I use FSX+Acceleration and I can fairly acceptable fps but sruttering and blurries are very difficult to get rid of. I have FSGenesis mesh and UTX USA GEX USA so I wan't mesh complexity at 100% and mesh resolution at 10 m in order to use the FSGenesis mesh. Also since I have GEX I wan't to set texture resolution to at least 1 m. This gives my blurries compared to what I got in FS9 with photo realistic scenery like megascenery (on my old AMD 64 4000+). I have disabled shadows and autogen. I have My Traffic X 5.1b and have installed performence optimised models. I use airliner at 75% and GA 50%. Other traffic sliders are disabled. So what is the best cure for blurries and stutter (micro stutter?My systemAMD X2 60004 Gb PC6400 RAMNVIDIA 8800GT 512M DDR3Windows 7 RC

Your system is almost the exact same as mine, except I run Vista x64...What works for me is to stay away from large cities. (our CPU is lacking) Meanwhile, flying in more rural areas can be very smooth. A few things I'd recommend. Follow this tuning guide, and use the Frame Rate Limiter found here:http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=245251I personally use 30 fps in the frame limiter link.Run AI traffic around 50%, and you can disable jetways from moving. You need to find the EXITS section in the aircraft.cfg files and either comment them out with the // OR delete the lines entirely. Also disable cars in UTX setup tool, that will help. Autogen should actually be set to normal or dense depending on the complexity of aircraft you use. Stay away from the super hi res textures for clouds and aircraft skins, just use 1024.Also use a good defragger like Ultimate Defrag or O&O, using the Name defrag and place all FSX scenery files in High Performance while defragging.Hope that helps, good luck

Your system is almost the exact same as mine, except I run Vista x64...What works for me is to stay away from large cities. (our CPU is lacking) Meanwhile, flying in more rural areas can be very smooth. A few things I'd recommend. Follow this tuning guide, and use the Frame Rate Limiter found here:http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=245251I personally use 30 fps in the frame limiter link.Run AI traffic around 50%, and you can disable jetways from moving. You need to find the EXITS section in the aircraft.cfg files and either comment them out with the // OR delete the lines entirely. Also disable cars in UTX setup tool, that will help. Autogen should actually be set to normal or dense depending on the complexity of aircraft you use. Stay away from the super hi res textures for clouds and aircraft skins, just use 1024.Also use a good defragger like Ultimate Defrag or O&O, using the Name defrag and place all FSX scenery files in High Performance while defragging.Hope that helps, good luck

Yes it was at a big city (New York) I tested. I wan't to run FSX there also like I do in FS9.I already have followed and studied that tuning guide and it fixed some problems.The link in the post about the frame rate limiter didn't work.I use My Traffic X and I think I need airliner at least 75% and GA 50% to see as many plane as I do in FS9 (where I also have My Traffic). When choosing performence optimised models it was stated that animated jetways was disabled with them.I suppose you mean the static cars in UT. Could static car hit performence that much?I read about autogen in the tuning guide and tested it. For me raising it certainly didn't improve fps. Quite opposite the more you get the harder performence is hit. And the fact they look silly does not make things better.In FSX I don't see that I select a 'size' for clouds and airplane skins. How to select 1024?I have ultimate defrag and the whole Microsoft games folder is set to high performence.

Yes it was at a big city (New York) I tested. I wan't to run FSX there also like I do in FS9.

jfri,FSX is not FS9 there is no way you are going to run FSX in New York City and get the same performance as FS9. Running Mytraffic X at 75% for airliners and 50% for GA in this area will bring just about any system to its knees (especially if other sliders are cranked up).UTX adda more moving traffic to roads and this option can cause stutters. You cannot turn off road traffic by setting the slider to zero in FSX. You must disable the traffic with theUTX configuration tool inorder to disable traffic completely in FSX. Leaving road traffic enabled, especially in this area, will also translate into a huge hit in performance.If you have an addon package for textures such as REX, FEX or X-Graphics you can change to different resolution textures for your clouds. If you do not, the default cloud resolution for FSX 256x256.Regards,Bob

jfri,FSX is not FS9 there is no way you are going to run FSX in New York City and get the same performance as FS9. Running Mytraffic X at 75% for airliners and 50% for GA in this area will bring just about any system to its knees (especially if other sliders are cranked up).

