My specs are:-Cleeron 2.5gig cpuATI Radeon 9550 128mb1 gig of pc2700 333mhz RAM15" flat panel monitor80 GIG 7200 hard drivesurely with the above specs I should be able to get respectable performance out of fs2004 and run some addons like PMDG 737 and flight1 ATR?? or some addon scenery like gary summons uk 2000 part 8?or am I dreaming?would love to know and get some help please:P if this has been posted in the wrong forum I apologise, and would appreciate it to be moved to the right one?thansIan Smith

Thanks for asking Ian--unless this devolves into a H/W discussion, I think your post should stay here so users with those Add-ons can chip in and help give you some idea of performance.Add-ons aside, getting good performance out of FS2004 is a matter of compromise. Your specs aren't top of the line, but neither are mine and I still eke out fair performance on an old P3/800 rig. AI and excessive layering of clouds can hit performance, and so can some of the popular fs9.cfg "terrain" hacks. Aircraft that simulate cockpit drill, like PMDG's 737 or Flight1's ATR, they may need a more robust cpu. Hopefully someone with a rig like yours with either or both of those add-ons can give you some idea. I've never even tried to run those type of add-ons on my system--don't want to embarrass my poor cpu and let it know how pokey it really is :)-John

thats the thing you see john, i get great performance with default scenery and default planes with loads of weather and AI planes. its when I hit the addons I suffer. I just recently upgraded to 1 gig of ram from 512mb, that made the stutters go, and I can run the flight1 ATR at around 18 FPS. I would love some 'hacks' for the cfg as u call em to be able to fly the flight 1 ATR into gatwick (busy airport!) with full AI or surely I must be dreaming! I also run ultimate traffic and ASV6 aswell, i have cloud layers limited to 3 and all cloud settings in fs2004 to minimum 3d clouds,again any help appreciated:)

The hacks I am referring to won't help with the ATR--they usually sharpen ground textures in the distance (to an unrealistic level IMHO) but don't help with performance caused by cpu crunching add-ons. However, 3 cloud layers can really give a fps hit. Try a manual weather setup to see what I mean--set up one layer 3500 ft. thick of cumulus at 3/8ths coverage, plus one layer of cirrus at FL350. Your performance should have a marked improvement vs. having three layers of 3-d clouds. However, you also have to realize that the add-ons you have--such as Ultimate Traffic, are way beyond the FS2004 "baseline". You have much more AI buzzing about than the FS2004 default, add to that a cpu intensive aircraft, and a cpu that's a couple generations behind today's "leading edge". I think its asking for too much to be able to fly into a busy airport with what you have. 18fps is outstanding if you're getting that in a busy airport--and heck, it's good if you're getting that at altitude considering the sophistication of Flight1's ATR.-John

1 ATR at around 18 FPS. I would love some 'hacks' for the cfg as u call em to be able to fly the flight 1 ATR into gatwick (busy airport!) with full AI or surely I must be dreaming! IFull AI with the other settings you have will bring your system to its knees. In current specs you're probably around the mid to low end although a gig of ram will keep you slightly ahead in that category. About a year ago I bought a knew system: 3.6 HT 800 mhz FSB, 256 mb ATI X800XT, 1 gig ram. I moved up from a 2.6 ghz system with lesser video card but a gig of ram. Certainly there was performance increase but not something that knocked off my socks. I run at 1600x1200 and max out everything except clouds and AI. One time I put my AI at 100% and it sucked the life-blood from my system. I've now set it at 40% which seems just right. I get stutters which are a huge problem at 3rd party airports such as UK 2000 Heathrow Pro. It's all about compromise. When our system specs go up we're tempted to increase everything on FS9 and we're disppointed when our system can't handle it. Oh well.

so what weather settings (clouds) should I set in the ASV^ option and also the fs2004 options?also regarding ultimate traffic, if i were to move the slider in fs2004 menu to 40% AI, isnt ut loose all traffic if i lower anything less that 99%? because of some settings i once read about it?cheers for any more help, Ian

anyone lol, sorry to be impatient, just want to get this sorted asap, as im away for the new year and would love some results to celebrate in style:DIan

I use the standard settings for ActiveSky 2004.5. I also use UT maxed with everything. I notice that does effect my FPS more than usual at nighttime with that great night lighting.Other settings in Display settings:MAX all sliders on scenery.Aircraft - all checked except I use "high" for aircraft quality instead of 'UltraHigh'For Clouds: Sight Distance 80 mi.; Cloud Draw - 40 miles; 3D cloud percentage - 100% with Cloud Density set to high (80%). I use the reduced DXT3 textures of Flight Environment.Since I don't particulary care about strict real world flight schedules - I use MyTraffic 2004 (love it - huge assortment of planes - ga and commercial and airports) my settings at 40% still give a very nice flow of traffic at the big airports.

ill have to take a look at my traffic 2006 see if it will be better for my system rather that ultimate traffic. regarding the weather, i use the dxt3 textures with ASV6 and 3 cloud layers, but im a bit stuck as to what to use for best performance, you say set it at 100%, wont this affect performance? i have very miminal settings for clouds at the moIAn

Ian, my system specs from my last computer are like yours. I found the following helped:Use the DXT3 textures for the clouds and reduce the cloud density, sight distance etc. The clouds are a HUGE drag on your the system. Indeed, I suggest, as I've flown both with my new computer - FS8 and FS9 and the new weather system and clouds are at least a 90% determining factor on dragging down your system.Reduce your AI traffic. If you want to sacrifice the look of FS9 for AI traffic then reduce your scenery settings, AA (to the lowest), AF to 4, and cloud settings. There's no magic bullet. Higher the Display settings the more your system will drag. For lower AA and AF I suggest using a higher resolution. If you run it at 1600 x 1200 you can put AA and AF and their lowest because the resolution makes up for a lot of the quality lost.

ill have to take a look at my traffic 2006 see if it will be better for my system rather that ultimate traffic.regarding the weather, i use the dxt3 textures with ASV6 and 3 cloud layers, but im a bit stuck as to what to use for best performance, you say set it at 100%, wont this affect performance? i have very miminal settings for clouds at the Absolutely it will effect performance. Reducing it WILL see a nice FPS increase. We can't have it all yet - that is, a great computer AND everything maxed on FS9. Maybe one day our computers will catch up the programming (or maybe there needs to be more optimized coding).

so if i max my airport detail to full, autogen to normal, use minimal cloud settings (lowest on 3d clouds) use dxt3 textures and set it at 2 layers. what about my AI, i have ultimate traffic but if i move the slider from 100% i see no traffic atall anywhere!

well, I have an almost top of the line system, I can run full 1600x1200 res with highest graphics settings, full sliders. and it looks great. But the second I add lots of ai traffic, it goes from high fps to single digits at some airports. Limit the amount of ai traffic you have, use some of the tweaks in the forums, especially changing the texture bandwidth multiplyer from the pitiful 40 setting.

but with ultimate traffic is it possible to , set say 40% AI. because i heard as soon as i move it from 100% to, even 99% that it clears all traffic because of the way it is compiled??

I don't know why that would be. Likely depends on the airport. KJFK or EGLL 40% gives you still a healthy flow of traffic - speaking from the standpoint of MyTraffic (I got my money back after trying UT for a few days - to each his own). Going to smaller airports however would more noticeably effect the traffic flow. Have you cut it to 40% and looked at EGLL? Then go to a small regional airport and do the same. The latter will be far more noticeable in terms of sparse traffic.