I recently updated from a RADEON PCIe 1600XT 256MB to a ATI PCIe 1900XT 512MB.Sorry: This is a longer Posting but I want to inform also on Details for urgend recommented FSX Tweaking (w/o Video Card this also can increase your Framerate for more than 25% w/o common recognizable Quality Reducement) and all Affects after Video card change.My System: Athlon64-3500, 1 GB DDR2-400 Memory, HD with 256GB, 7500 1/min. (defragmentated after FSX install) and different Partitions used for OS, Memory Cache and FSX Appl., Windows XP SP2, Tweaked Ground-, Clouds- and Building-Textures from 1024x1024 DXT5(?) to 512x512 DXT1, Traffic for AI-Planes set to 10..15% and Traffic for AI-Ships set to 50..60%FSX.cfg: FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION is set to 0.33 (Default Value! You can increase this value i.E. to 0,4 if you still have unlimited Framerate and each next Texture Reload needs to much time for you specific at higher Speed flights. But be warned this increasement of Texture Reload Time also will decrease the Time for the FSX Application and may cause Stuttering. So try it carefull)FSX.cfg: TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT is increased to 600 (instead of 40 to get Benefit from Larger 512MB Video Memory Usage for for cacheable Texture Data)Framerate is set to unlimited (to avoid blurry Textures at higher Speed Flights)Mem Status Tool shows that between usual 180 up to maximum 480 MB (Peak Value at San-Francisco Intl. Airport) Video Memory is used (This is massive Depending on the Slider Settings for Image Quality at the FSX-Video Options and can also be decreased massive by Usage of tweaked Textures).The Difference after Video Card Change to 1900XT 512MB:Stuttering at changing my View (I.E. from Front to left- or backsife and then back to front) is massive decreased (from former partial much more than 1..2 Seconds to now mostly less than 0.5 Seconds). The Sometimes seen Stuttering for Video Memory Reload is now decreased from former often more than 2...5 Seconds to now more spare and mostly less than 1 Second.Frame rates are increased only(!) by 20..30% (Depends on FSX complexity Slider Settings and the Area to fly at. Reload of new Textures is also improved. It is also now possible for me to fly from Virtual Cockpit or from External Aircraft View w/o massife Framerate reducement (assume 10..15%).I.E. the Default Startup Area increased at estimated 75% Slider Settings from 8..12 Frames to 10...15 Frames.I.E. San Francisco Intl. Aproach from Sout is increased at estimated 75% Slider Settings from 4..6 Frames to 6...9 Frames.I Meanwhile have 2 Settings Configurations defined. One for low populated Areas (like the Default Startup Area) and the other one for High populated Areas (San Francisco, New York etc...) with large Aircrafts. Helps a lot only to load the fitting Configuration direct from the Options-Menu each time if I change from one Population Area Type to the other one.Video card Update Results under the Line:Positive:Frame Rates increased for more than 20%, much less Stutter (still there but now mostly for much less than 1s), first Time I got the ability to Fly in low polluted Areas with Maximum Texture- and Image- complexity, Building Autogen to maximum and Anti Alaising with anisotropic Filter at (nearly) never less than 8 Frames/s. and often more than 14..16 Frames/s. Also first Time possible to use external View or VC w/o massive Decreasement of Frame rate. Start of FSX or Shift to another Scenery Area I.E. by Map Selection (including Load of all Textures etc.) is now 25% faster (only assumed, not measured).I also had tried to fly with massife reduced FSX-Silder Settings (<30%) and fixed Frame Rates. In this case I can fly with 35..50 Frames/Second now but the Quality is reduced to less than FS2004 Minimum Standards (makes no sense for me) and the Textures are often only very Blury (makes also no sense for me).Negative:Much more Noise! I had additional to update to a 650W Power Supply (more Noise) with PCIe Power Connectors and the 1900XT has a Big fan that bows many Air and Noise(!) through a second PCI-Slot (new ATI-Card has double Height) direct to my Feet. Maybe this Winter I can decrease my Heating Costs ;-)Tips:More Video Memory than 512MB is not usefull (Never reached the 512MB Limit - also with still untweaked Textures). Faster GPU helps to get faster Texture Data Transfer and better Visual Quality. Video Card Quality at 120x1024x32Bit with max. Mipmap Quality, Anisotropic Filtering and full Anitalaising is now Possible w/o measurable decreasement of Framerate (was previous a Problem that shuts down my Framerate for 20..30%). Framerate Increasement seems to be depending to both Aspects GPU and 512MB) (also tested on another Athlon46-3000 with 1 GB Memory, same HD and Radeon AGP 1600 GTO 512MB). Framerate there: 10% more than on my System