>So stop complaining about them and posting the same tired>responses that we aready know about.>RobertThat's a bit rich, someone telling us what we can and can't say and what types of post we can and can't respond to. I don't recall any Avsim members specifically asking users to refrain from bagging FS2004, so I don't see why people should be prevented from defending it either.

Yep, because the anonimity of the net lets you say anything you want. No one knows you and no one can prove anything you say. Saying stop complaining about people complaining is just you getting your jollies trying to get a rise out of me. And it worked.

I'd get it for sure!See my post here -http://forums.avsim.com/dcboard.php?az=sho...27453&mode=fullJerryG

i have removed fs2002 from my system (p4 3.06,1 gig ram, ti 4600).i have many wonderfull hours with fs2004 without the first glitch.with all the good stuff on i get the same or better fps as 2002 even my sons lowly p4 1.5, 768mgs ram, gf 5200, uses the good stuff with no probs.the improvements are too numerous to list and most are available to anyone with an average 'puter. you dont have to have a mega-monster to enjoy this version of fs.don

Hi Guys,I must express my frustration. I have had FS2004 since last Saturday, and the more time I spend on it, the more frustrated I become.I originally demoed this sim at the E3 where I already noticed the heavy loss of frame rates with the new weather system. I dismissed this issue since this was just a beta version, running on a PC that was under heavy use for 3 entire days. Well, in preparation for the new release, I went ahead and bought a new PC, which had cost me well over $2,000. I felt confident that I was going to be able to run FS2004 as smooth as silk. I thought wrong!Even with my higher-end PC, I still experience a major loss in frame rates. Yes, I have everything maxed out, but it just makes me so mad that I have to lower my standards/settings in order to run things at normal rates. I can't help but wonder what types of PC's Microsoft used to test and develop this sim. Maybe some Silicon Graphic Super Computer...Anyway, in my opinion, I feel ripped off! I spent a large sum of money just for this hobby, and now I find myself turning back to FS2002.Even though I'm mad right now, I'm hoping that Microsoft and maybe ATI are working on a solution because this is just ridiculous!(Even if this has something to do with the setup of my PC, it kills me that I have to spend a considerable amount of time having to research the issue and hunt for solutions.)I'm sorry for my rantings, but I just needed to add my input on this subject.Regards,NorbertDELL XPSP4 3GHz/800 MHz front side Bus with Hyper Threading1024 MB DDR SDRAM @400 MHzATI Radeon 9800120 GB Ultra HD

No joy! :( Had to run an errand so took the rest of the day off, went home and installed the 3.2 with no change at all - same radeon problems.Just have to have patience. I did go the www.ati.com and left a note for the Catylyst team.But even with the "problems" I'm not at all sorry, this is one great sim! And ATI will update their drivers.Phill Roath

May I ask a question? Why would anyone want anything more than 24 FPS considering that the human eye will not benefit on anything greater than this? I've heard it said that at 15 FPS you probably won't be seeing any differences.Stephen

I really dont get it at all when you find it not possible to get high frame rates with your high end system. Microsoft did not design fs2k4 for it to be running at max settings on todays high end systems exclusively. If they did that the game wouldnt last 2 years unless youre buying addons to keep your interest up. Its a marketing and technology tactic .. and i dont mind it at all. If you dont want to spend to upgrade your hardware to get the full potential of the sim then you either use the lower settings or return your copy of fs2k4 of which someone else will glady purchase. I have a P4 1.3 with 384 megs of ram and a bottom of the line geforece FX (not even ultra) card and i can still get good scenery,weather & textures with no sliders below medium. Im getting 20 fps 95% of the time, Yes it may drop to 10 fps but its a solid 10 that wont crash you on the runway or stutter. If the frames annoy you that much .. then i would suggest you simply wait a year till the Pentium 5 or AMD 64 bit processor comes out instead of blasting the product for being more technologically demanding.

>I really dont get it at all when you find it not possible to>get high frame rates with your high end system. Microsoft did>not design fs2k4 for it to be running at max settings on>todays high end systems exclusively. If they did that the game>wouldnt last 2 years unless youre buying addons to keep your>interest up. Its a marketing and technology tactic .. and i>dont mind it at all. If you dont want to spend to upgrade your>hardware to get the full potential of the sim then you either>use the lower settings or return your copy of fs2k4 of which>someone else will glady purchase. I have a P4 1.3 with 384>megs of ram and a bottom of the line geforece FX (not even>ultra) card and i can still get good scenery,weather &>textures with no sliders below medium. Im getting 20 fps 95%>of the time, Yes it may drop to 10 fps but its a solid 10 that>wont crash you on the runway or stutter. If the frames annoy>you that much .. then i would suggest you simply wait a year>till the Pentium 5 or AMD 64 bit processor comes out instead>of blasting the product for being more technologically>demanding.Sounds good then.. I have an AMD 1700XP, and 512Mb ram... I am hoping that this will be alright for me... Im happy with over 15 FPS and 10FPS when at airports...Whilst i would like to get better graphics than i do on FS2002 (I have most stuff maxed out), FS2002 has given me so much enjoyment, i would pay the money just for the improved things that go on behind the scenes like better ATC and traffic at all airports, taxiway signs and such... Its not that much of a sacrifice when you consider the hours enjoyment it brings...

I don't buy that marketing and technology tactic theory of yours... (if anything, it would only hurt Microsoft using this strategy) If I have to lower my settings, than I'm left with a new FS2002, so what's the point?I strongly believe that this is either a video driver issue, or Microsoft just did some bad programming.And let's not forget the add-ons. Once everyone starts implementing their favorite aircraft/scenery, they will notice an even greater loss in frame rates!By the way, I did spend A LOT of MONEY on a NEW computer in order to get the full potential of the Sim, and that obviously did not work, so don't talk to me about upgrading!What's even stranger to me is that I am also using other advanced software (games/lightwave/maya) and they all seem to run beautifully on my PC. These examples all use greater graphics, so to speak.Anyway, there is no point in arguing over this because everyone here is getting different results, some more favorable than others.Regards,Norbert

First of all - if you are trying to blame MS for you going out and spending $2000 on a new system then shame on you. How ridiculous can you possibly be?Second, by the looks of your system, I have no idea what you are doing wrong but you definitely have something amiss if you are not getting good performance.

Kyle, there is absolutely no reason to attack me or undermine me for expressing my opinion. So, Shame on YOU!For your information, I don't blame MS for my decision in buying a new PC, but I do expect good results from FS9 when I'm running it on a current higher end PC that is way above their recommendations.I even bought the very exact PC that they (Microsoft) used during the E3 Expo.It's a brand new PC, and I have made no adjustments to the hardware, or drivers. I doubt that I'm to blame for the rather bad results from using FS9.Right now it's apparent to me that something is wrong, and I'm not entirely blaming Microsoft on this, but I cannot help but wonder how these problems got through testing. <-(ATI Driver issues??)Norbert