I think we will have to wait for FS10 for it to be able to help you. I do
envy your system though but wonder why it runs so slow even at that
1600x1200 setting.

John


"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e$KnN8JiFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> P4 EE @ 3.73Mhz 2MB on die cache 1.5GB 500Mhz rated memory at CL2.5-3-3-7,
> ATI X800XT PE (570 GPU, 560 memory), two 74GB WD Raptor 10K rpm SATA
> drives (RAID 0). FSB is running at 220Mhz with TWO external Koolance
> water cooling units.
>
> My system consistantly produces some of the highest graphics scores I've
> seen on the net (exceptions are those dry ice and/or liquid gas based
> cooling systems) and has no problems with any other game/software.
> However, with FS2004 I can easily bring frame rates to <5 fps using PMDG
> 737 and weather (fluffy clouds at 80mi distance).
>
> I think the key to the poor performance in my system is that textures and
> polygons push the 256MB ATIX800XT PE over the edge when running at 1600 x
> 1200 32bit 4XAA and 8XAF. I haven't seen many folks that run FS2004 at
> these graphics settings. I run 1600 x 1200 because that is the native
> resolution of my monitor (21" LCD). If FS2004 didn't have serious
> problems with SLI, I'd be running two nVidia cards (which would give me a
> 512MB of video memory and cure my issues) -- but FS2004 is one of the few
> programs that does NOT work in SLI mode -- which is unfortunate cause it
> is perhaps the only program that REALLY needs to be able to.
>
> What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't
> work with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a
> meal & drinks.
>
> Rob.
>
>
> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:e2LMPAAiFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Rob, I do not disagree with your post and was actually responding to jfb
>> who thought add-on a/c were inferior to stock a/c in FS. Most of your
>> comments seemed reasonable although, we tend to forget the small market
>> size which limits what a developer can (or will) do. It doesn't seem to
>> matter what computer and add-on's you have to suffer some framerate
>> erosion. The processor simply has a lot more to do as the instructions
>> get more complex. I believe many users have poor computer setups,
>> insufficient memory and the wrong sliders set to the right. I don't find
>> the default a/c operate a lot better than the LDS 763 or the PMDG737NG.
>>
>> Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
>> including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
>> want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use
>> it he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
>> community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing
>> your system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
>>
>> John.
>>
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
>>>
>>> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going
>>> to an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an
>>> aircraft distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators
>>> typically don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and
>>> unless you develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask
>>> yourself which is more "game" like?
>>>
>>> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
>>> party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to
>>> suggest my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments
>>> with no substance.
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>>
>>> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
>>>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
>>>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
>>>>> the add-on aircraft market:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
>>>>> default Aircraft
>>>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
>>>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
>>>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
>>>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
>>>>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every
>>>>> add-on aircraft
>>>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
>>>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
>>>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
>>>>> can't handle it any more
>>>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
>>>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
>>>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
>>>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
>>>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
>>>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz
>>>>> Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into
>>>>> a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
>>>>> been warned!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in
>>>>> your reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems
>>>>> should be more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you
>>>>> turn EVERYTHING off or down".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>