Why I get 50 fps in FSX and you do not?

[Gary A 8]

You talk a good game, but lack the substance. Any argument made should be suppported, yet you refuse to post links to your support. Show me the links...show me the links!If "FS 11" was released for the XBox (or similar "TV display" platform), would the "display" you see be any better than what you now have on your computer monitor, from the REFRESH RATE or FRAMES PER SECOND perspective?When you can answer that question correctly, I'll take your "advice" (or criticism) seriously. Class dismissed.Rick

Hi Rick, I am trying to understand this refresh/FPS/Hz thing. So if I can say that frames are what the rendering device is able to send to the monitor for displaying, and refresh rate is the ability of the monitor to display those frames in Hz, then the higher Hz monitor would be more capable of displaying usable frames?So to answer your knowledge test, physical frames measured between CRT and LCD would be the same. The difference would come down to useable frames imaged which would go to the higher refresh rate be it LCD or CRT. Current LCD

[sargeski 17]

Therefore a CRT at 120Hz would display more usable frames?

Gary,Correct and in theory a maximum of 120 FPS since a 120Hz refresh rate can only update your monitor 120 times per second.. Anything more than 120FPS will be lost because the monitor cannot draw the screen fast enough and that is a fact of life. The same principle applies to LCDs except we now need to take into account response time.This is one of the best explanations I have ever seen on the subject (without getting overly technical). Hope this helps you to understand the relationship bit more.http://knol.google.com/k/refresh-rate-fram...t-technologies#and anotherhttp://www.overclock.net/faqs/94872-info-e...ponse-time.htmlRegards,Bob

[tf51d 284]

The main problem with these frame rate claims (and I'm guilty of this too) is context. Is the claim he's getting 50+FPS while sitting at runway 31L KJFK in a PMDG 744, with 100% AI or is he in a default Cessna flying over the farmlands of Kansas? I can be flying over the Aleutian Islands in a Aircreation 582SL and get in the 100 fps range. Does that mean my performance in FSX is 100fps? Of course not! The problem is performance ranges the gamut across FSX (and FS2004) depending on the situation and there is no real standard way to measure it. There has been attempts by some here to create a standard, but none really has caught on. So we all have to take these claims with a grain of salt and not get so worked up about them, because there is no established measurement to base them on.

[Gary A 8]

Gary,Correct and in theory a maximum of 120 FPS since a 120Hz refresh rate can only update your monitor 120 times per second.. Anything more than 120FPS will be lost because the monitor cannot draw the screen fast enough and that is a fact of life. The same principle applies to LCDs except we now need to take into account response time.This is one of the best explanations I have ever seen on the subject (without getting overly technical). Hope this helps you to understand the relationship bit more.http://knol.google.com/k/refresh-rate-fram...t-technologies#and anotherhttp://www.overclock.net/faqs/94872-info-e...ponse-time.htmlRegards,Bob

Thank you Bob...you had me at "correct" phew :( Seriously thank you for the validation and link.

[darem 84]

I am more than happy with consistent 25fps with occasional drops to 15-20fps over heavy scenery, as long as I can run FSX in 3360x1050 with a 5m mesh, autogen very dense, 4096x4096 textures, the Duke, 20 cloud layers in ASA supplied by REX, alongside with UTX and GEX and nice airports, using TrackIR and Multi Crew Experience without microstutters and CTD's.And you know what? It's possible. Even without an i7.All I needed to do was to start out with NickN's tweak guide and then spend quite some time turning some screws here and there. 50fps? What would I need them for except formation flying?

[FalconAF 213]

