I am using an Nvidia GForce 6800GT 256mg AGP video card with driver version 66.93. I have 1 meg of ram and an AMD Athlon XP 3200+ CPU. with an ASUS A7N8x-E MB using updated Bios. Is there a better Driver to use. I set my FPS at 24 . When I fly in VC or 2D the FPS is close to same 9 to 23.I put most all my settings on Med level but I just can't seem to get a higher low end. I even just uninstalled and re-installed FS2004. Before this it was going from 23 FPS to 1 FSP and unbearable. Will an uninstall remove inhanced runway airport textures and landclass scenery(RealScene 2004)?

The 71.xx drivers offer better performance, but they are highly experimental and have side effects for most people. eg. For me, the 71.20 driver boosts FPS by about 30%, but my system pauses for many seconds (ie. mouse won't move) whilst starting FS9 or maximising/minimising any window containing 3D graphics - very annoying. I currently have the 71.50 driver loaded and whilst the pausing is gone, I get major graphics corruption whenever my mouse hovers over an icon bar tool tip or the max/min buttons on any window containing 3D graphics. Not quite as annoying as the 71.20 drivers, but still smacks of a not-quite-there-yet driver effort.Try newer drivers by all means, but keep your 66.93s handy to reinstall if the performance gains don't outweigh the crazy side effects. Hopefully there is a new WHQL set coming soon.Gary

I have noticed that you're using an AMD chip with a + I have the AMD 2000+ Now I have just been told that this chip is a bit outdated..i dont know much about AMD. I was told that it may be hard to upgrade to a much faster processor especially fast for FS2004.My question to you is, do i have to stay within the ...+ processors to upgrade? how does the AMD series work in terms of upgrading..thanks for the inputStephen

Hi, I use 71.24 with my Asus 6800GT 128MB and they are fine. I didn't notice any problem that is Gary mentioning so it maybe differs a piece from piece. Just try them, you can anytime roll back to 6x version.My other HW is Asus P4P800SE with P4 3GHz and 1GB RAM.Bye

Hi Stephen,I'm more into Intel but Athlon XP's are really outdated. AMD64 are very good CPU's but you can't use the same mainboard and usually memories as well (if your memories are less than 400MHz). So you would have to upgrade CPU, motherboard and likely RAM too...Bye

Sorry. I posted this to in the wrong section. If it can be moved to the hardware section that is fine. Yes. To go faster you need to change to a AMD 64 chip set and that means getting a new MB and Memory. I was not able to get Windows XP to load the 71.20 drivers. The 3200+ shows as 2.12 mzh.

Have you tried the excellent OMEGA drivers?www.omegadrivers.netAdam Moorewww.simreview.co.ukWin XP - ARIA 3200PCPrescott 3.20 GHz - 2GB RAMAsus ATi Radeon X800 Pro TD 256MB19" CRT 1600x1200 @ 100hzAudiophile 24/96 Audio

Odd, I just loaded the 71.20 drivers fine, and I too saw a great increase in performance, even over the Omega drivers.

The issues I identified with the 71.xx series are what I have experienced. If you go to nVidia forums at places like guru3d, you will see an array of other issues people are experiencing. This is not to say you will definately experience such issues, rather that the likelihood is pretty high. Apart from the time needed to download the 26 odd Meg per driver, it doesn't cost you anything to try them and you may find a set that grooves nicely with your system.As for the Omega drivers, the last Omega release is on the 61.77 drivers, whereas the latest WHQL drivers from nVidia are the 66.93s I believe. For some reason, Omega hasn't touched the latest array of nVidia drivers, perhaps for the very issues that I speak of above ...As always with these things, YMMV.Gary