Anyone tell me if this is correct? I know that a lot of FS2002 is loaded to memory when running. If the entire FS2002 folder was in memory, would FS2002 run better?If so, one could get Xp, at least 1024megs of RAM, create a RAM disk, and then install FS2002 into the RAM disk drive. All in the RAM drive will be loaded to RAM when the computer starts.Just an idea! dek

Your PC will access files on a "RAMDISK" much faster than on a Physical disk, however - it still needs to re-load the files into memory from the RAM disk. *IF* FS would run this way you would need at least enough memory for the RAM disk (my FS folder is over 3gig) plus enough for your operating system AND then enough to run FS.That is a hell of a lot of RAM.

Not only that, but all versions of Windows (even XP) will stubbornly still insist upon using swap memory, no matter how much physical RAM you have.The only way around this? By using a RAM drive as your swap drive. So, in addition to the RAM you'd need to store FS, you'd also need enough RAM for your swap disk (normal recommendations are two times your physical RAM, although it obviously will get complicated here. I'd say a minimum of 256mb).So, let's say 128mb for your OS (as a minimum for XP), 256mb for your swap drive, and then a gig (or more) for FS. It's doable, but probably with not less than 2gig (not completely unreasonable given the price of RAM -- I *almost* got 2 gig when I ordered my new system, although I'm getting by with only 1 right now).Let us know what you discover if you try this.

Some products are available for Win9x which allow you to use RAM folders, ie just a specific folder stored in RAM. I used one of these with FS98 and set my texture and scenery folders to use as RAM folders. Performance improvements were noticable but not fantastic...The product I used was called VRAMDIR. Unfortunately I don't have enough RAM to try it successfully with 2k2.Chris Ehttp://website.lineone.net/~flightsimukAvoid AGP texturing = Better Performance ;)