Windows 7 Professional 64 bit (6.1, Build 7600)HP e9280tIntel I7 CPU [email protected] GHz (8 CPUs)12 Gigs RAMDirectx 11ATI Radeon 4800 528 MBFSX Resolution Settings 1920x1080x32FSX Gold (Acceleration)Display Settings all from Mathijs Kok'sRecommended settings at http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=30796No AddonsNo other PC Programs LoadedFrame Rates at 200+ in FSX Florida Scenery? 60+ in New York? I was shocked. I just received the above configured PC from HP. When I got through the original setup of HP I loaded FSX Gold and used Mathijs Kok's very generous display settings. I opened up the Cessna 172 at Palm Beach County Park (down the road from here) and took off to the North. Turning on the Frame Rate display I observed it running between 200 and 220. What?Impossible, I thought. So I setup at JFK where my previous rig was brought to its knees in the teens. I am looking at 60+ with the slider on max for Scenery Density. Ridiculous or the Holy Grail. I am leaving this sucker alone as a dedicated drive for FSX. This is too good to be true. No stutters, no flashes, just a smooth transition in even the tightest of turns. Finally a machine that conquered the beast.So I installed a second drive and put Windows 7 Ultimate on it for all my other programs. A small price to pay to retain perfection. Like they say, "There is no,problem so great that can't be solved by throwing monay at it.,"I am ready for any questions and the usual disbelieving trolls.

Default stuff no doubt, mine does the same thing. Throw in some AI plane software like UT2 and the horrifically unoptimized aerosoft NYC scenery and you will be in the teens again. I can be solid in the 30's or higher in any major city in FSX until UT2 loads and then it's down to the high teens lows 20's again. It's all a tradeoff.

not to take away from you r elation but what gives is you are not running any add on programs such as REX, no AI traffic, no addon scenery, no automobile traffic, no nothing. FSX straight out of the box with Mathijs Kok's settings, which are not very intensive, will produce those great results on most modern systems. and as it has been discussed many times before, 200 FPS means nothing because anything over 60 makes no difference visually anyway. smoothness, which i am sure you have, is the holy grail.through in some cars, 100% AI traffic, ships, some heavy cloud cover and see how your doing. with your system you could probably see 30 FPS and smooth flying and THAT is the holy grail my friend. :(

not to take away from you r elation but what gives is you are not running any add on programs such as REX, no AI traffic, no addon scenery, no automobile traffic, no nothing. FSX straight out of the box with Mathijs Kok's settings, which are not very intensive, will produce those great results on most modern systems. and as it has been discussed many times before, 200 FPS means nothing because anything over 60 makes no difference visually anyway. smoothness, which i am sure you have, is the holy grail.through in some cars, 100% AI traffic, ships, some heavy cloud cover and see how your doing. with your system you could probably see 30 FPS and smooth flying and THAT is the holy grail my friend. :(

Maybe I should have added that I use FSX only for instrument flying and Carrier Landings so I don't need to see the eye candy or load it up with things that are not useful to me. But thank you for your observations.Old Navy Pilot. (accent on the Old)

Nothing Troll about it just because we have opinions as well. I believe you are getting exactly what you say using the settings in that thread and I am happy for you if you are happy... There has already been a lot of discussion about that thread with others offering vastly different opinions and the experts trying to distance themselves as much as possible from that thread. After all, nothing against Mathijs but he is the spokesperson for a company selling FSX products. I believe he heads the marketing division. He is not technical at all by his own admission and according to him your computer should be slower with modern hardware anyway :( What resolution are you using btw? Have you set AA/AF in your Video Card's drivers? By following the settings at the Aerosoft forums you are using very mediocre settings at best, especially with that rig.So with all due respect if you don't care about how it looks then more power to you and I am very pleased you are happy with your setup, that is what matters BUT do not call someone a troll because they know what would happen if you did care about how it looked and set it up accordingly...Seems to me you were looking for a fight ;) :( -Paul

Intel I7 CPU [email protected] GHz (8 CPUs)Is this a typo?8 CPU's or 8 cores?

Always nice to see someone happy with their FSX set-up, but that's really not a big "Woohaa" for me, given the rig you have...<Removed by Mod>

HelloA little bit strong there, he may be no hardware guru but he represents one of the best publishers in the business.care to enlighten us as to why he is dishonest ?