Hi guys. In case you're wondering, I didn't respond to snave's last post because I decided to quit "feeding the trolls".In any case, sargeski, tt51d, and Darem all got it right. The issue in FSX (and FS9) should never be FPS only. It's irrelevant, because there is no "standard" FPS that anyone can use to say "my computer runs FSX fine!". It really depends on how you use the sim. Let's try a little math here to see that...and for God's sake, don't come back at me with the comparison of "motion blur in the movies" vs motion being displayed on a computer screen...they are NOT the same thing.FSX runs at 1 FPS absolutely, positively, unequivically, without a doubt, just fine. "Huh?" you ask? "Is he on drugs?" Nope.Load up ANY aircraft you want, be it the default Trike or the PMDG 747. Max EVERY slider you have all the way to the right...with only a COUPLE exceptions...leave your AI Traffic Settings (air and ground) at "zero". Make your LOD Radius 8.5 by manually editing your FSX.CFG file. Do the same for the "Texture_Max_Load=" setting...make it 4096. Then load up the sim with High Definition clouds...fill the sky up with them. Then...set your FPS Limiter to ONE FPS, and PARK the aircraft somewhere so NOTHING IS MOVING on the display...no AI aircraft are crossing your Field of Vision, no AI Ground Traffic is driving across the screen in front of you, and YOU aren't MOVING, so the DISPLAY isn't moving either. I could set anybody down in front of their computer in that situation, and as long as the FPS counter is not showing, they would have NO IDEA what their FPS "number" was. They wouldn't know if they were getting 60 FPS or 1 FPS. At a 60Hz refresh rate at 1 FPS, the SAME FRAME would be drawn 60 times on the monitor. You wouldn't know the difference between 1 FPS and 60 FPS. You COULDN'T TELL, because nothing is MOVING on the monitor.Now, if an AI aircraft taxied across your Field of View (FOV), it would be very noticible at 1 FPS...the aircraft would "jump" across the screen instead of "glide" across it at a higher FPS. The same applies if YOU were moving...the scenery outside would "jump" from it's old position to it's new position.Enter what IS more important than FPS in FSX...no STUTTERS or PAUSES. And barring your computer not being set up or maintained properly in the first place (which may be causing stutters and pauses to begin with), whether you simulation experience is "smooth" or not at ANY FPS number depends on the type of flying you are doing.Compare "rate of turn" in an aircraft, and how it will affect what you see (and what your computer has to "draw" and "move" from location to location) on your screen. In IFR flying, a "Standard Rate Turn" is 3-degrees per second. So, in order to complete a full 360-degree turn, it would take you 120 seconds...TWO COMPLETE MINUTES...of flying. The "scenery" outside your aircraft will "pass in front of you" a LOT slower (from right to left or left to right) at this rate. The amount of "displacement" from the last place a "piece" of that scenery was on your monitor to the NEXT place it will be drawn is much closer together than if you were "horsing" the aircraft around doing acrobatics. In a relatively slow aircraft, combined with a Standard Rate Turn, you can have a MUCH LOWER FPS number WITHOUT experiencing "stutters" and "pauses"...the scenery doesn't appear to "jump" across your screen the closer the last location of the scenery object is to the next location the object is displayed. And again, please note...this has NOTHING TO DO with the type of "motion blur" people keep comparing movies and FSX to. A motion picture "frame" image CAN be "blurred" (the result of the shutter speed of the camera taking the "frame" picture and recording it on the "frame"), and this adds to the "experience" of the motion from frame to frame while watching the movie. An FSX "frame" should NEVER be "blurred"...UNLESS your textures aren't loading fast enough. An FSX "frame" is a "static image" of WHATEVER is sent to your monitor. "Blurries" in FSX are the result of textures not being able to be loaded fast enough BETWEEN FRAMES that are being displayed. The "static frame" contains blurry TEXTURES...NOT MOTION.Try the same thing in an F-16 at Mach 1 doing a 270-degree per second turn. Unless you have an uber-computer that CAN kick out a CONSISTANT 60 FPS then, you will probably "see" what you perceive to be "stutters" and "pauses" as the scenery goes by from left to right or right to left on your monitor, with much larger distances of displacement from where the scenery object last was to where it is next. The more FPS you have in this case, the "less distance" there will be between these locations, so the less perception of "stutter". But again...this has nothing to do with "BLURRY". You either have crisp textures, or you don't. If your computer can't keep up with the texture loading requirements for the scenery, MORE FPS ALONE will NOT solve "the blurries". THIS is another reason why anyone who says "If you get a faster computer that displays more FPS, your problem with blurries will be solved". That's hogwash. Frame rates have NOTHING to do with "blurry" textures. The faster computer will allow for faster TEXTURE LOADING...the faster frame rates are meaningless when it comes to quality of textures displayed.So, the question is not just "How many FPS do I need in FSX?" The question is "How many FPS do I need in FSX for the TYPE OF FLYING I am doing, IN CONJUNCTION WITH the ability of my computer to keep up with OTHER THINGS like Texture Loading, etc?" 20 FPS works FINE for some types of flying. It may absolutely SUCK for other types of flying. Generally, 60 FPS will work for ALL types of flying, if your computer can MAINTAIN a CONSTANT 60 FPS and not be jumping around between 60 FPS, then 15 FPS, then 30 FPS, then 60 FPS, then 5 FPS, then 60 FPS...you get the idea, I hope. The same applies for 30 FPS...if it is a CONSTANT 30 FPS, it is much, much better than an INCONSISTANT 60 FPS...as LONG AS your computer can KEEP UP with those OTHER things, like timely Texture Loading to prevent "blurries", etc.For most people, this means making choices in FSX for the type of flying they want to do. Unless you have a super-fast computer that is configured correctly so it can maintain a CONSTANT 60 FPS regardless of what you "turn up" in FSX, you HAVE to make choices and concessions sometimes. You CAN fly a PMDG 747 in FSX with some relatively high scenery-slider settings, including AI Traffic, and if you get a CONSTANT 25 - 30 FPS with no massive jumping around of the frame rate, AND timely Texture Loading, it can appear JUST AS SMOOTH or SMOOTHER than having 60 FPS with "stutters" and and "pauses" and slow loading textures.I challenge ANYONE to sit down in front of a computer running FSX with the Frame Rate Counter OFF. Let me set FSX up so it runs at a CONSISTANT 30 - 40 FPS, then at 100 FPS. Then you tell me which is which, without being able to see the Frame Rate Counter. With the exception of doing "extreme" types of flying, like acrobatics, you won't be able to. I guarantee it. Anything over a CONSISTANT 30 - 40 FPS would be irrelevant (besides the fact that any "frames" over 60 FPS wouldn't even be being drawn in the first place). There is a plethora of well-meaning "This is how many FPS you NEED in FSX" posts in these forums...and a lot of them are pure garbage. There is NO STANDARD that can apply "across the board" for everyone. Yes...20 FPS is better than 10 FPS, and 30 FPS is better than 20 FPS. But once above about 30 FPS, it starts really becoming a matter of HOW you fly in FSX. That is even MORE true when you get BELOW 30 FPS. You can do some very good low and slow Bush Flying at even 20 FPS in many locations, with LOTS of scenery. Many of us can fly very complex aircraft using very complex scenery with some very high slider settings in other areas, and it ALL works fine at only 30 FPS if it is a CONSTANT 30 FPS, with Texture Loading that takes place fast enough to prevent "the blurries". Respectfully submitted,FalconAF

