Some points:-Dual core processors do nothing for fs2004. FS2004 was programmed long before the technology even existed. The benchmarks for 2004 with dual core were disappointing. When I build my system, I stuck with the old single core chips. Dual might be the future, but it doesn't do a lot for current games. -256mb of video memory is perfectly fine for fs2004. I doubt more onboard ram would do much (if anything)-There was just a thread about poor framerates at JFK... search on JFK and see if you can find it. I think it was something related to autogen. -AI traffic in the NY/NJ area will bring fps down on any system. There are just too many ai planes in the air. Try Chicago and see how that works.

>It seems no hardware I buy is good enough for this sim. Now I>have an AMD dual core, SATA hard drive and a Geforce 7800 GFX>video card. Even that does not cut the mustard.>>If I load up the Boeing at JFK with 100% Ultimate Traffic and>real time weather and start to taxi, the frames I get are only>12-14 on average. And thats with default scenery. With>Simflyers it would be around 7-8.>>I can hear the the hard drive is going crazy alot of the time.>Are the textures being cached in memory?? Is 256MB not enough>graphics memory? Would 512MB graphics memory solve the>problem? What is the bottleneck? I left task manager open and>the CPU is not maxed out at 100%. >>In Pacific Fighters the graphics are smooth 100% of the time.>I have never even tried looking for the FPS counter in that>game. Why does FS have such a bad performance?>>John.John, Have you ever heard of FS-GS? I had the same problem as you have, speant loads of money and even more time trying to tweak my PC and the sim to run and to look as good as I had hoped it would. After spending 5 hours on MSN messenger and being walked through all the processes of setting the PC and FS9 up right I was truly amazed. For the cost of 1 gig of ram you can get the results that I got. If you are not satisfied you do not pay. Have a look at www.fs-gs.comSincerely,

>Some points:>>-Dual core processors do nothing for fs2004. FS2004 was>programmed long before the technology even existed.It is amazing how many people actually think dual core is something new (I guess Intel and AMD has great marketing). My old PII-266 was a dual processor system (well, still is, but my mother use it now - can run XP quite decently due to the dual processor setup). Just because they have now implemented the two processors in the same chip doesn't meen they invented something amazingly new. Sure is nice they finally did it, but we could already add two processors (well, or four but then it starts to become a tad pricy).But at least they went to 64 bit - auch, what is that my food hit under the table - oh the old dead 64 bit machine that is now too slow to be useful (it also happens to be 266mhz - I wonder if I have something else at 266mhz around here, then I can look at it to see what Intel and AMD comes up with next).

Hi,I found a site with FS9 (and other games) benchmarks for various AMD/Intel processors. Dual core processors did well on their tests. I'm at the library now, so I don't have the sites' address. When I find it I'll post it here.Cheers,

John:This may be obvious to some, but also check to make sure your RAM's clock-speed is at least equivalent to the front side bus speed of your Mo-Bo. Slower RAM speed can bottleneck the system.http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

Well it's MS's fault.After all the tweaking etc i've done (and hardware upgrades) FS still runs like crap. it runs OK (15fps not with default scenery and planes of course) but i can't use AI traffic or it all goes south... i've run benchmarks and devastated supposedly faster systems, and everything else i dump on this system flies. but not FS. Then you hear stories about people getting some mindboggling performances with some resource hogging addons that i can't help but tell myseylf "lies" because there is no way unless they defy the laws of computing.

And therein lies the problem. There is no such thing as, "Laws of computing". Virtually every system is different in one or more ways. I wish that was not the case! It would surely make system tuning and performance more reliable across the board.

My opinion is that FS is an aged program, and the programmers tuned it to run on old hardware.New hardware would need to be extraordinarily fast to egalize this tuning and turn it to speed.That said, I wouldn't expect a dramatic change when using a GF 7800 instead of an 7600, or an X1800 instead of a 9800 Pro.The only chance to see some speed increase IMHO would be to use a RAID configuration (6 drives minimum at RAID level 0; speeds up disk processing to the max), the fastest processor you can get (maybe even a dual processor configuration where you then need to heavily tune what each of them does), minimum 2GB RAM and two top-notch graphics adapters in an SLI or crossfire configuration.But as I said, even then I wouldn't expect to have all sliders maxed out, custom scenery, AI etc. and 30 FPS, the internal quirks of FS9 would certainly set barriers here and there...Only hope is FSX which respects newer hardware technology.Andreas

I too run with a SATA hdd, 1Gb memory a P4-3Ghz cpu and a Radeon X800 and I can't get the sliders maxed out with 25% traffic. Some aircraft are better than others, for example F1's PC12 gets decent smoothness while the Aeroworx King Air is a killer with the EFIS cockpit, I haven't tried the steam gauges one yet to see if it's any better.

