SimCity 4 slows down when you have a large city as well.
But I made a mistake about the processor and only looked at the part that said 2.0 ghz. In that case, he would have an even better processor than me and I have never experienced a frame rate of 1.8.
Also, the reason people defend the title is probably because it is a niche game that doesn't have the budget or acclaim that a Gears of War or Call of Duty does. This forum isn't the most active in the world. I think the Peggle forum has more going on. In any case, I would rather played a flawed Cities in Motion than not have the opportunity to play it at all.
Going back to your experience, you sound like as if you are whining (apologies if you feel you are not whining). You've stated in another thread that your setup is an Intel e6700 3.2 ghz, a Radeon 5770 and 4 gigs of ram. I have the same video card and ram, but my processor is an Athlon II 3.1 ghz.
You stated you play at 1080p. You are probably pushing that hardware further than you should. I play at 1440x900 on a 19 inch monitor. Everything looks wonderful on this hardware. 1440x900 appears to be the sweet spot for mid-range gaming hardware.
So I went ahead and loaded my biggest city in Cities in Motion (20+ lines, per your whining). AA is 2x and AF is 4x. I get about the same performance as you, but I do see 30-34 FPS fairly often even when zoomed out.
But then again, what are you expecting from a sim game in which thousands of little people are tracked in real-time? Do you understand that SimCity 4, a more mainstream and popular title, chugged along back when it was released?
You are taking what is basically the low end of mid-range gaming hardware at the moment and complaining about performance. I applaud the Cities of Motion team for this wonderful game and will make no apologies to Canadians for it.