[sargeski 17]

Well said FalconAF.

[FalconAF 213]

Well, seeing as it's been 5 hours and I haven't been "flamed to death" yet by anybody, I'll throw out a couple "ideas" that some folks who read this may not have thought about before about making their FSX "performance experience" less frustrating and more enjoyable. They have worked great for me over the past 2 years running FSX with "only" a Q9650 @ 3.0Ghz. Viewing Scenery While Flying: One of the WORST things someone can do that may bring your FSX performance to a crawl is switching views all the time. In most cases, unless all the views you are going to have to "switch through" are cached into memory already, FSX has to start loading scenery for the new view. This is a great way to crunch your FPS, texture loading, terrain loading, etc. I try to avoid cycling through things like Cockpit View, VC, Spot, Locked Spot, add nausium, whenever possible. If I'm flying the aircraft, I stay in the cockpit. BUT, I'm a realist too, and I know many FSX users (and I have experienced it many times myself) get the "need" to step outside that cockpit to take a "closer look" at the scenery they/I am flying over. So,how do I do it without "crunching" my FSX performance?Replay ModeInstead of staying in "real time" with the aircraft still flying, I select the "Replay" option from the FSX menu. This does two great things. First, it immediately PAUSES the flight (so don't EVER do this while flying on someplace like VATSIM or IVAO! The ATC controllers will want to KILL you!). Second, it let's me replay the last few minutes of my flight (can be set to automatically repeat it I want), THEN I can wander to something like Spot View and once the textures get loaded (if needed), etc, I can do all the sightseeing I want, for as long as I want, until I exit the replay. When I do exit it, I am back "in my cockpit", AND the simulation is PAUSED, so if I need to give FSX a few seconds to reload textures THERE (or whatever) and get back to the "stabilized" state it was before I left the cockpit, all works well. I can do that. Then I can continue on with the flight. The FSX Replay Option is a GREAT tool for sightseeing WITHOUT "crunching" your FSX performance while in "real time flying". Bush Flying: This is more in line with the phrase I used when I said to set up FSX for, "The Type of Flying You Are Doing". Say I am going to be Bush Flying in the mountains 20 miles north of Vancouver, British Columbia. 1500 foot dirt landing strips, water runways, etc. I don't really expect to be seeing Boeing 747's up there, do I? So...I turn off ALL AI Airline traffic in FSX. No mercy here. Move that AI Airline slider all the way left to ZERO. Why? Because with airline AI still enabled, FSX will be "number crunching" things like gate assignments for EVERY AIRPORT within a certain radius of your aircraft as it pertains to Airline AI. Why do I want my CPU to be doing "gate assignment" calculations for Vancouver International 20 miles away? Get that strain off of your CPU. What does that allow me to do in "other areas" of FSX now? I can crank up the GA Aircraft AI slider more...or maybe even max it out. Beavers and floatplanes all over the place now. Turn on some or more of that Boat Traffic AI...looks really good when bush flying. I may be able to crank up the Water Settings in FSX now also, to those "killer" settings. Nothing like landing on one of those "mirror lakes" that reflect the surrounding terrain in the water now. If I'm really frisky, I can add those 4096 cloud textures too...and those lakes look incredible. I've done this numerous times on my "poor old" Q9650 while bush flying, and the simple act of turning off the Airline AI let's me do it and still maintain great performance in FSX.There are lots of things you can do to make FSX perform better, if you use settings appropriate to the type of flying session you are doing. I'm sure others here have their own ideas, and I'd be glad to here them because I probably haven't thought of some of them myself yet.FalconAF

