An honest comparison all.I have both FS9 and FS2002 on my system which isAthlon 3.0512DDR RamNvidia Ge Force TI200 128mbAnd without doubt, FS2002 beats fs9 hands down. I find that theframe rates in FS9 are lower at the same airports and also thatthe graphics do not compare to fs2002 at the same airports. What have others found please and what, if anything can be doneabout improving FS9??YoursJohn

I ran FS9 & FS2002 for different reasons for a long time. When my hard drive died................. I didn't re-install FS2002, and never will. My frame-rates are actually higher in FS9, and although some graphic areas seemed superior with FS2002, I found much more overall superiority in FS9.L.AdamsonAthlon 1900XP & P4 2.8

Hi, I found overall fs2004 is superior in many area, such as the weather/clouds, snow, rain, lightning, sky and environment, the water effect, there is less blur in fs2004 then fs2002 which is a *major* improvement in fs2004, ATC and AI traffic is superior then fs2002, clickable vc, the frame rate are superior in fs2004 then fs2002 unless the autogen can drop sometime on some area because of the fast food added, but can be disabled.The blur terrain, weather/environment, ATC have been a problems in fs2002.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

To rate fs2002 against fs9 based on frame rates is illogical. With that approach I can conclude that fs5.1 is far better than fs9 or fs2002. As far as graphics goes, I suspect some form of settings in work here, I see only excellant graphics with both.As a sim enthusiast and a lover of flying, all I can say is that I never removed fs2002 from my machine since fs9 came out. I've never committed myself to only use fs9. However, I've also never used fs2002 since I got fs9.Can I state exactly why? Not really, I just prefer to always use fs9.Bob xp2000+Radeon 9000 pronforce2 mobo512mb ddr2100 ram

Chris,Interesting how do you disabled the fast food bye the way???John

I run FS9 on a P3/800... Graphically, IMHO it wins hands down vs. FS2002...richer detail, much richer flight environment (better clouds. atmospheric shading), and fps on par with FS2002--if it is set up to visually match FS2002 vs. trying to match slider against slider.What I can tell you is the TI200 is not the best card for FS9--some features can't be implemented in FS9 with it due to the card's older technology (most notably water reflections). I replaced my TI200 with a GeF/4200 when a fan failure on the TI200 gave me the excuse I needed to replace it, and ended up with better FS2002 performance to top it all off.A quick checklist for improving FS9:~Download and install Chris's cloud updates--they improve performance quite a bit without much, if any, visual sacrifice.~Rename "Default.XML" to default.bak. A memory eating bug related to autogen was discovered, and it was traced to some new XML objects Microsoft introduced in FS9.~Search for and apply the Seasonal CTD fix. It's mentioned quite often in the forums~When using 2-d panels that are split into two parts (such as an overhead light panel), closing the second part when not needed will gain 4-5 fps in 2-d panel view.~Avoid panels which display the gps--it slows performance~Do not match up sliders by assuming if they are set one way in FS2002, they can be set the same in FS2004. For example, at all but its lowest settings, scenery density adds taxiway signs and rounded taxiways to most airports. Their fps impact is marginal, but it's one example of how detail is greater per a given slider setting. Autogen is another--it is much denser, even with the default.xml renamed.~Some AA levels supported by a graphics card can really hit performance. I use MSFS's default AA, but I cannot recall if you can use it with the TI200. If not, you can use AA by "forcing" it, but keep it at 2x...~Test various screen resolutions. With an older card, you may be paying a huge penalty trying to drive it at higher res. Even try out 800x600...it's worth a try if you find the performance/visual tradeoff acceptable. Your weakest link is your graphics card, and FS9 relies on it far more than FS2002 did.I still like FS2002 for certain types of flights, but only for clear sky flying or complete overcast flying. Also, the aircraft display code is much improved in FS9...visually rich aircraft that may cause FS2002 to lose performance don't seem to bother FS2004 at all. Case in point, Flight1's new Conquest. My system really pushes the limits of what's acceptable for FS9. But since I don't use AI--arguably the biggest hit in MSFS performance, I see no compelling reason to replace my system based on FS9 alone--I average 25 fps with a great mix of sliders that offers an environment far richer than what FS2004 offered. See my recent "Blast from the past" Thread in the screenshots forum. My fps in those shots exceeded 30 fps. Later, as I finished that flight on approach into Gander, my fps stayed between 25-30 fps on final. It can be done in FS9....!

