The idea that new technology hurts FSX performance is absolutely ludicrous.[...]To imply that newer technology might decrease fsx performance is simply wrong and I'll bet lunch on that.

I don't mean to run this into the ground, or criticize professionals like Mathis, but he opened himself up to legitimate criticism with the article he published because his facts are wrong. There are no gray areas, here. He states something that is wrong, or incorrect. And he bases his whole argument/position on this false hood, too.Mathis makes the mistake a lot of non-tech savvy people make... And this is surprising considering he works for Aerosoft... And that is he is apparently equating a "new" card, the 4650 as being the "more powerful" card. This is where he makes a HUGE mistake because as stated numerous times, the 4650 is NOT a very powerful gaming card even though it might be chronologically newer than anything on the market.Again, for those not tech savvy, or new to MSFS... They won't know any better. But for more experienced simmers, tech geeks and computer users this article is flawed beyond belief.

No one accused anyone of anythingMy name was used in a way that suggests I agree or I am "on the same page" with what has been said or what was in that PDF. I am simply setting the record strait.

I cleary said "more often than not" in my OP - I did not imply or suggest you two agree on everything.

To put it all (Mathijs PDF) in a nuttshell: In FSX, avoid double pass rendering! Only single pass rendering and you have a smooth, high fps (consistent fps) sim.

To put it all (Mathijs PDF) in a nuttshell: In FSX, avoid double pass rendering! Only single pass rendering and you have a smooth, high fps (consistent fps) sim.

Is this the same reason why those still using fs 2004 are getting 60 fps (with new technology) with max settings?I don't have anything against Aerosoft. If you take a look at what Orbx is doing, buy their sceneries, and experience the level of detail in their airports (with smooth flight) you can get a better picture of what excellent scenery design coupled with better hardware means.Lowering the settings? Everyone knows that.Here's something else that really bothers me. Just because you buy all the parts that I have, it doesn't mean that you will attain the same performance. How helpful is that?

Indeed, if you read your own links, you can see where your erroneous statement came from. You irredeemably confuse refresh rates with pixel cycles. More research needed.The cross reference from your own site reference makes this abundantly clearhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of...play_technologyNote how the `Hz` figure refers to complete off/on reversal in CRT, yet LCD retains a constant level of illumincation which specifically decries the `Hz` as an objective meaurement of update rate.To create the simple analogy:I have a car that accelerates from rest to 60mph, then stops, then returns to 60mph. I also have a slower car that takes longer to reach 60mph, but doesn't have to stop and return to 60, but just keeps travelling at the same speed... Given that neither can EXCEED 60mph, which arrives first? Class is indeed dismissed. You have no understanding of frame rate and no understanding of the correct forum in which to continue this discussion.

Just to be off topic. It depends on the acceleration rate of car A!

Maybe Nick can explain this better than I can but just relying on my experience upgrading computers, there will be a time when 8 real cores at 5 gig will be a reality. I'm pretty sure that FSX will one day perform just as smooth as fs 2004 performs today with AG sliders etc at max.

The 5GHz would be great :( but more cores (unfortunately, especially in my/FSX case) isn't the answer. :(

I cleary said "more often than not" in my OP - I did not imply or suggest you two agree on everything.

I understand thatBut the statement was far to general to identify what I may be on the same page about and what I am not. When I read that PDF I don

If all a user is looking for is a frame rate and doesn't care about the finer higher detail aspects of what FSX can provide, anyone in basic understanding MSFS settings could post a PDF manual of setting that would provide that and without the hardware technical errors

Kind of OT, but I thought I'd ask just out of curiosity... And because I've never seen a definitive answer on any FS Forum anywhere about this particular question:What are the settings that have to be lowered (and to what level) to make FSX equivalent to FS9 visually AND perhaps equal in performance?I have more than enough hardware and can run FSX the way it is meant to be run with the all the new graphical improvements. I am just curious to know what these settings would be considering a lot of simmers like to claim FSX on lower settings looks worse than FS9 on default settings (minus scenery and environment addons). I don't disagree, but I am curious to see what users think the equivalent settings are in FSX to make it equal to FS9.I know using Shader 1.0 water is a major one, but what are some other settings, too?

I love these threads, they are great entertainment! Ever since I had FS-GS set my system, I run FSX at almost all max settings, and its now a 4 year old system. No more tweaks for me, I'm one happy camper and I don't have to try every tweak every expert suggests :( Rock on FSX!

Yes; it is well worth the reduction in agravation to pay for FS-GS to take over my system with Croosloop and totally optimise it... and he does research on every component first. No "general recomendations"...DonaldJay said:

I love these threads, they are great entertainment! Ever since I had FS-GS set my system, I run FSX at almost all max settings, and its now a 4 year old system. No more tweaks for me, I'm one happy camper and I don't have to try every tweak every expert suggests :( Rock on FSX!

Weird... Aerosoft, producer of the most heavy hitting addons for FSX, have a spokesperson/employee using a low end system getting 50 FPS, BY TURNING DOWN ALL THE GOOD STUFF that FSX is able to show! So how about it, the new tweak: Turn down the sliders!

But the statement was far to general to identify what I may be on the same page about and what I am not. When I read that PDF I don't see much of anything I am on the same page with.

Point taken. My apologies for the generalisation.

What Mathijs lacks in technical knowledge he over compensates for in business acuity. The guy is a brilliant business man and marketer. While we tech-heads and true to form aviation enthusiasts take an almost personal insult to Mathijs

Indeed, if you read your own links, you can see where your erroneous statement came from. You irredeemably confuse refresh rates with pixel cycles. More research needed.The cross reference from your own site reference makes this abundantly clearhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of...play_technologyNote how the `Hz` figure refers to complete off/on reversal in CRT, yet LCD retains a constant level of illumincation which specifically decries the `Hz` as an objective meaurement of update rate.To create the simple analogy:I have a car that accelerates from rest to 60mph, then stops, then returns to 60mph. I also have a slower car that takes longer to reach 60mph, but doesn't have to stop and return to 60, but just keeps travelling at the same speed... Given that neither can EXCEED 60mph, which arrives first? Class is indeed dismissed. You have no understanding of frame rate and no understanding of the correct forum in which to continue this discussion.

I understand the point you're trying to make but have to agree with the other side of the argument. While a LCD screen doesn't go black between refreshes, the pixels of an LCD only change as fast as the refresh rate of that monitor. So while your picture may not disappear in between refresh cycles, it will also not change any quicker than every 1/60th (assuming 60 Hz) of a second. During this time it will remain the same image and at the next refresh cycle change to the next picture. In fact, refresh rate is the major difference between the popular TV 1080i vs. 1080p. True, you can also change refresh rate from your input source (which is a factor with cable services). However, bottom line is that a 120 Hz image (say Blue Ray) can only display as 1080i if the TV output source is limited to that.Of course, a 60 Hz monitor doesn't necessarily mean 60 fps is the highest useful fps. This would only be true if the monitor refresh cycle was in synce with the graphics card refresh cycle.

The only myth that seems to be getting busted around here is that you are not a very polite person.I've about had it.

:( Heck, some of us have known this for years! He's been banned from a few places. I think I remember it starting on the Flight 1 ATR forums myself way back when F1 released that bird for FS9! Who knows where else before that. He seems knowledgeable, albeit very abrasive when giving advice or opinions.