[stevem72 10]

Personally I find that document laughable and IMO it typifies Aerosofts attitude right now to a tee and is a major reason as to why I will no longer purchase an Aerosoft product:"Hey guys, come and buy our latest Mega airport as its got loads of bells & whistles" - yeah right why would I want to do that if I had to empty the airport by turning all of my Commercial AI to 0%, and kill any autogen I might like to see on approach into my empty airport just to get it to run at 20fps!!!"Hey you there, fsx virgin, let me tempt you with our latest Megaville megascenery offering - you can even find your dad's workplace" - but don't expect night textures or any seasons other than summer!!!Cynical, and with a hint of sarcasm I know but jeez, I'm aware that sliders will have to be lowered to a degree to run a detailed scenery but that pdf is almost propaganda like (if there ever could be fsx propaganda!!). As brilliant as he may be as a businessman, I find it a little disconcerting that one of (if not THE) the fsx big hitters now (IMO) appears to have this sort of tendency to mass produce (I won't say rubbish because they are not) sub standard products with such a unhealthy disregard for fsx users/consumers and their intelligence.I'm also aware that Aerosoft/Mr Kok are not going to lose any sleep over losing my custom, but then again, neither am I.

[Guest Thaellar]

I'm sure you've all heard the story many times..a truck gets stuck under a bridge because it is a couple inches taller than the clearance. All sorts of engineers are called to the scene and discuss the technical aspects and whether the bridge can be raised, etc. Then a little boy says "Hey mister, why don't you just let some air out of the tires". Problem solved.After reading the Aerosoft thread and this one I couldn't help thinking about it.1. Mathijs article is written for the little boy (and the truck driver) in the story. In Mathijs' words "to help the people who have 9 fps get to a flyable sim." He is speaking to the flight sim rookie who perhaps got FSX as a Christmas gift and wants to run it on his parents hand-me-down computer. Talking about editing fsx.cfg or refresh rates, mipmaps,etc are not always helpful because many people out in computerland not only don't know about hardware but don't WANT to know about it. They only want to play FSX and regard system tweaking as boring and time-wasting.2. The system experts who talk about config tweaking and driver versions are the "engineers". We (myself included) love to tweak not only FSX but most other things PC related. Many of us have built our own systems and labor over things like overclocking, memory timings, config file tweaking, macro building, etc, etc,. It's fun fun fun...........if you are so inclined.I'm glad we have both kinds of helpful folks in the flight sim community. Don't get mad at Mathijs for not knowing when a video card came onto the market. As a very insightful post pointed out, he is a businessman trying to get people to be able to run his products so they can buy more. Sounds great to me. Those folks can still get a pretty good FSX experience and maybe begin to buying some addons, visiting and contributing in the forums and start learning so they can become an "engineer".We need more flight simmers...lots more. With that comes more revenue for developers and more addons and fun for us simmers.So, if turning down a couple settings (letting some air out) gets a new pilot on-board, let's all celebrate. They can learn about fsx.cfg later.We're all in this together.Thaellar

