Hello,I have one observation to share with you: I noticed that there is virtually only one person (maybe I missed someone) who posts now and then screenshots of heavies in FSX, or just non-GA for that matter.People mostly post GA pictures, and when it comes to high altitutde flying, I mostly see FS9.As I recently "tried" again to run the FSX on my new computer, but came again very short of decent performance, and no, I don't fly GA, I was only trying to understand is it maybe because of the performance too or is there something else behind it?

Hey Word Not Allowed.I fly FS9 mainly because I love flying the big iron and pretending I am an airline pilot. I can fly FS9 on my meager rig into KJFK or EDDF with 100% AI and the PMDG MD-11 and get good frame rates still. I can't do that in FSX. Not to mention FSX looks odd unless you have a decent add on installed.FSX performance is very good when your flying into small airports with less traffic and so on, even on my meager rig. I can't get close to the big ones though with out the FPS going into the tank. I have to start shutting everything off and then it gets ugly looking and I figure why am I doing this when I can have it all with FS9.I recently got hooked on FSX for my low and slow flying though. FSX really shines when you have an addon like Orbx FTX OZ.I am going to say it took a $100 add on like FTX to make me "like" FSX enough to fly with it though. FTX OZ did knock my socks off. And the perfomance is really good in FTX as well it looks awesome. Except if I go near YMML :( then I get the slide show.No matter what, I still think FS KPDX is the best FS scenery ever made. FTX OZ is much much larger and comes a very close second.....Ok now to sit back and watch the fire works.... :(

Ooh watch this one go up! I have to say I used to think like the original poster, but overclocked i7's can allow anything in FSX now if you have the moolah.Those days of splitting GA and heavy are over. You can get the Level D into JFK without any problems now.

Ooh watch this one go up! I have to say I used to think like the original poster, but overclocked i7's can allow anything in FSX now if you have the moolah.Those days of splitting GA and heavy are over. You can get the Level D into JFK without any problems now.

Ooh let's keep it civilized :( Yeah, I can agree that an OCed i7, and I did much of testing, can fly a heavy in the KJFK or EGLL, but even with all that, I still didn't add any AI (not to mention flying on VATSIM on some busy airport). I was a bit disappointed by its performance, I was a expecting a tad more - like 30 fixed and not dropping or stuttering with some nice sceneries. But it's not yet there...I have bought FSX a long time ago, and some sceneries that I usually fly in FS9 to compare. I am not mad at FSX or something, my FS9 is doing a very nice job keeping my busy. But with all those tweaks and tests, I spent 2 full days tweaking and testing, and just couldn't get that oomph.Might be that those days are over, but I am still not seeing screenshots of heavies in FSX in our forums, that was my point and original question (if you look first and 2nd page, you will see I think 2 posts with heavies everything else GA, even if you scroll pages back).

Ooh watch this one go up! I have to say I used to think like the original poster, but overclocked i7's can allow anything in FSX now if you have the moolah.Those days of splitting GA and heavy are over. You can get the Level D into JFK without any problems now.

Well, I dont know about no problems :( I run FSX just fine. Just got ASE, trust me, FS9 cant even touch FSX now in my book :) I even have a crappy video card too...gonna need to bump it up a notch!But then again...I'm not saying she wasn't playing hard to get. After about 1 week of dealing with my shotty PSU, Tweaking forever, getting loads of fatal errors...I've finally found that sweet spot. Only a fatal error every 3/10 flights :( I also have accepted overclocking isn't for me.Trust me though...REX, GEX, UTX, MyTraffic X, ASE, RadarContact and a Super80 into FlyTampa's new KBOS.... :( Phenom 9654GB Corsair Ram GTS 250 1GigSamsung 24" LCD and Sony 32" HDTV...and a hard drive.

Trust me though...REX, GEX, UTX, MyTraffic X, ASE, RadarContact and a Super80 into FlyTampa's new KBOS.... :(

Alright, I can go with that. What's the performance? I don't have MT or RC, but the rest I can measure.I wish for nothing more than to get FSX to perform satisfyingly, but I guess it's something some people see as suttering, some others see as satisfying situation. I am, unfortunately, one of those that can't live with ini-mini bit of stuttering. And I have very sensitive eyes, meaning below 30fps in FSX, or below 40fps in FS9 is for me a no-go situation.But still, the question remains - what about all those people satisfied with FSX, but no shots? Mostly GA, still no real answer to that one, except that it's not as well performer as FS9 when it comes to heavies.I also read on UK2000 forums that Microsoft (Aces) made scenery development in FSX worse than it was in FS9 - something with the runways and lights, is also the reason why lights in UK2000 Heathrow are not aligned with stripes at night.

