For those who have upgraded to more then 1 GIG of RAM. Have you noticed a difference in Frame Rate and performance of FS2004?

I have no studies to back my feelings.., but I think that after accidentally upgrading from 1G to 1,256G made it a bit more stabil. After all I have dozens of add-ons which makes my fs a heavy one.PetteriFinland

running 1.5GB , does seem to be a bit more stable, and have a little bit of a gain in performance, but nothing to cheer about..

Hi folks, AFAIK, just plugging in more RAM won't do much without some 'serious' registry editing... More stability with more RAM modules is another issue. In fact, sometimes too many RAM modules even cause interference and thus in return, instability... Conclusion: Every system is different. One will accept a lot, another will not. John, IMHO, anything above 512MB is fine for a more or less standard FS9. Thus, pleasure starts at say 768MB, FS heaven starts at 1024MB. This is also the reason for me, to say adieu to win98 BTW. Maybe somebody else could report on the difference it makes with photo sceneries? But for a photo scenery-free FS, you won't notice the difference beyond 1GB IMHO. AIM above, it's pretty useless to add memory, if you don't simulataneously 'tell' your OS it's there via the registry. IMHE(xperience), 768MB is even quicker than 1024MB on a non-tweaked OS. If you're interested, perhaps do a search for 'increase the MFT in win2000 or winXP?' There's a handfull of other usefull regtweaks which I (and others) could elaborate on, I suppose. Usefull sites maybe, anybody? I'm curiuos about the nature of your query, John? What would like to improve in da case? A SMALL 'beware:' When getting into registry editing, please just never ever trust anybody, who tells you to set the 'system's/OS's priority' from 'Applications' to 'System Cache.' This option can destroy your data for good under given, rather common conditions nowadays! When you hear or read something alike, please think: 'Yeah, sure!' And don't forget the backup... Hehe. Cheers, good luck and kind regards Jaap PS: Vuelo, how many RAM-modules do you use?

Nice post, Jaap. Clears all the mud away from the "more ram is faster" debate.For those who are uncomfortable bonking about in their system registry, there is this: http://www.driverheaven.net/dforce/default.phpAnd heed Jaap's warning about changing priority from "Applications" to "System Cache".Cheers,Greg

Jaap..good explanation you typed up there.. running 3 banks of 512 corsair xms here

Simple way to check if you need more RAM is to Alt-tab out of FS, and check how much its using in the task manager.This will give you some idea as to how much RAM you need to run FS, obviously you need to take into account any other programs you have runnning, but my FS alone, takes maybe about 500mb of RAM.I have 1GB, and at this stage I feel it is unlikely increasing the RAM would have any effect.Dan.

Yeah.. like as far as i notice .. 1 Gig seems to be (for now) the sweet spot.. i didnt notice that great a gain with the added bank.. if you have more ram to spare.. use it.. doesnt hurt.. but don't buy it just for fs.. imo just aint worth it

From everything I've read and experienced on this, I conclude that with Windows XP, 512MB is not enough. XP alone eats up 200-250MB on average and FS likes to have about 300-400MB. So 768MB onboard will make a substantial difference. 1024MB will add a further slight improvement, perhaps, but not much. More than 1GIG seems to be a bit pointless unless you're gearing up for FS10, but you'll need a new computer by then anyway!With pre-Win XP operating systems, 512MB is quite adequate.RAM ain't everythin', of course. Much depends on your associated specification and what and where you are flying if your worry is FPS alone.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

I know that in IL-2 FB that the Finnish Gulf map is 512MB alone, not including anything else running. Oleg said himself that 1GIG would be best.XP Home SP1Asus P4P800-SE Intel 3.0GHZDDR 400 D/C 2x512MBGeForce FX 5700 256MB (56.72)SB AudigyMSFF2 & X45 throttleSee you in the fence...CYYZ

>IMHO. AIM above, it's pretty useless to add memory, if you>don't simulataneously 'tell' your OS it's there via the>registry. IMHE(xperience), 768MB is even quicker than 1024MBWhat do you mean? The OS should be able to detect more memory.Exactly what do you mean the user has to do and why?

I know Win98 only did up to 512MB, not sure about XP.XP Home SP1Asus P4P800-SE Intel 3.0GHZDDR 400 D/C 2x512MBGeForce FX 5700 256MB (56.72)SB AudigyMSFF2 & X45 throttleSee you in the fence...CYYZ