Rig specs in sig... I have the TIR3Pro with Vector... Here's what I'd like to do but I'm in unfamiliar territory... Priorities are listed from top to bottom in order of importance..I get about 35 FPS at SEA-TAC with most options loaded and 75% traffic.1) I want to have a good cross-section of GA and commercial planes. So far the only plane add-on I have is the Flight One Cessna 172. Love the VC and realism of the flight dynamics... Would like to get a few more other planes such as the Aeroworx B200 and the ATR 72 and the DF 727. Near as I can tell, these are the choice planes... But, I was really turned off by the ATR Review on Avsim that said I could expect a 50% drop in frames with this plane... That seems crazy. I can imagine 10-20% but 50%??? I think I've been scared away...2) USA Roads seems like a winner with everyone... What kind of frame rate hit can I expect?3) FS Skyworld: Again, big hit with most and I assume I can gain a few FPS by using the "smaller" cloud testures?4) Activesky (latest ver) - Can't say I really understand what all the hubub is with the product though... Seems like it doesn't do "much"... I want to keep framerates approximately what they are now... Any other ideas/comments?

Just about all you mention do come with a performance hit. As for the DF 727 I don

Activesky is something that I'd heard people rave about, and took the plunge to buy it simply on spec (and on peoples views). It is without a doubt one of, if not THE, best things I have ever bought for FS. Your FS skies will no longer look like a computer simulation/game. The difference it makes to cloud formations and weather is breathtaking. It will alter the 'weather themes' in FS and make them look far better than they do by default, but where it really excels is in 'real world' weather. Turbulence, and wind shear are amazing with Activesky control.A must have addon in my opinion. The only negative is that it does eat framerates...my P4 3.0/1 gig RAM/128mb Radeon 9800 Pro rig struggled to keep the frames up in the more intensive weather formations. However I did have EVERYTHING within Activesky maxed out so it was little suprise. But I've just upgraded to a Radeon X800 XT Platinum, which tears through FS2004 like a knife through hot butter - with Activesky maxed out and providing breathtaking weather for my pure enjoyment.Regards,Al Summers.

that was a well thought out post Par. Kind of makes me think that life is ok afterall. Thank you. billg

"I want to keep framerates approximately what they are now... Any other ideas/comments?"Yea, don't add anymore add-ons! ;)Seriously, as you add heavy hitters like the ones you are mentioning (USA roads will not effect your FPS), you'll slowly see your frames dwindle down. Even your system. Fact of a simmer's life. The more reality, the more detail, the more sceenry, the more the impact. But your system will hold up repsectively... so enjoy.

Just to correct a few inaccuracies:1.) ActiveSky doesn't modify themes. It's a real-weather addon that can load current or archived real-world weather. It is however, excellent as mentioned ;). It does add very complex weather, but you can control the number of distinct cloud layers to optimize performance with your system...2.) MAAM's DC-3 does have a clickable VC. Maybe not fully clickable, but as I recall, everything you'd need to click on a flying DC-3 is clickable with the lastest release...I just got mine a few months ago, and I've only got a few hours in, so I might be wrong here.To continue with the list, I'd also recommend checking out FSG's American Data series - in addition to roads (which aren't as complete or accurate as USAroads), in comes with bridges, streams and railroads which can be used with USAroads - and they work really well with the FREEflow water scenery I've been working on (see link in sig) which contains rivers and accurate oceans coastlines. Also, the fps hit with AD might be a little more than USAroads especially if you choose to enable flattening or roads/rails/streams, which creates a little ledge for the feature instead of allowing it to slope along hills. Looks better, hurts fps.That's it for me.sg

Gridley? Don

>Gridley? Don

Yeah if you have a magic version please send it to me :). I actually asked about this in simflight forums and got this response.The lack of a clickable VC in the MAAM-SIM aircraft is entirely Microsoft's fault. icon_wink.gifThe problem as I understand it was that while older versions of the compilation program from GMax to FS have always accepted either imperial (feet and inches) units or metric (metres and millimetres) units and dealt with the difference internally, the one written for FS2004 that allows all the new features to be used will only allow metric measurements to be used.Jan tried compiling it with the new version, but things went very, very, strange so he had to compile it using the old one or redesign from scratch. icon_sad.gif

>Yeah if you have a magic version please send it to me :).I'm sure I'm just loopy from the fumes. :)

Thanks all for the responses... Keep em coming... My thoughts at this point: PonyBoy, thanks for the positive reassurance about USA roads/fps... Sounds encouraging. I'm seeing low-mid thirties fps at SEATAC with sliders in "eye candy" settings... I never want to drop below 26 or so if possible, so I'll either back off the sliders to compansate for Add-ons or O/C my rig to pull out the effects of the performance hit (should be able to get 15-20%)... Active Sky is of interest, because all of the "hoopla" and accolades by those who use it though I still scratch my head as to why? Maybe I'm blind, but the default weather seems at least "good"... How much better can it get? Screenshots I've seen on the AS website look good but only marginally better than default. Estimating from the qualitative info available, it seems like I could expect a 30% drop in frames if I ran AS to 100% capability and little to no hit if I run it "normally"... Does this sound about right? One thing that intersts me is the turbulence and wind corrections. Comment here would be good too... I think I'll definitely go for the Aerowork B200 King... I was (happily) surprised that the VC on the Flight One C172 runs FASTER than the 2D pit...

I've got magic shrooms. Does that count? ok, I'm shrooming.....billg

wasn't going to say this but i'll say it anyway, you can always fly the defaults. EEEK!!! seriously though, they aren't that bad. yea, i've tried alot of freeware and payware some fly good and others not so good. while most really are great and look simply fantastic i still fly the defaults mainly because they fly so well and no framerate hits at all. after getting a new video card they fly even better. yea, i tried a few addons after the new card but while they're alittle better i still take a hit. i have no worries with default everything and yes, right out of the box with nothing added. EEEK!!! i'm probably the only one but i can say they really do fly quite nicely if you use a light touch. if the cockpit resolutions could be better they would be awesome but it's a price to pay for good performance. guess i'm just hung up on smoothness and don't want to give any of that up for any addon. maybe if i had mainframe computer i'd get one of those but i don't. can't believe i said that. i'm so embarrassed. william

Yeah true some of the default planes are really good. Like the DC3 and there is a lot of tweaks for that plane as well. I really loved flying especially the vintage planes.However with add ons FS 2004 isn

Yes, Misty Fjords interests me greatly... I think I'll passs on Active Sky. My impression was that FSW can give you as good if not better than default cloud quality (which appears to be very good already), and make it even better with no performance hit... Can anyone confirm?