I recently upgraded from a radeon 7000 64DDR to a radeon 9200 128 SE.  Now, I didn't notice a significant performance increase.  However, I am currently running 768 meg. of 3200 DDR.  Now, what would be wise to be next?  Trade my 9200 up to a 9600, 9800, or 5000 series nVidia or first add another 256 of ram and get me over a gig??  I read often where 1 gig or better is prefered for COF and certain add-ons.  Could more ram get me results in 1024x768 resolution that I currently get in 800x600 resolution?  I can maintain a steady 30fps plus in 800x600 and have things turned up rather high but if I go to 1024x768 I struggle at the same settings to maintain 24fps and need to turn down my mesh and autogen settings to keep that 24 fps in busy areas.  Should I try more ram or just stay with 768 and get the vid card I should have in the first place??  Whata ya'all think????

What about the radeon 9200 pro 128mb

Go for the GFX card, get nothing less than a 9600, and avoid the se models they have reduced bandwidth so are not worth the money at all.

Well, I don't think any range of 9200 makes a difference because its all the same board. The only difference is in extras.  My PC shop typically gets better deals because they get just the card, not the retail packages which includes a lot of game demos and stuff and runs the consumer cost up also.  Also, that chart doesn't mention other system specs as well.  Were all the display sliders, clouds, and AI traffic maxed for those benchmarks? I don't need long distance cloud draw.  What good does 3D clouds 10 miles away do anyway.  I can't tell personally unless I'm flying in the cloud.  Right now I can turn everything up and have 30 fps peak in 800x600 which looks just fine  actually to me.  The problem is all these designers that think they need to do panels in 1024x768 resolution in order to look good.  I get tired of not being able to read some gauges and labels without relying on tool tips.  If I can get 25-30 peak in 1024x768 I'll be happy.

Okay, I'll go to ATI's website and run thier comparison utility, make my selections and then call my PC shop and give them to him and see what trade up numbers he can throw me. maybe I still can get away with less than $100 USD for a trade up and still get a good card.

Your ram and cpu are fine...... you have no idea how badly your current video card is holding you back.

As 4_Series_Scania said in another thread, try to get a 6800LE for your overstretched dollar.

If you are just being a penny pincher though, the video card is not the place to skimp, get the best you can afford, your simming is going to be so much more enjoyable.

How many FPS the eye can see has never actually been found out I dont think.  And yes motion films are at 24fps but they are blurred between each frame to achieve smoothness.

What a higher FPS does is smoothness.  For example at 25FPS if I pan quickly around the plane in spot view you can see the scenery goin past but not silky smooth.  Now go somewhere where it holds 40 and do it! if you cant see the difference then your eyes are in pretty poor condition hehehe.  Also being sat close to the monitor doesnt help! sitting further away you wouldn't notice the unsmoothness as much.

I will say your setup will have a sweet spot that FS will run best at.  FS-GS explained all this to me though I cant tell you hows it worked out I am afraid.

The main aim is to not achieve the highest FPS you can but get your lowest FPS up a bit! and also to make the sim run smoothly.

1600x1200 me up!! hehehe  8)