Some of the FS2004 default textures are big, some are enormous.
In my opinion MS in their latest FS release assumed that most of the people out there own the latest video card,
and those who do not are more than happy to run FS with minimum graphic settings.
Most simmers out there (including me) do not have the latest video card,
and FS2004 does not support 640X480 screen resolution as FS2002 did.
Even most of the "third party" add-on aircraft like Project Opensky use 1024X1024 textures for each section of the plane!!!
Textures that big deliver enormous detail, at the cost of performance, and in most cases are really unnecessary.
The option in my opinion is resizing, by cutting the texture format in half.
1024X1024 to 512X512.
512X512 to 256x256.
256X256 to 128X128...and so on.
In case of Cloud texture--512X512 format can be cut in half to 256X256.
The cost of resizing is less detailed texture.
The benefit of resizing is smoother performance, as it takes less time for PC to process these textures.
The difference between the default and resized textures in my opinion is minimal.
Results in improved Framerate may vary, depending on the current settings you use.
There are many factors in FS that may contribute to slow Framerates (FPS):
--Clouds, mainly flying close to them or flying through them will definitely drop FPS.
--Large airports, especially with active AI traffic, will noticeably decrease FPS
--Large cities, with many Autogen buildings and scenery landmarks.
--Weather, rain and snow are textures too, adding additional strain on the performance.
In so many words, everything you see on the screen are textures, and there are lots of them in FS, in all kinds of sizes.
All of them have to be processed CONTINUALLY in a fraction of a second, hence the term Frames Per Second (FPS).
When it comes to the resizing--smaller sometimes is better.
If you decide to resize some more textures in FS...
Here is the list of the formats you should maintain.
