FS2004 Default Terminal 2/3 .bgl

[Bruce Hamilton]

What he is saying is the 1 gig on the memory card consumes one of the four gigs that XP will use, so you're already at 3.  What is on your motherboard in the way of chips?  Do you have four chips of 512 megabytes each, or two 1 gig chips and 2 empty slots?  If you have an empty slot, another 1 gig chip is about $18.  Changing the CPU will most likely require a new motherboard as well, and you wouldn't want to use XP with a new processor.

[gmcg]

Two ram sticks.....

New CPU/Mobo would have to run XP for the time being (it should run it no problem).

I think were saying the same thing here. With the 1GB card, I only have 1GB for FS2004 to run on when in the game. So if I add two more sticks, I would have 1GB for the card and 3 for FS. Is that way you're saying?

[virtuali]

New CPU/Mobo would have to run XP for the time being (it should run it no problem).

SAVE your money, don't change the CPU, just install Windows 7 x64.

So if I add two more sticks, I would have 1GB for the card and 3 for FS. Is that way you're saying?

No, it's much worse than that. If you add 2 GB, with a 32 bit OS and a 1GB video card, as soon as Windows starts, you will have *roughly* 2.6 GB in TOTAL for Windows, because the video card and all other resources on the mainboard will all map into the lower 4GB, which is the only memory a 32 OS can address. In this situation, the card is "stealing" your user RAM.

Which means, FS9 couldn't even use 3GB and, it will have to *share* those 2.6 GB with all the rest of the OS.

With Windows 7 64 bit, you will have the whole 4GB for Windows, with FS9 using up to 3 for itself.

[gmcg]

So what should I do in regards to RAM? Another stick? What? 1 stick?

Windows 7 is not going to happen at the moment b/c I've read a ton of stories about how FS9 and Win 7 don't like each other. If I could find a "how-to-make-FS9-work-in-WIN7" then maybe would think about it.

If FS9 and Win 7 do run with each other reliably with each other and the stutters and low FPS at KORD go away, then I would do Win 7 in a heartbeat but I want to be sure first.

As you can tell I'm an idiot with this stuff.....

So would Win7 allow me to run FS9 reliably and would I get the 5ish FPS outta KORD with it?

[gmcg]

I'm going to try Vsnyc 1/2 rate to since I have it locked at 30 and I run in Windows mode. Plus my refresh is 60Hz. I think it might only work in full screen though. Worth a shot at this point.

Not expecting it to boost FPS much but should help the stutter(s) and make it look more smooth when I hit the FPS drop area.

Still the question remains.....

To salvage Win XP 32bit, what do I need to do?

If I go to Win 7 64bit, does the FPS go up?

Thanks to all for the help. Sorry I'm such an idiot with this stuff. I just want to make sure of the answer before I make any moves.

[virtuali]

Windows 7 is not going to happen at the moment

Your inflexibility with your wrong conceptions is not going to help you much.

b/c I've read a ton of stories about how FS9 and Win 7 don't like each other.

So, you read a story about someone that probably didn't had any clue about computers saying there are problems and blindly believe it, but if others including the developers of the product you are having issues with, tell you to switch to Windows 7, you don't listen, because "you heard stories" ??

If I could find a "how-to-make-FS9-work-in-WIN7" then maybe would think about it.

There's nothing really difficult: same as with FSX, simply don't accept the default installation folder under C:\Program Files, and install into a custom folder, like C:\FS9 for example. This will solve all issues with Windows 7 UAC model, which are usually created by old addons that try to write in the protected C:\Program Files.

So would Win7 allow me to run FS9 reliably and would I get the 5ish FPS outta KORD with it?

You still haven't provided what I've asked in my last message: what is the fps at KORD with the default C172 WITHOUT ANY VSYNC LOCK ? Because that would tell about how much of your fps is lost because of the scenery and how much is because of the Level-D

Now, I cannot guaranteed you will gain 5 fps, but surely it will run better and, if you are planning to upgrade RAM, it will save you from WASTING your money, because the 64 bit OS will use it entirely.

