I haven't done a side by side comparison. After running FSX on my old FX 5200 Go (64 MB) and got more frame than my 6800GT (256 MB), the shaders have to be cause. It might be the shader execution unit is slower or the FSX shader program is not optimized or both.New York screen shot. I don't even get this kind of FR in FS9 with the Aerosoft New York addon.

Do that on the card level; the taxiway sign still there.

BOPrey :I tried to make my own comparison using the amsterdam mission that has a thunderstorm going but need further testing.

If I am not mistaken, the default installation is for nVidia. However, it comes with patches for many different cards, and of course, patches for ATI cards are included.

I did this a few weeks ago and posted about it after reading a thread on fs2004.com.I used the following described in the threadhttp://www.nvhardpage.com/Rather than turning the shaders off I reduced them to level 1 it gave me around a 15%/20% boost with my 6800GT, turning the completely off removes the rather nice windshield reflection and other effects.John

Forcing it to use shader model 1 doesn't do much for me. I only fly addons anyway, and their textures are excellent.

Can you explain to someone who has never done this how to set this?Thanks....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>I thought FSX did use shaders.Ignore: I didn't read the original post correctly. :-scatter

Well I tried the fsx.cfg tweak KORD daytime all settings at ultra and screen resolution at 1280 x 1024Before - 12-15 fps with a bit of stutterAfter - 23-30 fps with no stuttersJust as an experiment I maxed everything out. That gave me around 8 fps with stutters. A bit too slow but I wasn't expecting much anyway with such "killer" settings.Like somone else mentioned I also got white taxiway signs so I might give the other method a try as this does seem to be worth looking into.My system Intel E6600, 9700GT 256MB, 2GB RAM

Avsim should post a FAQ somewhere once all this get's sorted out on, 'How to get the best performance out of FSX'. This thread seems to be the most promising thread I've read so far...

What I find really interesting about this whole thing is that I don't see anything in the game where it tries to find the optimal shaders for your specific card. Maybe it's doing it behind the scenes or during the loadup or something. All the other games I've bought over the last 2 years that made a lot of use of shaders always go through some sort of "shader optimization" process whenever you change the video settings to determine the best shader code for your configuration.Is this happening at all? Or is FSX simply running a single set of SM2.0 code that is generic for both ATI+NVidia cards and isn't optimized for either or for specific model cards, etc.?--2002cbr600f4i

Well in the fsx.cfg file under {GRAPHICS} there's a SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=1 setting that probably relates to your assertion that shaders are optomised on loadup. Not that I have any knowledge information on the subject or anything. Just following along, like everyone else. Keep up the investigations, we'll get there...

Great tips in here, I think the default.xml->default.bak one was one key thing... To sum it up I just got an FPS increase of at least ten thousand per cent or so and have now plenty of settings maxed (including scenery complexity, AutoGen (@6k/6k), road traffic, global texture size), on a mid-ranged system, and my frames dead locked at twenty and freezed. I consider myself a happy camper. :-hahThanks for all the most valuable help. Cheers! :-beerchugEtienne :-waveEDITAs I see this thread still (fortunately!!!) continues to grow - any added hint will be greatly appreciated for an even smoother experience. :-smooch

>Avsim should post a FAQ somewhere once all this get's sorted>out on, 'How to get the best performance out of FSX'. This>thread seems to be the most promising thread I've read so>far... thread in tips and tricks forum is up... it'll make it's way in there as soon as it's sorted out :) right now... this thread is getting confusing... lolAm I understanding correctly in saying:Setting shader values to 0 in the FSX cfg will result in white ramp signs, but using rivatuner to disable shaders will not do that?Am I hearing changing default.xml to default.bak will reduce polygon count on buildings dramatically resulting in greater FPS?excellent and useful information is being thrown around here like crazy... I'm just a little fish in the great pond trying to keep up with the tide... lol

The SM2.0 of FSX seems generic but works fine at least here with nice effects and havent heard about shader problems, also it doesnt affect my frame rate since seems the major load of FSX is to main memory and CPU.The bad thing is that just discovered a big memory leak related to scenery setting, I found it doing the following :1.- If you running FSX close it and re-run2.- At options change your Scenery to LOW3.- Load any mission or situation and check your fps4.- At options change your Scenery to MAX and check your fps5.- At options return Scenery to LOW and check your fpsHere step 3 gave me 30 fps, step 4 gave me 13.4 fps and step 5 had to gave me again 30 fps but it didnt! reported 15.1 fps ( half of fps i had in the beginning )I dont know if its my system or what but its bad, so guys just remember when you testing new settings its better to restart FSX or fps will be lower than they should.Here are the screenshots of my test :STEP 3http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159136.jpgSTEP 4http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159137.jpgSTEP 5http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159138.jpgAs you can see, STEP 5 looks like STEP 3 thats because they are actually the same settings, the only difference is the frame rate and the compass that changed the proportion somehow.The difference between STEP 4 and STEP 5 is the static scenery setting, the first at LOW and the next at MAX ( all way right )