I really suggest people don't turn this into a "the 4200 is ready to be retired" topic. It is certainly old and two or three rungs lower than the current state of the art, but it is more than able to keep up. Something else is amiss here for performance that poor. I'll qualify what I've said by also saying that I don't run in windowed mode or at that high a resolution. I keep COF limited to 800x600 because it's visually better on a rather old 15-in monitor. Bumping up to 1280 or higher usually costs me 3-5 fps, but perhaps clouds have a bigger impact and that could be where the 4200 is getting choked. I'll give the higher res a try under the same conditions, and see if I can get my performance to fall.

hi lewisyou mention AS2004..just check in the options to see if you have the box checked that doubles up your overcast layer...it is supposed to make it look more realistic, but hits your FPS quite hard.. just an idea good luck steve

Had the same problem with my nvidia card G4TI4200 but since my new arrived last week Sapphire 9800 Pro 128 mb 8x agp at 4x AA 16x AF it's realy smooth sailing through the clouds even at full cover :-)No drops in FPS anymore yes indeed no drops....Hmm... far better performance as the old geforce...Realy satisfied with this investment...Andr

One thing not mentioned here Craig, have you 'tweaked' XP to disable all those background tasks that are not needed?There may be something in the Tips and Tricks forum and there are a number of sites on the web detailing what you can switch off.You mention flying with VATSIM, that will adversly affect your frame rates as the other planes are drawn and processed.I would also consider reducing colour to 16 bits and trying a reduced resolution just to see if it gives you a worthwhile increase.It's OK all these money bags :-) talking of Radeon 9800's, but have you seen the price :-erks Best of luck.

Yep for 199 eurie :-)Had of course running all the tweaks from the book ;-)Andr

I recently upgraded from a 9600 Pro 256 to the Sapphire 9800 Pro 128 and the increase in performance was quite massive; I love it! The cost was only $210 with shipping from newegg.com , and you can find comparable prices elseware. So if you are looking for a new vid card this is a real bargain. I don't even know what it's limits are yet, I keep throwing more at it and FS9 just stays smooth. Beware of the 9800 SE though as it's junk.David

Make sure you disable "AGP FAST WRITES" in the BIOS.

Why works for me ;-)Andr

Yep; a killer graphics card for a killer price. Everybody should take one home. But then, these forums would dry up. Nothing left to complain about. (big smiley goes here)