It's a pity the OP called some of us "usual disbelieving trolls." Them's fightin' words!! :( The group has my heartfelt apology. The reason this "troll" expression was posted without a lot of thought was the experience here many moons ago. I had received an advance copy of FSX just before it had gone GOLD (no confidentiality agreement in place or required). I reported here some modest flaws that others verified when the full release came out. Missing bridges, etc. You know them all. And the Trolls descended accusing me of making it all up, trying to denegrate a great product that everyone was excited about. All I wanted to do was give a general alert about the modest flaws. I haven't been encouraged to post much since.I see the slander has been removed. Good. Slander and bad attitude in a response is the kind of thing that discourages reporting of possible advances to the product now that Microsoft has left the battlefield leaving it to us and the vendors.I was unaware that the topic had been done to death and my report was obsolete. I should have searched in the archives before posting. Asi es la vida.

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

The 975X only has 4 cores: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2XE/index.htm. The 980X will have 6 cores.Best regards,Jim

Please, let's at least use the correct term: "slander" is verbal; "libel" is written... ...so, unless everyone's using a text-to-speech program to listen to the text typed here... :(

Correct, Jim: each one of the four processor "cores" has two threads, but some folks call each one a "core" or a "processor". Multi-threading is nice for many applications, but fsx is still using only one proc for most of it's work, with some small components farmed off to a second core.If one pushes, say ASA to the third proc, and TrackIR to the fourth - then one might see some gains by using a quad processor, but the enormous superiority of the i7 is in it's unique architecture: in how it talks to memory, graphics and the PCI bus. It has low power consumption with the built-in capability to overclock 30% while still maintaining temps below 80. Add that to an optimized Win7 OS, a fairly competent GPU, and using addons like Game Booster - FSX runs like never before.My personal thought is why on earth anyone would waste $1000 on an i7-975 plus the rest of the system - set it up like Mathijs suggests - when one can easily get that same 60fps performance from any single-proc old clunker. I've never met anyone in the sim world who runs FSX with everything turned off or full left! :(

Please, let's at least use the correct term: "slander" is verbal; "libel" is written... ...so, unless everyone's using a text-to-speech program to listen to the text typed here... :(

Thanks for the clarification, Bill...In any case-the eventual result here from either is the same...

Please, let's at least use the correct term: "slander" is verbal; "libel" is written... ...so, unless everyone's using a text-to-speech program to listen to the text typed here... :(

Yeah, and I was drunk last night (not flying though!) - and the hangover is terrible, both morally and physically!Sorry about the "slander"... Oops... "libel"...Bit of education:http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclo...bel-and-slanderBut I don't buy anymore add-ons from a certain company, that's for sure.Enough is enough, especially with Madeira and Chicago X, phew!Forgot Tahiti X, Venice (No, not the one in California...), Manhattan X & San Fransisco, you'll need to install FSX on a Cray Supercomputer to run those, LOL!

"Forgot Tahiti X, Venice (No, not the one in California...), Manhattan X & San Fransisco, you'll need to install FSX on a Cray Supercomputer to run those, LOL!"

Bull! Seems like you really have an agenda here, which I hope the mods can mercifully axe from these forums.I have Venice and I am running it on a year old system, not one of the recent I7 cpu's. It looks and runs beautifully and depending on my water settings I see frames in the mid to high 20's. Given the depth of that scenery, I find that performance very good. I did not see your original comments but judging from the follow-up, I can only wonder...My specs:Vista Home Premium, 64 bitIntel Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 MHZ8 GB RamNvidia 9500GT with 1 GB RamHD 640 GB - Serial ATA-300 - 7200 rpm On today's market such a system can be had in the $500 range. I think Crays run a bit more than that, eh?

4 cores with HT will show 8 cores in win 7Ulisses

Bull! Seems like you really have an agenda here, which I hope the mods can mercifully axe from these forums.I have Venice and I am running it on a year old system, not one of the recent I7 cpu's. It looks and runs beautifully and depending on my water settings I see frames in the mid to high 20's. Given the depth of that scenery, I find that performance very good. I did not see your original comments but judging from the follow-up, I can only wonder...My specs:Vista Home Premium, 64 bitIntel Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 MHZ8 GB RamNvidia 9500GT with 1 GB RamHD 640 GB - Serial ATA-300 - 7200 rpm On today's market such a system can be had in the $500 range. I think Crays run a bit more than that, eh?