[Gary A 8]

So, if turning down a couple settings (letting some air out) gets a new pilot on-board, let's all celebrate. They can learn about fsx.cfg later.We're all in this together.Thaellar

I have no issue with his advice of turning down some settings in context of assisting those that may not be computer savvy. If he stopped at that and even acknowledged that was his intent I would have no issue. However he does not speak in this context, contrary he defends his dummied down tweak guide as all that is needed and ample. He then goes on to make hardware recommendations that are nothing more than incompetent. It is when I couple his incompetent hardware suggestions with his dummied down so called FSX settings that he loses all credibility. In one case telling a forum member not to buy a good video card because it could hurt his frame rates.I appreciate your more positive spin on his writings and I too was trying to give him some credit as in speaking down to the less computer literate however I now discount and disagree with any of his advice.To me he is the Pied Piper of the misinformed children of FSX. Just my opinion and I can get along with anyone. I will however never lend credibility or agree or support in any fashion anything coming from him. If his followers are as incompetent as he makes them out to be do we really want them sharing the skies with us? The CFG adjustments really are not that overly complicated to follow along with, especially not when children of 4-years of age are exposed to computers in schools today, and men in their eighties are building computers.He is a farce, and a quack and a poor business man.Sorry no nice guy trying to improve the flight sim world kudos from me.

[Guest FSXBuster]

I completely agree, and I told Mathijs Kok my opinion and got banned of course!His "+50 FPS" thread is now locked, thank god...His last reply, have a laugh:Quote"Gentlemen, reading the posts on the line of messages in the last few weeks it seems we get only two kinds of messages.- messages from people who simply do not like FSX or bought some horrible expensive machine and still get single digits (mostly BECAUSE they spend so much on the machine) and now feel the need tell other who got cheap machines with good fps that they are doing something wrong- messages about what to buy. I like those as we can give some advice. But I think those could just as well (or even better) be posted here.So if you do not mind I will close this line of messages. I am sure some will see that as proof their posts shown how wrong we all are, but after we all wiped the tears from laughter from our eyes we move on. Do with our advise what you want. Read the pro's and cons. Read the posts from people who write they got great performance and the posts from people that got louse performance and quote other websites as proof that this is what you should expect. Make up your own mind. My advise is very simple. Get a good CPU, an Intel quad core. And a very cheap GPU. And you almost certainly will fly FSX as the developers intended it. And as before, if you meet me at a show and I can not show there what is shown and explained here, I'll pay for lunch, otherwise you pay for lunch."UnquoteWhat a crook... :(

[FalconAF 213]

OK, I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here. There is a statement in Kok's quoted "last post" that is evidently being lost by a lot of the nay-sayers about his article:"And you almost certainly will fly FSX as the developers intended it.Yeah...I'm a "techie". Been doing Information Technology both professionally and as "fun" for over 35 years now. And for the last 4 years...up until 2 days ago when I got a new i7 rig...I've been flying FSX on first an Dual Core, then a Quad Core...with NO problems. And that's with some very intense addons. I installed FSX on my new i7. Guess what? The default installation of FSX sets the Frame Rate Slider at 20 FPS out of the box. AND a default installation has the Frame Rate Counter display DISABLED. So it would seem to me that the "developers" of FSX know that you CAN fly FSX in most scenarios at 20 FPS quite nicely...if it is a CONSISTANT 20 FPS. If the developers thought FSX HAD to be run at 60 FPS, they would have set the default Frame Rate Counter at 60 FPS. So I totally agree with Kok's statement about flying FSX "...as the developers intended". It is the end-user base of FSX that makes up their OWN idea of what "intended" or "should be" that convolutes the entire community. The FS community itself ends up being the "blind leading the blind" with all the balony posts about "You need 60 FPS to run FSX acceptably." The community as a whole is it's own worst enemy. We get some very well-meaning people here who play RPGs, FPSs, and the like, who offer their "expertise" about FSX based on their other gaming experiences that have NOTHING to do with making a Flight Simulator run acceptably. Until the community gets off the "Let's all chase the Magic Frame Rate Number!" bandwagon, it will never end. Over the years I've discovered there are two types of "tweakers" in the community.1. "I will never be happy until I get 60 FPS with every addon I buy running in FSX at the same time, regardless of what anybody else says." These folks are living a pipe dream, and will never be satisfied.2. "I realize that FSX runs very well at even 20 FPS in the RIGHT SITUATIONS. So if I use the simulator accordingly, and can get a CONSTANT 20 FPS even at the most complex airports with tons of AI and weather and other addons and sliders maxed out, then I am happy. I don't REALLY NEED some outrageous Frame Rate to make FSX run "right"." This is what the developers intended. And it DOES work, unless you are a "frame rate junkie". In which case, you really need to go back and play those RPGs and FPSs, because you are NEVER going to be happy with FSX at anything less than 100 FPS.And when it comes to "as the developers intended", that applies to ADDON developers also. So if a developer designs a complex scenery addon WITHOUT night textures for it, as in the Aerosoft city releases, and states the scenery was DESIGNED for DAYTIME VFR flying, then that IS the way the developer "intended" their product be used. It DOESN'T MATTER if any OTHER developer has made a similar scenery package WITH night textures for it. You were told UP FRONT by the first developer that THEIR addon DOES NOT have night textures. So if you don't like that...then don't buy it. But there is no valid reason to crucify the developer because YOUR intended use of the scenery doesn't match THEIR intended design of it.FalconAF

