Not sure what's going on with others' core2 machines, but i just built my new core2 machine a few days ago and my frame rate effectively doubled. I get 22fps on the seattle runway now with sliders 1/2-3/4 of the way up and water at 1 high. I'm also running at 3840x1024 with 4x AA and 16X AF. This is also the default settings on the cpu as I have not started my o/c yet. I will be o/c'ng to 3.4ghz this weekend and expect another 3 or 4 fps from that. City flying is now very smooth for me. New York at max settings was only 12fps in spots but overall even it was over 15fps. Most suburb and bush flying is between 40 and 50 fps now which is where i do most of my flying anyway. It is pretty sweet now to take off from Reagan and hover over DC with high autogen and complexity and get 25fps though!When i first installed fsx and launched it i was only getting 15fps and i was thinking i had just wasted money building this machine for a game that might have problems with core2 cpu's. The game in its infinite wisdom had locked the frame rate to 15 and i hadn't noticed it when i was setting all my sliders. Once i set it to my usual 50fps then it was a sight to see. Even the liberty xl2 ran somewhat smooth for me in city flying at 17fps and this is by far my biggest frame killer addon. I am here to say that FSX can run smoothly if you throw hardware at it. I think after my o/c to ~3.2-3.4ghz this machine will be a killer. :)- Intel E6600 Core2 Processor- SUPER TALENT 2GB DDR2 800 T800UX2GC4- Intel BLKD975XBX2KR 'Bad Axe 2'- EVGA 8800GTS- OCZ GameXStream 700W Power Supply- Silverstone TJ-09BW case- Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX CPU Cooler- 2 Seagate SATA2 320GB Hard Drives

Well, your video card beats the pants off of mine, but yes, I'm finding acceptable performance on my C2D 6600.

I have found that the only gains from the 8800gts on fsx are that it allows me to run those insane levels of AA and AF with no slowdowns and it also pretty much cures all problems with blurries. It was worth it just to get rid of those blurries.

>Not sure what's going on with others' core2 machines, but i>just built my new core2 machine a few days ago and my frame>rate effectively doubled. I get 22fps on the seattle runway>now with sliders 1/2-3/4 of the way up and water at 1 high.>I'm also running at 3840x1024 with 4x AA and 16X AF. This is>also the default settings on the cpu as I have not started my>o/c yet. I will be o/c'ng to 3.4ghz this weekend and expect>another 3 or 4 fps from that. City flying is now very smooth>for me. New York at max settings was only 12fps in spots but>overall even it was over 15fps. Most suburb and bush flying is>between 40 and 50 fps now which is where i do most of my>flying anyway. It is pretty sweet now to take off from Reagan>and hover over DC with high autogen and complexity and get>25fps though!>>When i first installed fsx and launched it i was only getting>15fps and i was thinking i had just wasted money building this>machine for a game that might have problems with core2 cpu's.>The game in its infinite wisdom had locked the frame rate to>15 and i hadn't noticed it when i was setting all my sliders.>Once i set it to my usual 50fps then it was a sight to see.>Even the liberty xl2 ran somewhat smooth for me in city flying>at 17fps and this is by far my biggest frame killer addon. I>am here to say that FSX can run smoothly if you throw hardware>at it. I think after my o/c to ~3.2-3.4ghz this machine will>be a killer. :)>>- Intel E6600 Core2 Processor>- SUPER TALENT 2GB DDR2 800 T800UX2GC4>- Intel BLKD975XBX2KR 'Bad Axe 2'>- EVGA 8800GTS>- OCZ GameXStream 700W Power Supply>- Silverstone TJ-09BW case>- Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX CPU Cooler>- 2 Seagate SATA2 320GB Hard Drives Wow, nice machine! I dont agree that 12-15-or 17fps are smooth. I would have expected you get better frame rates than that honestly. I have an old P4 at 3.6ghz with a radeon X800XL, and 2 gb of ram and get those frame rates right now. Just cements my idea to wait for an upgrade as this rig is running everything else flawlessly.Hornit

well, the guy is claiming 40 - 50 fps when doing normal flying, his rig only drops to a mere 17 when he is flying his liberty xl2 when city flying. I call that smooth.From experience I know that even at lower fps, FSX feels much smoother and has less bluries then FS9. Even at the 15Fps I get usually. (I have only a P4 2.66GHz, but will wait to upgrade until Vista comes along, and then wait one month more).Thanks for sharing, FSX is not so hopeless HW wise as all the naysayers are putting here.They forget FS2004 came out in 2003 and at that time, there were not too many machines who could run it smooth neiter. It took at least 1 year for the hardware to pick up.Regards, Jan