with the old 1600XT-256MB Card. It seems that the System with 512MB GPU Memory has now more Reserve for Texture Data (seen by massive decreased factor of Stuttering at Flight duration and often used View Perspective changes)Maybe common Memory Increasement may help al little (I have only 1 GB). My System is optimized for low Memory Consumption (limited Autostart etc., HD for Dynamic Memory and FSX is defragmentated, Registry is optimized against unused Items etc.). MemStat always shows usage of more than 950 MB (rest is permanently shifted to HD Memory Buffer). I can also see that Parts of the Memory allocated by my OS are shifted to HD (Long Reload times if I switch back to Windows or if I try to reload.Usage of 1.5...2GB Memory may increase the Framerate again for 5..15% (Assummed from Reportings from other Users with nearly Fitting PC Configuration.Usage of a faster CPU may also increase the Framerate but the Benefit may only be small. Maybe a Athlon 64 4200 or a Intel 3,5 GHz CPU may increase again the Framerate for 10..20%But for me my Budget was limited. So I spent nearly 300EUR for the Video card and again 120 EUR for a new 650W Power Supply. My previous used Power Supply with 550W had no extra Power connectors for the PCIe Videocard and be warned to use dubious PCIe-Adapter from common HD-Power Connectors (HD Power Connectors are mostly limited to 100..150W - and this was too less for my new 1900XT Video card with more than 105W continuus Power Consumption in 3D-Mode). With respect to my Family I'll not spent again more than 500EUR now for new Motherboard + CPU + 2GB of Memory only to get assumed maximum 30% of more Framerate.Thanks for reading this long Posting and I hope, some of my Information may be helpfull for some of you.Regards from Germany, Heinz-Werner Arens

Thats' very useful H-W, thanks a lot.Hopefully, ACES will begin to get some idea of why we are dissatisfied - although you got good increases from upgrading you spent 420 Euros, and got a 20% increase. So the goal for ACES with their patching should be 20-30%, for nothing. Then upgrades like this will have a proven value, as they will, when taken with any MS update, actually almost double fps to a level overall. That might even make city flying possible!It also helps show that, even without spending on a whole new CPU and mobo there are some reasonable gains to be had by limited upgradng, and also that the game scales with video RAM, at least on the PCI-X bus. Bottlenecks everywhere in the new, refined FSX code, it seems!Personally, with an AGP board limiting my options, I think I'll go along a similar path, although I already have a 650w power supply, so my budget will be RAM and GPU - probably an ATI X1950 Pro, which will be a cost-eefective upgrade on what I have now, without needing a mobo change.Allcott

City flying would be MUCH improved right now, if the default.xml file would be modded/fixed/improved/something. The is something in that file that is hurting frame rates in cities. Probably the same xml issue that was in FS9, and the FS9.1 patch addressed that issue.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Hello - and Yes, your're right. Modifying of the Autogen Object Configuration can also improve the Framerate massive. 3 Options are possible:1. default.xml is the consequentest Variant if you I.E. rename it to default.xml.bak. But you'll lose all Autogen and then you'll have high Framerates but very poor Eye candy that is less worth than FS2004 Quality if yo fly in low Altitudes. So this is more a Solution for Low Power Systems and maybe for Users who do not have FS-9 with exciting Addons or for Users who like usual to fly in higher Altitudes with high Framerates and who want to benefit from the other new FSX Features. 2. Tweaking of the Autogen Tree or the Autogen Buildings Configurations (various tweaked Files can be found at the web). Target is always to limit the Ammout of Tree types or Buildings combined with Building Roofs that will be displayed in Combination. But the tweked Files that I found tend to very simple Autogen (I.E. only one Type of Trees per time or 4 Types of Buildings per time or Buildings but no Trees in City Areas). Too simple for me. The much higher Variation of Objects shown at the same Time makes one of the markable Differences in Inprovement against the FS-9 Autogen.3. Modifying of the Number of Autogen Objects maximal shown per Time. Two variations are possible: a) Decrease the maximum Ammount of possible Trees and Buildings at the FSX.cfg. This Change is a good Idea if you still want to use the Slider (i.e. maximized in low crowded Areas) at the FSX-Options for Autogen and you want a global limit of all Autogen fitting to your machine. :( Decrease simply the Slider at the FSX-Options for Autogen This is what I use. So I'm still able to see full Autogen with full Autogen Varity in Low crowded Areas and I'm also able to limit them massive for the high crowded Areas.So everybody who is able to find and use these Tweaks may decide for himself what is the best way for him to Improve his FSX.Regards Heinz-Werner Arens