>Well it's MS's fault.>>After all the tweaking etc i've done (and hardware upgrades)>FS still runs like crap. it runs OK (15fps not with default>scenery and planes of course) but i can't use AI traffic or it>all goes south... >>i've run benchmarks and devastated supposedly faster systems,>and everything else i dump on this system flies. >>but not FS. >>Then you hear stories about people getting some mindboggling>performances with some resource hogging addons that i can't>help but tell myseylf "lies" because there is no way unless>they defy the laws of computing. >>Like my reply said above... have a look at www.fs-gs.com you will not be sorry, best $100 I have ever spent.Cheers,

Excellent thread. In my own personal FS world I've had performance problems and tried many different configurations. My conclusion I've finally come to is either dump all the add-ons such as UT, ASV, PAI Traffic and FS Genesis or live with the consequences.The way I deal with my AMD Athlon 3000, (2.4 ghz), 1 GB Mem, NV6600 128 MB vid card is to use the advance FPS counter and keep the Vid % under 1%. I usually lock at the frame rate that achieves this goal, anything above that number means inefficient processing, be it the CPU or GPU or whatever. In high density urban areas I can either maintain 20 or drop to 14 depending on where I am. Northeast USA, forget it, I'm in the 10-14 range, out west in less dense Metropolises, 14-25 in urban areas.I believe you reach a maximum at how much info can be processed due to the age of the coding. 3 to 4 year old coding most likely does not take advantage of today's technology including duel core and the advanced options of todays GPU's. I don't believe the engine is flawed, but is outdated to a degree, though, if removing all the add-ons and running a default FS, my leap from the AMD 2000 and geforce 5200 which ran at a maximum of 30-50 (urban-rural) FPS to my current AMD 3000 with a 6600 which in a default setting achieves 50-70 fps.Ian.

At the risk of getting this removed or locked again, after seeing the info in this thread, I would suggest contacting FSGS and using their service. I get 60 fps consistantly and it never drops below 40, with EVERYTHING maxxed out. You may not see that result, but you will certainly see a MAJOR improvement.

The engine is excellent.Pacific FIghters runs only the graphics from PF. If you copy all aircraft except the one you fly from the FS to a backup folder, then delete them. Use ProjectAI aircraft or similar ones for AI, instead of having a lot of aircraft made to fly, being used for AI, you get better framerates.The FS was just not designed to work with dozens of add-ons aircraft in memory, but to work as a stand alone program. If we addon other programs and run with them in memory, ie like some, surfing the web with the aircraft on autopilot, etc. Each program you run or have in memory even if not using it, steals CPU cycles. Loading it with FSautostart, and removing all unneeded programs helps dramatically, then it reloads them when you stop flying.Each addon you add effects the FPS, if you add aircraft other than the default ones, it probably was never tested with them. If you have add-ons which conflict with each other, thats not the fault of the FS.

Had a friend who was a high tech junky in High School back in the 70's, by the time he was 14 was working as a tech in a research lab. He put dual CPU's in my Tandy Model I, and it was amazing. Before long he also had it running 4 - 8" floppy drives with 5 megs of memory. Back then, never thoought I'd ever need any more. Now we can buy a 300 gig drive, for less than half the cost of one 8" Floppy! Ran my first version of the Flight Sim on that system, on MSDOS.He went on to go to GA Tech, then MIT for his PhD. then to work for NASA.

>>The engine is excellent.Hello!Generally I could agree with what you wrote.Maybe the engine is excellent, but one thing is definitely not. And this is the processor behind the forehead of most of the users of fs9!!!Sorry I don't mean this as an offence, I specifically include myself too!I can not count or even memorise the amount of times I read in God knows what different kind of forums something which guaranteed will speed up fs9 finally. I can not count the number of times of excitements after having installed the latest video drivers followed regularely by disappointments when dayly fs9 pratice was back and all the seemingly disappeared disturbances reappeared again...Of all those hundrets of postings there have been maybe one or two or three which had really a value because they had been based on reproducible content and NOT on felt results. Fellow simmers, be honest to yourself, every hint is taken by us like a religious revelation which we followed blindly in the faithful believe that there must be something outside there which finally releases us from our pain and raises us out of this valley of suffering and stuttering ("Brothers and sisters follow the sandal"(Life of Brian)) ;-)I think I know a little bit what good software benchmarking means. In the old days some twenty years ago I was programming this and that piece of software in good old ansi C for the FidoNet with some companions and we did not only have to fight the lack of ability to write optimum code but also the limitations of the hardware which forces us to optimise our software to the limits. That means to examine modules under very specific and exactly defined conditions for their runtime behavior which becomes more and more complex the more modules have been linked together and again influence each other in sometimes unexpected ways.What I want to say is simply that every change in settings and it's effects or side effects must be repeatable and this is only given on absolutely equal systems and exactly equal conditions! One different texture, a different daytime, a little bit different weather conditions, not to talk about other aircraft models and/or panels, another autogen library, other viewpoints and all of all is worthless. It might be good for one person under exact the circumstances he had at this moment but under other conditions or even other machines it is not reproducible and in so far worthless.So my dear fellows, don't you let yourself get frustrated! 'Sit' down in your favorite airplane, prepare your flight, fire up the engine(s), get the takeoff clearance and ENJOY your flight. And if your sim gets into stuttering, consider it as a simulated pilot hickup which cause him temporarely optical disturbances and continue your flight until a hopeful happy landing!!!SincerelyMick!