My point was that with my rig I can run it like that also, and his is far more powerful than mine. I can happily fly in low density areas and enjoy it, but with a bit of traffic and without the fixes it can get quite choppy, so much so, that it is definitely NOT enjoyable. 15 or 17fps is NOT SMOOTH. I dont care what sim or game you play. I guess you could convince yourself of this but I can't. Hornit

Yeah Jan has it right. Most of the time i am way above 30 and in the mid to low 20's with complex city flying. Before with my p4 3.6 i was in the low teens while city flying at less settings than i am using now. The 17 is with the liberty xl2 which is pretty much the most frame hungry GA addon you can get. Taking off from Reagan with the settings i use and getting mid 20's is pretty impressive for me though. Once i start my o/c then it can only get better. :)

Hornit, I think perhaps it is you convincing yourself that 15-17 can't be smooth. Perhaps it isn't on your machine. That doesn't mean it isn't on another machine. Craig

Aye. How smooth it seems is obviously a matter of opinion. Of course 15FPS vs. 30 FPS isn't *truly* as smooth, but if someone says 15FPS is smooth for them then that's that, no need to dispute it.I upgraded my machine and it's very similar to the OP's specs and it runs *much* better, even though like Hornit, it ran pretty well before the upgrade I'm glad I did it. I've seen momentary FPS in the 90's!!! and I run 10m mesh, everything full but water at highx2 (this is what I drop when I need an FPS boost) and all traffic at 30%, yes that means I run 100% autogen and still get acceptable rates in most places but very very big cities. Not only that, but when Nvidia produces mature drivers I imagine it will all only get better.

well, I have to agree with the guy who said 15-17 FPS is not smooth. At least to me its not. As you can see in my specs I have a pretty decent system. SOme of the stuff is midrange while other is high end. However, I have tweaked FSX to achieve around 30 FPS which to me is very enjoyable. I dont enjoy anything lower. I know its just personal preference and I believe it when someone says 15 fps is smooth for them. Just not for me. Granted I do have to make some sacrifices. For instance, I dont fly in major cities or airports. I stick to SOME major airports that are high detailed like Reagan, McCarran, St. Louis, Mexico City, and Honolulu.I also killed autogen. Dont get me wrong, I LOVE the new autogen but, the ground textures now are fantastic and to me looks more realistic than the autogen. The only way autogen looks realistic to me is when its maxxed out. I long for the day when we can fly this sim at 30+ FPS with full autogen, traffic, etc...but of course by that time, it will nearly be time for FS XII to come out!! And yes, I do mean 12!! Thats just my .02

>well, I have to agree with the guy who said 15-17 FPS is not>smooth. At least to me its not. High above the earth, and with no nearby clouds, I won't notice 15-17 fps as I would at other times. I do prefer my 25 fps & up. I originally set my target at 30, but have found 25 fps to be smooth, fluid looking in FSX.

Well this is the first time since 1981 that I haven't run out and bought a new computer for FS. I did add two gigs of ram for $150.I don't think I will be upgrading for another year or two. I am satisfied with performance on my 3 year old rig-but then I find I don't need autogen 90% of the time at all with this sim-and because of that my performance has actually increased over what I was getting with fs9. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I think FSX is much better than FS9 in the graphical stutters department. I agree, even at low fps FSX appears smoother than FS9 at higher rates due to this.

This is extremely promising to me. I'm ordering a new system in the next few days that is right about the same as yours!.:( Raidmax Sagitta-$74.99BFG Tech 650 Watt Power Supply-$109.99Asus P5B Deluxe Motherboard-$182.99Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz-$309.00OCZ 2x1GB DDR2 667-$219.99XFX Geforce 8800 GTS 640 MB-$449.99Western Digital Caviar 250 GB HDD-$69.99Liteon DVD RW W/ Lightscribe-$40.99Cooler Master CPU Cooler-$29.99Logitech X-530-$59.99Windows XP Home W/ Upgrade Coupon For Vista-$89.99Total-$1638http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?sho...5entry1192115:-cool

Congratulations, but a 640Mb graphics card and 2Gb of RAM was bound to get you results ...