A 500$ system, you just be joking!You have an old CPU at 2.33 - a 2-3 year old low spec card - 9500 GT:http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=arti...500gt&num=6FPS in the 20's?What are your settings?I seriously doubt this - particularly with an old system like yours, in view of a modern i7/GT 285 will STILL have issues with a scenery like that.Do I have an agenda?Not really, but throwing good hard earned money after UNFINISHED products, is a waste of money IMO.But of course, if people can live with texture shimmer, low performance and arrogant customer support, go ahead!

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

I noticed in your fsx.cfg settings that you may have a little room to improve on your visual settings for a more enjoyable view while flying.Try these settings for a start and see if you like them better. fisheyeTEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096LOD_RADIUS=6.500000TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=70UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=0

Thanks, FishEye. I'll check out the TexMaxLoad tonight: I have REX clouds and load only the minimum 1024 size. This is a hangover from the C2D-based system I ran until recently - where I had to be "conservative" in the settings... The TBM was 70 for a good many months, and got changed to 40 after a post I saw that recommended dropping the BufferPool down to 800,000 and the TBM down to 40. Well! - this made an huge difference to the smoothness, and so I've had it there ever since. At the moment I'm moving the pool around a bit to see if I can "better it".The frame limit at always causes stutters if I give it it's head, so now she's locked - mostly 24 or 25 and very smooth. Regarding the LOD radius - I have read that after moving a parameter outside of it's default maximum - FSX will reduced it back to that limit if one makes any other change in the config when flying, so I switch between 3.5 (med) and 4.5 (max), dependent upon the flight. I'll try it and see where it goes. menwhile - thanks for the tips: we're always learning! :(

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.

Why don't you go back to FS9 then?That's my point with Mister Kok and his "show off" settings.Turn down FSX, so it looks like and perform like FS 9.It's stupid...

A 500$ system, you just be joking!You have an old CPU at 2.33 - a 2-3 year old low spec card - 9500 GT:http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=arti...500gt&num=6FPS in the 20's?What are your settings?I seriously doubt this - particularly with an old system like yours, in view of a modern i7/GT 285 will STILL have issues with a scenery like that.Do I have an agenda?Not really, but throwing good hard earned money after UNFINISHED products, is a waste of money IMO.But of course, if people can live with texture shimmer, low performance and arrogant customer support, go ahead!

Sorry you disbelieve my experience with the Venice scenery, but I suspect no amount of convincing would influence you anyway. My settings? Search the forums, I don't need to post them again. I am not the one with an axe to grind but I will call members here out when they say something I find suspect. I'd say I have well established my "bona fides" in these forums and if I say I am getting good performance, most who know me here know I have no reason to "inflate" my experience. Old system? My prior system was a homebuilt P3/800 running Win 98 which I kept running for ten years. My performance was always good given what I had to work with because PC's aren't just something I use for gaming, my profession is built around them. I've built and supported PC's and their O/S's and have written programs for the PC platform for over two decades now. My performance is more of knowing how to set up my system for simming, which many of the naysayers don't know how to do. So instead they diss' the developers in this community--the better to hide their ignorance. Sure, they can quote hardware and software reviews with the best of them. But do they even understand what they are reading? I doubt it, what comes to mind is the scene in "Good Will Hunting" where Will calls out the college preppie who spews a bunch of nonsense from books without an ounce of gray matter in his head. So doubt my "Venice" experience all you wish, given your response to my post and your latest post to this thread, I stand by my judgment of your comments. Maybe they don't reflect on you as a person, but the way you articulate your views in this forum is sorely lacking.-JohnEdit--For those who haven't seen it, Venice is a beautiful add-on. I have been to Venice several times both for pleasure and business and the scenery captures the essence of the city for me. Here are some screenshots I posted last year:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=250894&hl=

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.

Yea I had to get rid of Chicago X because the frame rates were EXTREMELY poor. I got a decent system but it just couldn't handle 9.6 FPS.