My system is an AMD Phenom II 940 @ 3,3GHz, 4GB RAM and an Ati 4870. All these components are far from being the best setup for FSX, but I'm still getting around 28 fps with Very Dense autogen, 1920x1200 resolution, 4x Anti Aliasing and being close to a town in the orbx PNW scenery and without any tweaks whatsoever. I think that's perfectly fine performance for the provided detail.Oh yeah, I forgot that your are in footstomping/pouting mode now and that you won't read this reply, but maybe others are interested in the fact that you are blowing things completely out of proportion. ;)

+1

I hardly think that a framerate performance equivalent to the heavies - Captain Sim, PMDG, is "blowing things out of proportion". By not offering lower res. (ie. standard 1MB) textures, they have shot themselves in the foot.And judging by all the other problems, they seem to have bitten off more than can chew.I simply said that Carenado were no longer in their 'orginal market' - they will, as a result, lose a heap of customers after their last 2 releases. Not everyone is able - or prepared - to shell out the best part of a $1000 just to run FSX, particularly a "simple GA aircraft like the flippin Caravan... Jeeze !Tell me I'm wrong, and I'll show you one naive dude.

It's good to see that I am not the only one who has seen this frame rate hit. And I agree the Gabe that this kind of hit for a Caravan seems excessive.

along with non-optimised PMDG, Level D, Captain Sim (especially), Eaglesoft and the Fligtht1 Mustang. All of these produce around 10-15% the performance of the default G1000 Mooney.

Those are among the best FSX airplanes. "Non-optimized"? You mean better looking with more systems? I wouldn't compare PMDG with default ever, not the same thing, not even close.I don't notice any FPS hit with Carenado Caravan (bought it yesterday). I have GTX285, [email protected], ASE, UT2, MTX,... and all that.It's probably hi-res textures that people with less than 1GB ram video cards have the problem with.