So true.

jfri,FSX is not FS9 there is no way you are going to run FSX in New York City and get the same performance as FS9. Running Mytraffic X at 75% for airliners and 50% for GA in this area will bring just about any system to its knees (especially if other sliders are cranked up).UTX adda more moving traffic to roads and this option can cause stutters. You cannot turn off road traffic by setting the slider to zero in FSX. You must disable the traffic with theUTX configuration tool inorder to disable traffic completely in FSX. Leaving road traffic enabled, especially in this area, will also translate into a huge hit in performance.If you have an addon package for textures such as REX, FEX or X-Graphics you can change to different resolution textures for your clouds. If you do not, the default cloud resolution for FSX 256x256.Regards,Bob

No FSX is not FS9 but at least in theory it should have the potential to perform faster than FS9. For example it benefits from dual cores unlike FS9. The developer of My Traffic X states that his models performs better in FSX compared to FS9 (http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=76449).I'm not thinking about FSX maxed out versus FS9 maxed out that comparison makes no sense. Rather what can I expect from FSX with the same display detail as FS9 maxed out. In FSX I have disabled all shadows and all autogen and scenery complexity att dense or normal, water at low 2.x. With these moderate FSX settings I hoped being able to have airports at large cities filled with planes like in real life.

No FSX is not FS9 but at least in theory it should have the potential to perform faster than FS9. For example it benefits from dual cores unlike FS9. The developer of My Traffic X states that his models performs better in FSX compared to FS9 (http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=76449).I'm not thinking about FSX maxed out versus FS9 maxed out that comparison makes no sense. Rather what can I expect from FSX with the same display detail as FS9 maxed out. In FSX I have disabled all shadows and all autogen and scenery complexity att dense or normal, water at low 2.x. With these moderate FSX settings I hoped being able to have airports at large cities filled with planes like in real life.

The model performing better in FSX has nothing to due with the fact the FSX has take care of all the computing as to where each and every aircraft is at any point in time and where its going. FSX is essentially run on one core of your CPU, additional cores are used to help with textures and thats it. So, your extra core is not helping you with the computational requirements of all the AI that you are injecting into FSX. Also, you must keep in mind that even though you say your scenery complexity and autogen sliders are at dense or normal that autogen in FSX is much denser than it is in FS9. The default textures of FSX are also more complex than FS9.The bottom line is that it takes alot more power to run FSX than it does FS9 and if you want to run FSX at the level of AI you are describing, you will need better hardware plain and simple.

The model performing better in FSX has nothing to due with the fact the FSX has take care of all the computing as to where each and every aircraft is at any point in time and where its going. FSX is essentially run on one core of your CPU, additional cores are used to help with textures and thats it. So, your extra core is not helping you with the computational requirements of all the AI that you are injecting into FSX. Also, you must keep in mind that even though you say your scenery complexity and autogen sliders are at dense or normal that autogen in FSX is much denser than it is in FS9. The default textures of FSX are also more complex than FS9.The bottom line is that it takes alot more power to run FSX than it does FS9 and if you want to run FSX at the level of AI you are describing, you will need better hardware plain and simple.

But these computations must be done in FS9 as well.Why does people report such an improvement going from two cores to four cores?But if you set the sliders in FSX in such way that it is as detailed and complex as maxed out FS9. Should FSX in that case still need more power than FS9?

But these computations must be done in FS9 as well.Why does people report such an improvement going from two cores to four cores?But if you set the sliders in FSX in such way that it is as detailed and complex as maxed out FS9. Should FSX in that case still need more power than FS9?

Your trying to compare an apple to an orange. FSX is more complex than FS9, textures are more complex in FSX than FS9, FS9 does not have road traffic, airport vehicles, or ships.....on and on.Yes FSX requires more power than FS9 plain and simple. There is not a huge difference in going from two core to four cores. However, the difference in smoothness can be staggering. An Intel Core 2 Duo would give much better performance in FSX than the Athlon X2 especially when taking into account the overclocking potential of the Core 2 Duo.