On 1 Dec 2004 06:34:27 -0800, (rottenberg) wrote:

Your point is well taken - I was unaware of that aspect of FS-ACoF.
Do you have any older versions of FS? How does it compare on
frame-by-frame?

I'm not positive that I understand what you mean, but I'll just take a
chance. I've had all but very first version of FS and I'd never go
back to any of them. Obviously, you'd see better frame rates with
something like FS 5.1CD on a modern computer (compared to FS9), but
the loss of the improvements that have been made since FS 5.1CD came
out would make it totally unacceptable. Like many others, I was not
positive that FS9 would really be worth the purchase price, compared
to FS2002 - but once I had installed it and saw what it could do,
there was no way I'd ever go back. And if you are having frame rate
problems and can't afford a better machine (been there - and still
there), you can always crank back your Autogen, Aircraft, Weather,
etc. settings (just to name a few possibilities) until you get
something acceptable.

Last but not least, frame rates beyond 24 fps are just wasted anyway -
that's all most monitors and your eyes can really handle. (Bet ya
I'll get ripped on that statement).

Jim