<Removed by Mod>

C'mon, Mad Dog: You know better than that. He's doing his job the way he sees it, as is his right. Same as you do in your job - and you wouldn't like to think there are total strangers around that call you a crook. I think you'd get pretty mad.

Good Spot It is 8 Cores8 CPUs was reported from DXDIAG copied and pasted in haste.

<Removed by Mod>

That is malicious slander unless you can prove it in a court of law. I have bought many products from Aerosoft and have had Mathijs help me when I needed a change on one of them. Unless proven otherwise I maintain he is a man of honor that can be trusted and a friend to the flight sim community. On the other hand, who are you to accuse him?Stephen

C'mon, Mad Dog: You know better than that. He's doing his job the way he sees it, as is his right. Same as you do in your job - and you wouldn't like to think there are total strangers around that call you a crook. I think you'd get pretty mad.

Hello PaulIf you read the thread you will see that I was replying to and quoting FSXBuster.

D*#%! You're right. I read the original slander then read yours, thought that you were right on - then went and quoted yours as if you had said it. Duh! I'm sorry, MD. I was surprised, because I know you are one of the reasonable, normal, "level-headed" people on the site. FSXBuster ought'nt be making accusations like that: that's the kind of crap that causes a supplier to "just feel like giving up" - and some have because of the nasty ugliness that some people spew. It pays to choose your friends carefully....

Wow this thread did go off topic. I think there must be very few people that have FSX with no addons guess thats one way to get nice FPS but I love FSX because of the addons don't know if I could fly it plain any more.

Wow this thread did go off topic. I think there must be very few people that have FSX with no addons guess thats one way to get nice FPS but I love FSX because of the addons don't know if I could fly it plain any more.

You're right, FxF3: I'll get it back on track.It's a pity the OP called some of us "usual disbelieving trolls." Them's fightin' words!! :( I, too have an i7, fedmed with 6 posts: a 950, and it's not stooging around at 3.33gigafarbles: it's running at 4.2 quite often, but 4 mostly. Take a look at some of Sesquashtoo's posts: he doesn't run at stock 3.33 gig, either: you can't get "as real as it gets" with stock proc settings. You have to push the i7 to 4.0. That then means I can run with most things full or near-full right....... but it's not the stock stuff.. or derated scenery... I want it "as real as it gets".. and I get that with UT-ASA, GEX, ASA, REX, FS Build, Victoria+, most of the popular aircraft, A2A, RA, Carenado, DA, MAAM B25/DC3, etc, plus the LSH Maddog with FS Passengers PLUS MyTraffic X 5.2b with 72% airline 100% GA, mid airport, 20% road, no ship, boats.You, my friend - are missing the sight of sixty-odd aircraft at KSEA, forty+ at BFI, and thirty-something at Renton, pretty heavy scenery, solid cloud density and lots of traffic - by running Mathijs Kok's settings. I lock the sim at 25, and from 1500 ft, in the A2A Spitfire in a 70degree turn overhead SEA she does not drop a frame. ... and I'm also feeding three monitors at 3840 x 1024.Am I happy? You Betcha!! This is how the sim was intended to be at it's inception! Here's some real specs, plus the sig.[TrafficManager]AirlineDensity=72GADensity=100FreewayDensity=13ShipsAndFerriesDensity=0LeisureBoatsDensity=0IFROnly=0AIRPORT_SCENERY_DENSITY=3BLOOM_EFFECTS=0SKINNED_ANIMATIONS=1TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=25WideViewAspect=True[bUFFERPOOLS]poolsize=400000 // 800000 // Fantastic difference!![TERRAIN]LOD_RADIUS=4.500000MESH_COMPLEXITY=79MESH_RESOLUTION=21TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=28AUTOGEN_DENSITY=3DETAIL_TEXTURE=1WATER_EFFECTS=1TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1500 // 300 // 4500TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=2500 // 3500 // 3000SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=1693458432TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024NUM_LIGHTS=8AIRCRAFT_SHADOWS=0AIRCRAFT_REFLECTIONS=1COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=1LANDING_LIGHTS=1AC_SELF_SHADOW=1EFFECTS_QUALITY=2GROUND_SHADOWS=0TEXTURE_QUALITY=3IMAGE_QUALITY=0See_Self=1Text_Scroll=1SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED_10=1693458432D3D10=0CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=3DETAILED_CLOUDS=1CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=8THERMAL_VISUALS=0

FSXBuster,I'm getting a little tired of having to edit slander out of posts. No more of that nonsense please.