Hi John, In the fs2004autogenrename the default.xmlThis was from JimmiG posted lately"1. Rename Autogendefault.xml to default.xml.bak2. Replace your terrain.cfg file with the one I attach (make a backup of the original first):http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/76352.zipYou should no longer see a drop on final and framerate in general should increase.----------------------------------------------------------------------Enalble T&L in fs2004 display-Never enable antialising in fs2004 display (too much FPS HIT), only from your driver dispay setting do not use more then 2x antialasing with your cards capability ti 4200 , if you ever enable AA-1024x780 x32 btisIn your fs9.cfg under :Display.Device.Nnvidia. Gforce4 Ti 4200modePanelastexture=0 <--- add this line, improve FPS in 2d panelTrilinearDownload highest performance clouds v2 (.1.17mb)http://library.avsim.net/sendfile.php?DLID=40507ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

No contest - FS9 is far better overall. For three months I had both on my PC but I found I just wasn't using 2002 any more - so - "nice to know you but goodbye!"I know there are problems with some aspects of FS9 for some people but I think that - a bit of care/experimentation/patience etc with you own particular setup eventually produces a good result.Dave

"-Never enable antialising in fs2004 display, only from your driver dispay setting do not use more then 2x antialasing with your cards capability ti 4200 , if you enable AA"I disagree with this advice Chris. It should be handled on a case by case basis. For instance, with the 4200TI I have very good performance using FS2004's built in AA. But...and this is a big one....unmipped 32 bit textures do not AA with the 4200TI and FS9's default AA, where they may AA if it's forced. I choose to add mips to my 32 bit aircraft textures. I do not suffer from "blurred" textures some seem to see, and I as just stated get great AA performance.Anyway, this is one of those tips that varies by system, and shouldn't be applied out of habit. Users should at least compare results, but my opinion is FS2004's AA is often unfairly maligned.-John

Hi John, When I add this line Panelastexture=0 and use built in AA, the panel goes black.Also I have just test with built in AA when there is clouds, it remove me 10 fps with default or resized clouds, with 2x AA it remove me 2 fps. If I clear the weather, I got no fps hit similar to 2x AA performance. When you use the Built in fs2004 AA, be sure your AA in your driver display is set to application controled, since the built in fs2004 AA will not be used (even if you enabled in fs2004 display), the driver display setting AA is activated and have priority.I have the gforce 4 TI 4200 8x 128mb, P4P800 v16 bios, P4 2.53 GHZ, 512MB RAMThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

May I thankk you all for your most interesting responses viz a veeFs2002/fs9. I shall take on board what has been said and experiementaccordingly. This is what makes this forum so worthwile. Thankyou all againYoursJohn

"When I add this line Panelastexture=0 and use built in AA, the panel goes black.Also I have just test with built in AA when there is clouds, it remove me 10 fps with default or resized clouds, with 2x AA it remove me 2 fps. If I clear the weather, I got no fps hit similar to 2x AA performance.I have also the gforce 4 TI 4200 8x 128mb, P4P800 v16 bios, P4 2.53 GHZ, 512MB RAM"_________________I removed the Panelastexture edit some time ago, about two weeks after I originally suggested it in these forums--I found other ways to maximize 2-d panel performance (actually, I figured it out by looking at the 2-d panel/fps shots you shared with me). I'm not getting the performance degradation in the clouds you're getting...it seems like FS9 is defaulting to 2x on my system. It could be driver related (in all of my research, the 30.82's have worked best for my 4200 TI). It could even be the combo of my driver and the O/S. The other thing--I use your 32 bit cloud textures, but with mips removed. As I said--32 bits with no mips don't AA when the default is used in FS9.Screen res may or may not make a difference... Due to visual problems, I've always flown at 800x600x32--otherwise I can't read the menus well enough after sitting in my office twelve hours a day....-John

Hi John, Maybe it`s the driver that`s is stock to 2x, there can be many thing, btw my highest clouds v2 the mip maps are already removed.I use the driver 56.64, 1024x768 32btisThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Have to say that I found Fs9 way ahead of anything before.I was a lucky simmer in that it installed and worked superbly first time.I have added stuff but still find that my P2.4 and 4200 card handling everything at acceptable 16-23fps.

I love FS9. The only beef I have with it as a cockpit builder and I can hardly get over it, is that now when you move a 2D panel to a different monitor you have a fps drop of 25%. That is ridiculous. In FS2K2 you had a zero fps hit.But that is about the only disadvatage Ican find.Alex