Ur pc spec looks amazing to me. I run fsx smoothly with a lesser spec so I would be questioning why that high a spec can't Do the same.I have to say since I became a perfectionist with respect to housekeeping of my pc things have improved greatly.When I say housekeeping I mean nickn setup and then constant defrag, keep crap off my machine I won't use, that sort of thingoh and fps limiter is a good addition tooand to your original post, I don't mind posting screenshots of my fsx experience1 more thing, the aim is not necessairly to acheive high fps, the objective is to obtain smooth flight as you say you don't like stutters like me. But I have had smooth flight at 20fps 30 and 40 so rather than aim for a set fps aim for a flight where smoothness is the goalI think you know all this but it sprang to mind lol and I'm bored at work so this is a good diversion Tom

Based on your signiture, your computer should run FSX just fine. Did you read NickN's instructions about tuning FSX?I have a lot of addons & stuff and in Level D 767 for example FPS's are almost all the time at 30 locked @30. Even with Ultimate traffic 2 with airline traffic at 100%.

Guys, not to be ungrateful, thank you also for your suggestions. But, I have been around a long time, I know all those tweaks, I have been doing exactly that the whole past weekend. Everything over BP=0, FPS limiter (with which you btw. can't run DA Fokker, it won't load if you load FSX over FPS limiter, so much about it), and the whole NickN's guide. I read it couple of times through.I did achieve smooth flight. But I see when FPS drop to 20fps, in the middle of the airport when taxiing in the VC, I simply notice it. And often starts to stutter when FPS drop below the limited point. Not always but often.Please refrain from suggestions on how to run FSX better, I read through tooooooo many posts about that to know more than I want about it. This isn't what this thread is about.But also like altstiff said, I also got hooked on the FSX's low and slow quality, it's simply amazing.

Please refrain from suggestions on how to run FSX better, I read through tooooooo many posts about that to know more than I want about it. This isn't what this thread is about.

Well, what exactly is it about, then? As far as I can see, you are just trying to rekindle once again the old FS9 vs FSX debate - using the the same boring "FSX is for GA only" argument.If all you want is confirmation that your "observation" is right, I suggest you post in the FS9 forum insted.

Well, what exactly is it about, then? As far as I can see, you are just trying to rekindle once again the old FS9 vs FSX debate - using the the same boring "FSX is for GA only" argument.If all you want is confirmation that your "observation" is right, I suggest you post in the FS9 forum insted.

I post GA picts because that is what I have always flown. I own pmdg, level-d etc. but flying on autopilot at 35,000 ft. is not my thing.With that in mind-if commercial flying into major hubs with huge amounts of ai traffic is your main interest I think fs9 will still be superior for that overall.... and at that altitude you don't really need the sharper better looking scenery, or the faster updating instruments for hand flying etc. At the levels I fly-6-8000 ft. it makes a huge difference.Nothing wrong with using both-I use other flight sims too!

I would love to pull into JFK at noon on a busy day in FSX, but it ain't gonna happen. Not with my rig. However, I do have excellent bush flights and they are a lot of fun. So for my part, yes, I would post only GA FSX pics because that would be the flying I do in FSX.If I fly FS9 with my rig, though, I can pull in anywhere on a busy day, in any plane, any weather, highest settings, and get great FPS. So for Big Iron, it's FS9 all the way.It's all about horse power. My E6700/2GB RAM/640MB 8800GTS will smack FS9 up the head and down the block. With FSX, well... not so much. :(

To be fair fsx performance is never going to be absolutely perfect stutters and the like are going to happen it's just a case of reducing them for me at least.Think I'll post a pic tonight for fsx just so this thread stays in topic :)

Nice thread Word Not Allowed and I'm totally agree with you. Let's hope PMDG folks are reading this.

In last 3 years I have had 3 attempts to switch to FSX fullly. I even deleted FS2004 from my HD once to eliminate any temptation to go back. It didn't work, sorry. FSX is simply not designed to handle heavy hubs such as EDDF and KJFK, 100% AI commercial traffic and commerial complex jetliners together with complex weather and sceneries no matter how much purchasing power for hardware you have. Period.I have FSX on my HD together with FS2004. It's perfect VFR simulator: perfect autogen, excellent integration of GEX and UTX, lovely visuals at all. I'm going to by FTX Pacific/Canada this weekend to make a couple VFR flights....But not for heavy-metal IFR guys, sorry.