Hello Allcott,Thanks for your response. See my comments below...>Hopefully, ACES will begin to get some idea of why we are>dissatisfied - although you got good increases from upgrading>you spent 420 Euros, and got a 20% increase. I did my Update also because I use other 3D-Applications and my old 1600 XT 256 MB was not powerfull enough to use Highest Quality settings of Mipmaps, anisotropical Filter and full Antialaising on my 1280x1024 Resolution. My Power supply was a little outdated for my PCIe-system and so I also had to replace fo my High Power Video card.>So the goal for ACES with their patching should be 20-30%, for>nothing. Not for Nothing I would say. Usability of FS is now also massive improved for switching between the different Views (former a massive stuttering Problem) and for loading of new scenery Areas (takes also to much timer with the previous card). Previos I often flew with 8..12 Frames and now often 10..16 Frames are possible in the same Areas with the same Slider settings. This also makes it more fun to get a better feeling of "flying". And first time it is possible now for me to fly I.E. in the low crowded canadian Mountains with 14..18 Frames and nearly all FSX-Sliders set to maximum. But yes you're right - I'm also a little dissappointed (hoped for 30..50% Improvement with this update) and my Expectations were not very high.>Then upgrades like this will have a proven value, as>they will, when taken with any MS update, actually almost>double fps to a level overall. That might even make city>flying possible!>>It also helps show that, even without spending on a whole new>CPU and mobo there are some reasonable gains to be had by>limited upgradng, and also that the game scales with video>RAM, at least on the PCI-X bus. Bottlenecks everywhere in the>new, refined FSX code, it seems!Four Bottlenecks are identified:a) FSX is initial designed for Vista with DIRECTX 10 and now a Problem with XP and DirectX 9.0c. This is the largest Bottleneck. DirectX 10 Cards with markable Higher performance are needed (the first prototypes are not powerfull enough) and will be expected in 12..18 Months for acceptable Prices. FSX needs an Update after Markes start of Vista with DirectX 10 and also the DirectX10 Cards are on the Marked. I assume that this will take more Time as many of us expect (Maybe 12-2007?) and it will also relative Our Assumptions on possible DirectX10- Improvements. So I think that this is not a Resolution for Update Budgets (:( 256 MB are too less for FSX-Videocards (also with tweaked Textures) and 1024 GB are not needed (I've still measured) maybe 1024MB get usefull after High Quality Payware Scenerys are on the Marked.c) No markable Dualcore Support. Yo can configure it but this leaves the second core nearly unsued (5..10%) So you will not benefit from Updates in this Direction. Background is that M$ only extends FSX for most of the Programm Code. For the Future a Refactoring (Re-engineering) of the code is urgend necessarry because CPU Frequency is still on its Limits and only Parallel Processing will help in the Future fo FSXI. This is also one of the Reasons why M$ decided at the the DirectX 10 Redesign to shift some CPU Work to the GPU (there the Limits are still not reached).d) My 1 GB of CPU Memory is the lower limit for FSX on higher performance Systems with higher FSX Slider Settings. Some Users still reported slightly good results (>15..25%) by updateing from 1 GB to 1.5 or 2 GB Memory. But too expensive for me to do this additionally to my Update.>Personally, with an AGP board limiting my options, I think>I'll go along a similar path, although I already have a 650w>power supply, so my budget will be RAM and GPU - probably an>ATI X1950 Pro, which will be a cost-eefective upgrade on what>I have now, without needing a mobo change.I also wrote that I compared to another System with AGP 1600 XT Card with 512 MB. Also there an Improvement could be seen 10..20% less than direct compared to my Sytem but my System is powered by an Athlon64-3500 and a 1900XT 512MB and the compared System only an Athlon64-3000 and a 1600XT 512MB. So I think that the AGP is not the large Bottleneck and mostly the additional 256MB of Video Memory make the biggest Difference.So if you I.E buy only a ATI 1600XT with 512MB then you may have a 20..30% Benefit on your System for less than 140 EUR if your previous Video card has only 256MB and is nearly comperable. In this case also no 650Watt Power Supply update would be necessary because the 1600XT needs 65Watt and not 105Watt like my new 1900XT.Regards & always happy landings Heinz-Werner Arens