>iholrf>>but ive tried everything and it doesnt seem to work, so whats>the go then ?Lower your expectations.FS9 is IO bottlenecked. Why? When you trap the output and trace the calls - view logs, it seems only to be optimized for DX7 and DX7 does not fully support hardware accellerated T&L (DX8.1 is the first). So when the GPU (vid card) should be doing the work, it is not, the CPU is. And the CPU is lousy for graphics rendering. As I mentioned on another thread, my 7800 COOLS DOWN when running FS9 when compared to any other modern game...why? Because its not working that hard. The CPU on the other hand is maxed. The other issue is Direct X is actually a really slow HAL. All games that use it suffer from performance issues vs similar games that us OGL. The key here is drop your res or do with out AA. It really matters litte what card you put in, you will be dissappointed in FS9. Take a look at what addon scenery you have. Some like the ultimate airport environment upgrade have problems with the textures and the sim now stutters and "burps" - so I had to remove it. Hi resolution meshes will effect frame rates, and as you discovered the real killer is weather and clouds (wind will kill your fps as well - try a clear day with lots of wind and you will see what I mean).FS does not make good use of large monitors and crazy resolutions. Besides at that level, you will not likely even notice the AA.Here is the recommended settings for your card:Max Res: 1280x960 or 1360x1024 (4:3)AA = 2XAF = 8XTripple buffering onMip Maps on fullGrab the coolbits registry hack on my website and merge it to expose the advanced setting in the driver tab and set the optimizations by hand by creatig a new FS9 profile and forcing the settings you need.http://www.ascendant-online.net/en/downloads/os.php#videoThen grab either FSSkyworld or the hi-perf could textures from my site here:http://www.ascendant-online.net/en/downloa...hp#enhancementsThe hi-perf clouds are nicer looking than most of the stock and have a much higher frame rate. (use the 32bit versions)Get rid of addon water pacs as they all the ones I have tried so far have horrible frame rates and repeatig textures with the exceptions of "water zone" by Bill Lyons or the classic watter textures from FS2002 (same place as above).What you might benifit from is a better MB/CPU combo. The older 740 series had some memory and IO bottlenecks that will rear their ugly head more than you might like in the next years. They were dissapointing cpu/mbs that did not perform as well as the old 32bit Socket A type Barton Core Athlon XP. The new 939 based MBs and processors have a built in 128bit memory controller and they scream.If you are prepared to spend a few hundred bucks on a new card and its for FS, the I would instead spend it on mb/CPU.CheersShadAlternatively, your CPU/FSB and GPU will all overclock about 15-20% hehehe - go nuts and watch the perf climb much higher than you expect. FSB is the most important for our needs (remember the IO bottleneck I mentioned - this is where it is overcome).

>Alternatively, your CPU/FSB and GPU will all overclock about>15-20% hehehe - go nuts and watch the perf climb much higher>than you expect. FSB is the most important for our needs>(remember the IO bottleneck I mentioned - this is where it is>overcome).I should also mention that its very very (did I say very?) important that AMD cpus are run synchronously with the memory. Do not run the memory with a bus speed different from the CPU bus speed, even if its higher, or performance will DROP between 5 and 15%!!!Check the state your comp is actually in with CPUID also on my site.http://www.ascendant-online.net/en/downloa....php#monitoringSo if your CPU is using an FSB of 333, but your mem is 400, you will benifit from SLOWING the memory down to the same speed as the CPU then overclocking them both at the same rate. With a 333mhzFSB based CPU running 400MHZ memory, you will never risk overdriving the memory and you will likely be able to push the CPU to almost 400 (my 2.8 333 based machine runs at 390 OCed and peform to 3.4 P4 levels (and beyond in some circumstances)), and my 400/400 based 939 3.5 is running at 452/452FSB or PR4.0Ghz approx.Just make sure you use Artic Silver thermal grease on the CPU and spend at least 40-50 dollars on the CPU fan (Zalman is my recommendation... cool and quiet).EDIT: Oh yes, and if you have not already done so, add an exhaust fan to the back of your case and an intake in the side.If you have no side intake fan, then cut a 90mm circular hole in the side of the case halfway between the CPU and the vidcard, mount a 90mm cheapo fan that sucks air from the outside and blows it on the vid card and cpu, which is then sucked out the back by the exhaust fan. Temps will drop 5-10degC.

See my new post about FSGS, you won't regret it! I went from an average 20-30 FPS with sliders down to 60 FPS with all sliders maxed!

Clayton:I have a dual monitor setup using the DELL 2405 as my primary with the same res as you. I have a hi-end DELL XPS Gen 4 with a relatively rare 3.80 Ghz Intel 570 processor and an ATI X850 XT PE card with the latest drivers. My FSAA is 4x and my anisotropic is 8x. Lemme tell you, even I get a significant frame rate hit with cumulus and CB. I've also dicked around a great deal over time with different cloud sets, densities, and visibilities, etc., to little avail. Well, OK, I have tried lighter cloud sets, I mean smaller bitmaps, but the tradeoff is not worth it as the textures just look rather dreadful compared to the default MS cloud sets.I capped my frames some time ago at 24 (although they can easily go as high as 200+ in UNLIMITED mode with some aircraft) and in the amin this is super. But I still find that if I hit big CB over, say, 4/8 or more of the sky or thick cumulus, the fps might dip down from 24 to 12-16 fps instantly. Anything below 12-13 fps provides lousy performance and anything under 14-15 is lousy if panning in SPOT view. (Heavy AI traffic provides a further hit to fps on top of this.)So take heart and don't think it's anything strange or unusual. Your system is probably fine. Most PCs (processors, video cards, RAM, and so on) eventually disappoint amateur users (I am certainly one of them!) even when we think we've upgraded to a system that is the bee's knees. Clouds just do wreck fluidity in FS and always have.JS

maybe we will have to wait for FSX to really get a solution to this problem, i suppose a top end CPU / GPU will help as well.

I don't have that problem. I have all my sliders full right. 4AA, 8AF and full AI. When I go thru clouds, I don't see any difference in FPS.. You don't need a new vid card. You just need to know how to tweak you system to run FS9 properly.Athlon 32001 gig ramNvidia 6800 GTAsus MB200 Gig raid arrayBill M

but i dont want to break my computer.