Hopefully this year I'll be able to get a PC upgrade. What I'm really interested in is being able to fly the F1 Mustang at payware airports like FlyTampa, and Boston, and FSDreamteam's ORD and JFK. You guys getting the high clocks on these new CPUs - are you running the fps heavy payware such as the mustang? I can't think of a plane that's worse on my fps than that one. But I still fly it I love it.I'd like to get at least 20 fps at major airports with at least dense autogen. The problem I have now (other than having an older PC) is the large stutter I get when the payware scenery loads. It's almost a 2-3 second pause. I wonder if that would go away with a faster CPU?

I run Captain Sim addons at fairly good performance with max settings. Really good performance with PMDG AC. Don't have the F1 Mustang personally, but CS is pretty hard on frames. See sig. for other addons.

Hopefully this year I'll be able to get a PC upgrade. What I'm really interested in is being able to fly the F1 Mustang at payware airports like FlyTampa, and Boston, and FSDreamteam's ORD and JFK. You guys getting the high clocks on these new CPUs - are you running the fps heavy payware such as the mustang? I can't think of a plane that's worse on my fps than that one. But I still fly it I love it.I'd like to get at least 20 fps at major airports with at least dense autogen. The problem I have now (other than having an older PC) is the large stutter I get when the payware scenery loads. It's almost a 2-3 second pause. I wonder if that would go away with a faster CPU?

Here are some numbers for you. I have the Mustang but not Boston scenery (at least not yet). So decided I would give the Mustang a try in Fly Tampa Buffalo. I am on to testing anyways. Just installed this new rig 1 week ago and I am re-installing FSX add-ons right now. The PC is in the signature and I run AA at 8xS on this particular test. (although it don't make that much difference if I go up to 12xQ). Resolution is set at 1920x1200x32. FSX runs autogen at Extreme and so is Scenery complexity. Water details at low2x (my preference for any flight). AI is set at 21/14/8 commercial/ga/cars. (I use MyTFC5.3pro).The flight: The Mustang from GA ramp to rwy 05 t/g. Note that it was just going to be a fps/smoothness reading test, but when I started the F1 I liked so much what I saw that I decided to make a small flight.Now the results: -from the ramp to end of rwy 05. FPS are on avg 35, in cockpit or outside view and panning around. Had one or two dips to 22-25 fps. Smooth all the way.-taking off rwy 05 and making the circuit. alt 4t. avg fps 30-35. -final rwy05 and landing. avg fps 30-35 few dips to 21-24 before touchdown. Smooth all the way. Textures always sharp.There you go, hopefully that answers your question. I must say, it is a surprise for me that the Mustang is now flyable in dense scenery and I love the airplane. But I couldn't do that with my DualCore at 4ghz. The more I test this system the more I am impressed with the results. FS9 is slowly disappearing from my radar even for IFR flights. Well, there you go. I might purchase Flytampa Boston now, see what you've done...If you have other requests, go ahead. There is plenty to do here and installing add-ons so I might as well take personal requests.Pierre

Here are some numbers for you. I have the Mustang but not Boston scenery (at least not yet). So decided I would give the Mustang a try in Fly Tampa Buffalo. I am on to testing anyways. Just installed this new rig 1 week ago and I am re-installing FSX add-ons right now. The PC is in the signature and I run AA at 8xS on this particular test. (although it don't make that much difference if I go up to 12xQ). Resolution is set at 1920x1200x32. FSX runs autogen at Extreme and so is Scenery complexity. Water details at low2x (my preference for any flight). AI is set at 21/14/8 commercial/ga/cars. (I use MyTFC5.3pro).The flight: The Mustang from GA ramp to rwy 05 t/g. Note that it was just going to be a fps/smoothness reading test, but when I started the F1 I liked so much what I saw that I decided to make a small flight.Now the results: -from the ramp to end of rwy 05. FPS are on avg 35, in cockpit or outside view and panning around. Had one or two dips to 22-25 fps. Smooth all the way.-taking off rwy 05 and making the circuit. alt 4t. avg fps 30-35. -final rwy05 and landing. avg fps 30-35 few dips to 21-24 before touchdown. Smooth all the way. Textures always sharp.There you go, hopefully that answers your question. I must say, it is a surprise for me that the Mustang is now flyable in dense scenery and I love the airplane. But I couldn't do that with my DualCore at 4ghz. The more I test this system the more I am impressed with the results. FS9 is slowly disappearing from my radar even for IFR flights. Well, there you go. I might purchase Flytampa Boston now, see what you've done...If you have other requests, go ahead. There is plenty to do here and installing add-ons so I might as well take personal requests.Pierre

Pierre, are these results without any tweaks?