[Guest FSXBuster]

Fair enough, but why does "The Developer" - Mathijs Kok - then make such an idiotic and bragging statement as he did, with his "Why I get +50 FPS and you dont"?!Or was it maybe ment to be something like this: Why I have a larger **** - or ***** than the rest of you ****** ?!I've known these types all my professional life, but I don't want their smart*** methods in my hobby too, period!

[Guest Therius]

OK, I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here. There is a statement in Kok's quoted "last post" that is evidently being lost by a lot of the nay-sayers about his article:"And you almost certainly will fly FSX as the developers intended it.Yeah...I'm a "techie". Been doing Information Technology both professionally and as "fun" for over 35 years now. And for the last 4 years...up until 2 days ago when I got a new i7 rig...I've been flying FSX on first an Dual Core, then a Quad Core...with NO problems. And that's with some very intense addons. I installed FSX on my new i7. Guess what? The default installation of FSX sets the Frame Rate Slider at 20 FPS out of the box. AND a default installation has the Frame Rate Counter display DISABLED. So it would seem to me that the "developers" of FSX know that you CAN fly FSX in most scenarios at 20 FPS quite nicely...if it is a CONSISTANT 20 FPS. If the developers thought FSX HAD to be run at 60 FPS, they would have set the default Frame Rate Counter at 60 FPS. So I totally agree with Kok's statement about flying FSX "...as the developers intended". It is the end-user base of FSX that makes up their OWN idea of what "intended" or "should be" that convolutes the entire community. The FS community itself ends up being the "blind leading the blind" with all the balony posts about "You need 60 FPS to run FSX acceptably." The community as a whole is it's own worst enemy. We get some very well-meaning people here who play RPGs, FPSs, and the like, who offer their "expertise" about FSX based on their other gaming experiences that have NOTHING to do with making a Flight Simulator run acceptably. Until the community gets off the "Let's all chase the Magic Frame Rate Number!" bandwagon, it will never end. Over the years I've discovered there are two types of "tweakers" in the community.1. "I will never be happy until I get 60 FPS with every addon I buy running in FSX at the same time, regardless of what anybody else says." These folks are living a pipe dream, and will never be satisfied.2. "I realize that FSX runs very well at even 20 FPS in the RIGHT SITUATIONS. So if I use the simulator accordingly, and can get a CONSTANT 20 FPS even at the most complex airports with tons of AI and weather and other addons and sliders maxed out, then I am happy. I don't REALLY NEED some outrageous Frame Rate to make FSX run "right"." This is what the developers intended. And it DOES work, unless you are a "frame rate junkie". In which case, you really need to go back and play those RPGs and FPSs, because you are NEVER going to be happy with FSX at anything less than 100 FPS.And when it comes to "as the developers intended", that applies to ADDON developers also. So if a developer designs a complex scenery addon WITHOUT night textures for it, as in the Aerosoft city releases, and states the scenery was DESIGNED for DAYTIME VFR flying, then that IS the way the developer "intended" their product be used. It DOESN'T MATTER if any OTHER developer has made a similar scenery package WITH night textures for it. You were told UP FRONT by the first developer that THEIR addon DOES NOT have night textures. So if you don't like that...then don't buy it. But there is no valid reason to crucify the developer because YOUR intended use of the scenery doesn't match THEIR intended design of it.FalconAF

Good point!