[gmcg]

Not inflexible...... just unsure and making sure I understand before I make any moves that drastic.

You said that I would have about 2.6 GB for FS9 to pick out of if I put two more sticks of ram in. I know you also said it would have to "share" with other things but if FS2004 and System Idle are the only two things taking up CPU threads, then I should still have a great amount of RAM available for FS9 to use correct?

Compared to my current set-up (2-gig of RAM) it would be a marked increase correct? It is worth a shot since the 4GB of ram will just go towards Win7.

Vysnc-off and unlimited goes up to about 35-40FPS last time I checked.

[Bruce Hamilton]

Check this thread, it gives you all the information you need to migrate to Windows 7.  Pay particular attention to the link in post # 2, you'll need to patch fs9.exe to make it large address aware.

[Bruce Hamilton]

Compared to my current set-up (2-gig of RAM) it would be a marked increase correct? It is worth a shot since the 4GB of ram will just go towards Win7.

First, decide yes or no if you're going to go to Windows 7.  If you decide yes, Windows 7 Home Premium will read up to 16 gigabytes of RAM, and memory is one of the cheapest upgrades you can do for a computer.  In your case, I would buy 4 chips of 2 gigs each, for a total of 8 gigabytes.  More than enough for FS9.

[gmcg]

If I was to stay with XP..... would 2 more gigs help is what I'm wondering.

[Bruce Hamilton]

As Umberto already explained, Windows XP only sees around 3.5 gigs of memory total, regardless of how much you have!!  Since the 1 gigabyte on your graphics card counts towards that, you're already at 3 gigabytes.  Buying RAM chips and sticking with XP is wasting your money.

[gmcg]

Forget the money aspect at this moment.

In my current setup (2GBRAM)
My GPU takes up 1GB of it. That leaves me with about 1GB left for FS and the OS correct?

If I were to add more (4GBRAM)
My GPU would take up about 1GB of it. That leaves me with about 2.6GB of RAM for FS and the OS correct?

2.6 GB > 1GB

Which would lead me to believe everything will preform better if I add two more sticks to my current setup. Is this correct (all I'm trying to get out of this)?

[virtuali]

In my current setup (2GBRAM)
My GPU takes up 1GB of it. That leaves me with about 1GB left for FS and the OS correct?

No. The GPU ram will be allocated in the space after your current 2GB, because that's available now, so you have 2GB for FS9+OS

I were to add more (4GBRAM)
My GPU would take up about 1GB of it. That leaves me with about 2.6GB of RAM for FS and the OS correct?

Yes. In this case, the only 4GB that a 32 bit OS can allocate in total are all taken by your regular RAM so, for the GPU to work, it must "steal" some of it, because nothing outside 4GB can be seen by a 32 bit OS.

2.6 GB > 1GB

No, it's 2.6 GB > 2.0GB, which is a bit better but, adding 2GB JUST to gain an additional .6 doesn't make any sense, when upgrading the OS to 64 bit would give you the whole 2GB you bought...and FS9 itself could go up to 3GB (by patching the FS9.EXE), when you have the entire 4GB available for FS+OS

[gmcg]

OK....

Would 3GB (add 1) be better? That would allow all three to go towards OS and FS9 while the other 1GB open slot is for the GPU?

What is "patching the fs9.exe" mean? I've read that avsim topic before and still have no idea.

Thanks for putting up with my crap guys! Great support forums!

[Bruce Hamilton]

You're still not grasping something, you're already at 3 gigabytes (2 gigs in chips + 1 gig in graphics card).  Adding a 1 gig chip will net you just over half a gig, you'd never even notice it was there.  Install Windows 7, reinstall FS9 with sceneries, and patch the exe file... or upgrade to FSX or Prepar3D.