Pierre, are these results without any tweaks?

Yes, without tweaks. Let's see now...I use highmemfix and disablepreload, that's it. FSX.cfg is like the original.

Yes, without tweaks. Let's see now...I use highmemfix and disablepreload, that's it. FSX.cfg is like the original.

Okay thanks. Can you tell me what you get at at a default fsx airport and a default plane without any weather so I can see how my system comes in? Thanks.

Okay thanks. Can you tell me what you get at at a default fsx airport and a default plane without any weather so I can see how my system comes in? Thanks.

Certainly. Here it is: Def KORD, rwy 14R, Season now, time noon, a/c Def A321. No wx. No AI. Autogen/complexity Ex.Dense. Water Low2x.1. In cockpit: 83fps2. Outside view: 123fps. Panning towards the terminal will bring it down to 80<s then back to 120 for the rest.For ref. also, I use GEX/UTXPierre

Certainly. Here it is: Def KORD, rwy 14R, Season now, time noon, a/c Def A321. No wx. No AI. Autogen/complexity Ex.Dense. Water Low2x.1. In cockpit: 83fps2. Outside view: 123fps. Panning towards the terminal will bring it down to 80<s then back to 120 for the rest.For ref. also, I use GEX/UTXPierre

Thanks a lot. I expect my system to be around these numbers but a little less than what you got. I'll compare tomorrow.

There you go, hopefully that answers your question. I must say, it is a surprise for me that the Mustang is now flyable in dense scenery and I love the airplane. But I couldn't do that with my DualCore at 4ghz. The more I test this system the more I am impressed with the results. FS9 is slowly disappearing from my radar even for IFR flights. Well, there you go. I might purchase Flytampa Boston now, see what you've done...If you have other requests, go ahead. There is plenty to do here and installing add-ons so I might as well take personal requests.Pierre

Thanks Pierre - I do appreciate it!I basically fly on the settings you listed (because I enjoy the eye candy) but I get about 8fps lol...Also, by any chance, do you fly with PNW scenery? I have major texture loading issues with that scenery. While I fly outside of PNW my textures usually load well below 200 kts. In PNW, even at 150kts they just don't load, even near rural communities, away from SEA and PDX.I've been given the "go-ahead" from my beautiful better half but trying to figure out the right time to get all new hardware.p.s. I do recommend the FlyTampa Boston scenery. I've always loved that airport and it looks great in FSX. I'm also enjoying their latest release KTPA! Excellent scenery!

Thanks Pierre - I do appreciate it!I basically fly on the settings you listed (because I enjoy the eye candy) but I get about 8fps lol...Also, by any chance, do you fly with PNW scenery? I have major texture loading issues with that scenery. While I fly outside of PNW my textures usually load well below 200 kts. In PNW, even at 150kts they just don't load, even near rural communities, away from SEA and PDX.I've been given the "go-ahead" from my beautiful better half but trying to figure out the right time to get all new hardware.p.s. I do recommend the FlyTampa Boston scenery. I've always loved that airport and it looks great in FSX. I'm also enjoying their latest release KTPA! Excellent scenery!

My pleasure Sir. Yes I do fly with PNW scenery (now though). With my previous Core duo at 4ghz, the CPU just couldn<t cope with that scenery (just barely loads up textures below the C172 at 100k). So I quite see what you mean when you talk about textures loading in or out of PNW. Actually, the real test of a given system can easily be benchmarked (without reading the FPS meter) by flying at 500k at KSEA 500ft with everything at MAX. If your textures load well ahead of the aircraft (F18, P51 etc...) you have got a Powerful system FSXwise. The 2600K will allow you to do that paired with good Ram and good video card.Tks for the advice on Boston, it is on my list. I am still quite busy with my recently built dual-boot PC: fine-tuning, installing prgs etc...Glad to hear you have the green light...Be patient though, there are a few problems with the 1155 MB and they are no longer available, they have been moved off the shelves. Some talk about a 1 to 3 month delay before they reappear and when that happens it may be a different ball game. You may have other options then.Pierre