It's not deception because that's how it looks on my system with fps performance in the 30s and silky smooth.It takes more than expensive hardware to get FSX working smoothly. I feel like I have to repeat the same thing every week.

I agree with DJJose that there is no deception, although I disagree that it takes super expensive hardware to make it work well either. The rig in my sig I had build 3 years ago for $1800 and works pretty damn well for FSX.As an illustration, I fired up FSX while I was working and flew a quick circuit into FSDT's KJFK in the PMDG 747 which is probably the most demanding plane I own as far as FPS go. I am running GEX and REX textures, UT2 traffic at 50% (For JKF 50% is plenty) and mix of WOAI cargo, and was able to maintain at or above 30 FPS the whole time as can be seen in these pics I just snapped. The whole thing ran smooth as silk to boot.Basically, if anyone who has a computer as good as mine or better should be able to handle a complex a/c, with a detailed scenery like FSDT KJFK and be able to have a good looking, smooth experience. For the OP to be struggling with that moster rig he has, it must come down to something not setup correctly along the way, or else he would blow my FPS out of the water with the abacus of a computer I run.

So we are all part of a big conspiracy then, while our systems are running fine, we only believe them to do so, right?

:( I never understand the whole conspiracy thing or why some people refuse to believe that FSX can and does work well. In my experience in helping people out off the Avsim forums, it seems like it always come down to a poor config which is giving them problems. Its no secret that FSX takes a little more work to get running well compared to FS9, but at the same time it is certainly very do-able.

I would also like to contribute this:

Could you please name one such utility ?ThanksVic

Ken Salter's "Alacrity", Vic - get it here: http://www.alacritypc.comIt's a bit 'fiddly' to set up but a couple of tries you'll see it makes a good difference. I run this from a bat file on the desktop. It shuts down a large number of processes, defrags the memory, and then starts (for me) TrackIR - then I can launch FSX.

It is the code.Hopefully prepar3d will work it over the coming months.Bob

Hello guys,I must say that I've had a very similar experience with my upgrade. I came from a Q9550@ 3,6 GHZ with a GTX260 and went to a i7 2600K @4,5GHz with two GTX460's and no matter what I try I cannot get a smooth experience. I'm starting to get quite frustrated with FSX.My problem is that I cannot say what the problem is, changing the scenery settings hardly has any impact and I'm not seeing a lot of usage on my CPU. In fact with the affinitymask at 14 my core 0 gets no more than 20% max usage. I hardly ever see more than 60% usage on my CPU with the average propably around 40%.And in terms of my GPU it doesn't matter if I turn the AA completely off or as high as 8xSQ, there is no real difference in fps or smoothness.I'm beginning to think fsx is just really badly coded, I can run as good as anything on my pc with great performance except FSX.Makes me wonder if the 1000 euro's invested in my system were really worth it.

It takes more than expensive hardware to get FSX working smoothly.

You know that's not true at all. You know perfectly well that we could list parts for a 1000$ - 1500$ rig with everything to you need to run FSX that would outperform yours for example.I'm not sure why you keep repeating such nonsense. Actually this is nothing new because before Sandy Bridge, a P55 system was just as fast as an EE I7 like that

Dario,Would you prefer that I say:It takes more than inexpensive hardware to get FSX working smoothly.It takes things like optimizing, setting sliders, tweaking the cfg file.I'm sorry if English is not your first language.

Dario,Would you prefer that I say:It takes more than inexpensive hardware to get FSX working smoothly.It takes things like optimizing, setting sliders, tweaking the cfg file.I'm sorry if English is not your first language.

Ok, me understands now. :biggrin:Agreed. It takes a 1/100000 of the time you need to learn how to fly a plane to tweak and configure FSX anyway

Have you tried adding this line to the cfg?[bufferPools]PoolSize=3000

or better yetPoolsize=0, works for me.

I havethe same system HP Pavilion Desktop PC, equipped with an AMD 2.3 Ghz Quad CPU, a 9500 GT GPU, 4 Gb 800 Mhz DDR2 Ram.I have tried a lot of different tweaks and paid to have my FSX config worked on and I still only get 6-8 FPS with all sliders in the middle A GTS 450 card with the latest drivers.I have FS9 on the system also and I get 25 fps with the scenery set to the full right. I also have upgraded to Win 7 a few weeks ago. JeffG

I 'm too one of those frustrated guys that put lot of money in the system, spend countless hours on tweaking and end up with "amazing" 2FPS ... I think that the fact that u spend so many hours on setting up the Simulator speak for it self, this is either an unfinished aging products, or just a bed one, period. I can't think of myself spending tons of hours tunning my Motorcycle instead of enjoining the rideYairIrvine CA

Ken Salter's "Alacrity", Vic - get it here: http://www.alacritypc.comIt's a bit 'fiddly' to set up but a couple of tries you'll see it makes a good difference. I run this from a bat file on the desktop. It shuts down a large number of processes, defrags the memory, and then starts (for me) TrackIR - then I can launch FSX.

Thanks a bunch.Appreciated :(

Guys, I don't want to sound insulting, but reading about 2 or 6fps "after tuning" doesn't sound like a tuning problem, more like a severe conflict of software and/or hardware settings.I had low 12-15fps when starting on complex planes and scenery of this kind, but 2fps are close to "application doesn't respond" and shows some error source, not bad programming.Did you run Bojote's perfect little online tool by the way? Doesn't mean that it achieves wonders on all systems, but it clearly shows you some direction to go for when using FSX.

- Did you tried on ORBX PNW KSEA, full option on ?We pay high price for quality no ? not to deactivate 2/3 of the options- Are you using a mix of REX textures, ASE weather and Radar contact 4 ?I can't fly without them...PS2 : If you can run Manhattan X from aerosoft with an aircraft addon at more than 30 FPS, than you should take the place of Bojote

I don't care about Seattle or Manhattan. I don't fly in major cities too often. When I do, I'm fine with the FPS I get. The only big cities I regularly fly around are Chicago and San Diego, and my FPS are just fine there. I fly mainly bush and regional GA flights with the occasional B767 hop.I always use REX, UTX, GEX, miscellaneous terrain mesh, and ASE.If you paid good money for high quality scenery addons, you should be prepared to take a FPS hit for the extra realism. If you aren't, you're not being realistic.

I havethe same system HP Pavilion Desktop PC, equipped with an AMD 2.3 Ghz Quad CPU, a 9500 GT GPU, 4 Gb 800 Mhz DDR2 Ram.I have tried a lot of different tweaks and paid to have my FSX config worked on and I still only get 6-8 FPS with all sliders in the middle A GTS 450 card with the latest drivers.I have FS9 on the system also and I get 25 fps with the scenery set to the full right. I also have upgraded to Win 7 a few weeks ago. JeffG

The part I bolded is the big, big 'clue'. FS9 on your system should be running higher FPS... easy.

Not enough info. What kind of add ons?What kind of weather?What airplanes?FSX will be brought to its knees by high def clouds, multi-cloud layers, lots of traffic and a complex airplane. I've stopped using REX and my other weather software because I'm in the low teens in Seattle with even basic airplanes. And I've got an i7 920 ocd to 4ghz, a good motherboard, a good video card. Until we get a standard "test" set up, I am very skeptical of all these claims of 30 fps everywhere, all the time. I don't believe it. Colin