OK.  So, I know I have an old stinker of a PC for FSX and I've been willing to live with the desert like landscape.  I literally run with all sliders minimized and everything turned off and unchecked. 

But I thought, what the heck, I'll try FS9 on this machine and see what I get because SURELY I'll be able to run it decently since it was release around the same time as my current PC and I've upgraded some things since getting it originally.

Here is what I CURRENTLY have:

Dell Dimension P4 2.66 Ghz single processor
1.5 GB RAM
NVIDIA 9400GT 512MB
40GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM
60GB IBM DESKSTAR ATA100,7200 RPM
*These are on seperate IDE controllers and FSX and FS9 are the only thing on the 60GB drive, the rest of the system runs off the 40GB.

I've already followed Nicks tweaks (OS, FS9.cfg, and Nhancer) exactly.  I'm a long time PC/Network engineer and most of them I had already been doing on my PC but there were a few that I did still have to do.  I did the defrags with the OO tool even though my drives were at < 2% defrag already.

If I have the display settings set to High and load up the default KSEA flight (daytime) I get < 10fps (5-8 typically) sitting on the runway waiting to take off.

If I select Minimum on all tabs I can squeeze out 13 fps.

I feel like something can't be right.  I've run performance tests on my video card using Passmarks Performance Test and I can get 150 and 75 for the simple and medium 3D tests but it drops to 1 fps for the complex 3D test.  I can even overclock my GPU and get 210fps on the simple test but the other two tests stay the same.

Well, my system RAM stays well below the 1.5 GB available (almost half to be exact).  I have no addons, these are pretty generic installs.

My motherboard is a PCI bus and not PCIe or AGP, which is yours?

My FPS is so similar in FS9 and FSX I'm thinking there is a hardware limitation somewhere I am not seeing.  I have spent all week trying to figure this out, my wife is about to call in a missing persons report I've been spending so much time in my office. 

PCI Graphics cards are completely obsolete now.
The very minimum you need is a AGP Graphics Card (mine is a n-vidia 7800 GS 256 AGP Card).

....or better still, the latest PCIe Graphics card.

So that means a new Motherboard, New Processor, and New Memory...in other words....a New Computer..... ...!

My ancient system which runs FS 2004 flat out, smoothly, with all the sliders Maxed, at a LOCKED 20 FPS...>>>

Fozzer's bits:
Desktop case.
Motherboard: Gigabyte. GA7-400 S-L. (AGP and Socket A).
Processor: Socket A. AMD Athlon Thoroughbred 2600 MMX (2.1 GHz).
Graphics: AGP. n-Vidia Winfast 7800GS 256 MB.
Memory: 2 GB.
Power: 700 Watt. Storm PSU.
Sound: Creative Labs. Soundblaster 1024 Live!
Monitor: Philips 15" 170C.

Copes with FS 2004 wonderfully.... ...!

If I wanted to upgrade anything in the above system now, it would involve a COMPLETE rebuild!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...FS Navigator... ...!

MSFS performance is mostly dependant on CPU speed and RAM.

A good GPU does help , but it's probably the least important of the three.

Your GPU is fine here, if you can get a 756Mb 8800 series card, you'll be even happier.  2-3 Gb of fast RAM , and a reasonably quick CPU,  (2.8Ghz or higher preferably ) are the tickets to happiness with FS9.
With these things, you could even start to enjoy FSX again.

The graphics of FS are pretty spartan by most gaming standards, thus why GPU's aren't the most important part.
CPU speed & RAM are needed to perform the mind boggling calculations needed, and if you're flying anything fast and high, with lots of AI traffic and cloudy skies, this will become apparent.

Those who only fly low & slow, with little or no traffic, and clear skies with limited visibility, can get by on much slower systems, and be perfectly satisfied.

When FS-(9 or X) is running, your CPU is having to:

-manage your position on the Earth
-manage wind & weather conditions, and how they affect your plane
-manage AI traffic within a 40nm radius of your plane
-handle ATC for you and the AI
-determine which textures, mesh, and landclass files need to be displayed

All the GPU has to do is render some textures.

That's a ton of things for the CPU to handle, and more RAM takes a bit of the load off. 
The faster and higher you get, the harder and faster your CPU must run to keep up.

Fozzer wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 10:16am:



Agreed. With the extra RAM, realistic expectations for your system,and a bit of trial & error with the sliders, you can find a happy balance .

I have both FS 2004 (and FS '98/2000/2002) and FSX, and the thing I really, REALLY love about FS 2004, is the ability to have enormous fun with the most basic of computers!
A little twiddle here and there with the sliders, etc. works wonders!.

For anyone who is struggling and getting frustrated and disappointed with their efforts in getting FSX to run "nicely"on their computer, and unable/worried about have to spend lots of money on an upgrade, do give FS 2004 a try....it can be found at a bargain price now, and is well worth a try-out...and at least it will get you up in the air with no difficulty!.... ...!

Keep both FSX and FS 2004 ready for your Hard Drive... ...!

Paul...G-BPLF....FS 2004/FSX.... ...!

...and....within seconds, and a couple of Mouse clicks, you can join all the other Multiplayer Flight Simmers on the Net.... ...!

Well i have to agree with JoBee.We know sometimes PCI EX. fights to stay ok with FS.Now PCI its almost a miracle.Tweaking migh improve abit, but honestly you need to update your system.Or you could try fs2002, not that it will be a great diference in terms of performance boost , but some you will.