Am I wasting my time and $$$$ upgrading my Rambus memory from 512mb to 1024mb. Will I really see a difference? FS2k2 is the most graphics intense program I have and it still seems to bog down with certain sceneries and I'm try to get little more bang in FPS so what do you think? Will more memory help? I'm averaging about 25 FPS, but it does bog down to 8,9, 14 FPS at times with alot of scenery going on and this is not with everything "maxed" out! Seems as though it should stay more consistent. My specs:P4 1.8aAsus P4T-e512mb Mushkin Rambus (upgrading to 1024mb)G4 Ti-4600Win XP homeEtc, etc.That's the "juice" of the matter anyway.....Thanks!

I have heard that MSFS doent like more than 512 Ram, i cant remember why...must be the equivalent to having to much ephedrine or starbucks.maybe some one can add to this. http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/Us...9d503cc53ab.jpg

It's your CPU that mostly deems what frame rates you will get.You won't benifit from going above 512MB of RAM

I think Windows 98 doesn't recognize more than 512M, but I'm not really sure.NEVER mind, I see that you are using XP. There, I don't know.

Ah yes, good point!Win9x doesn't like more than 512MB of RAM. I recall adding 768 and it kept telling me I didn't have enough memory to complete an operation.. :-lolEdit: Ah yes, XP is a memory hog, it eats it like I ate milk duds when in the US.But 512 is plenty as I said.

Hi Brad,Unless you are a designer, programmer or the like, you'll see no improvements in the least. If you edit large graphics, use 3D design software, etc you will greatly benefit. Just depends on your use.Take care, http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Bummer........You know it amazes me that some people have boasted that their systems never slows beneath 17-18 fps with everything maxed and their specs are less than mine. So what's the trick? I have played around with all my drivers and have found my sweet spot, but in no way do my FPS always stay above 18. Perhaps these "boasters" have something to hide?

They're either full of crap or perform miracles. If it's the latter, maybe they can also cure my insomnia. My P4 2.2 with 512Mb RDRAM and a GF4 Ti4600 chokes just like yours with everything maxed out, regardless of the resolution I'm using (currently on 1600x1200). FS2k2 is just a hog, that's all there is to it.

Sad, but thanks for the encouragement. It's somewhat of a "relief" to hear someone with a "Fast" machine still getting choked up at times. Perhaps one day the bottleneck will be corrected.

jerrycwo4I have a window XP AMD 1800 + and I was told by Microsoft that the reason that I get quite a bit of "Bad-pool spooler" error messages is that I have 1 GB of RAM and that FS2002 doesn't (use / like/ support) more than 512 MB of RAM. I use the FSAssist "go back feature ( saved flights every 5 minutes) so every few days when I get this error message, I just go back to where I was 5 minutes earlier, and there is NO problem. That way, I can also use the 1GB of ram in my PhotoShop with out changing it back and forth. I've had 4 differant computers in the last four years and the ONLY thing that increased the FPS was a FASTER CPU, NOT more RAM.jerry

I'm currently on 1gb DDR and yes its running fast... locked at 30 FPSIf a software program has to wait for memory or a HD, memory is in that case always a lot faster and the lifetime of your HD less I/O :)Further make sure you have as less possible services running in the background :-) and performance for applicationsStop the printer spooler services for example if don't need to print :-) it frees up a lot of resourcesMost user aren't aware that regarding O/S WinXP or Win2K are whole other different operating systems as Win95/98 :(Win98 system doesn't use above 256 mb without a registry patch :(There are always other bottlenecks you could check MB/VGA/MEM/HD/CPU/(I/O)(O/S)etc... For performance....You could also make the virtual memory large for scenery files in FS2002 :-) (No need for the system to pack and unpack files :-))Success but for me I'm glad to have 1gb of DDR with rest of course :-)awfEHAM

Elrond's right - as always. I see the same on a P4A/2000 with 512MB RAMBUS. We just need a little more (lot more?) CPU. Or MS needs to finally get the design right so's the video card can do what's it's designed to do ;(8 Trip

Hi there awfAre you the one with the pics from nl2000 eham crammed with ai aircraft?Do you still get usable fps as it is?Just curious if the latest cpu's and memory can handle all that.thxPaulehgg

Yep in the PSS airbus FPS 20 / 25 on EHAM :-)awfEHAM

Hi Brad,I just wanted to clarify a few things regarding my mini-review of Falcon NW Mach V last week, in case you were referencing my claim of never going below 17-18 FPS. If you recall the beginning of the post, I stated that even the Falcon Rep told me not to expect to be able to run FS2002 with "all sliders maxxed", and at no time in my post did I boast or claim to get constant performance above 17-18 FPS with "all sliders maxxed" The only sliders I had maxxed in fact for this test were in fact ATC, AA, and Max Vis. In re-reading the post, I should have made it more clear that in fact most other sliders were at default or a bit higher. I do run all scenery/terrain complexity/extended levels at 100% however. I have found that running add-on mesh at 80% or so is just fine, and Autogen at Normal works best visually for me. I do believe that this system would handle any out of the box situation with "all sliders maxxed" but let's face it, 3rd party planes, airports, clouds, etc are what make the hobby so great. I have since briefly experimented with the "all sliders maxxed" scenario with intensive 3rd party objects present, and the FPS did drop to 10-12. (What is interesting is that stuttering was not bad at all.) I simply would rather drop back certain sliders to a more visually realistic level (max vis and Autogen) to remain at 21 FPS locked. Also with some of these settings less than max, I now get practically no blurs anywhere. I also noticed the AA was not having much effect so I turned it off. The main point of my post was not to gloat, and I stated that from the get go. I apolgize if you or anyone read in to it that I had some kind of super computer that will run great with everything maxxed out. I am simply enjoying so much improved performance from any previous system that anything more would be irrelevant and maybe even visually unrealistic in real-life flight. Take care,John M.