FSX will be brought to its knees by high def clouds, multi-cloud layers, lots of traffic and a complex airplane. 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

Why don't you believe it? I posted some shots into and around JFK on page 2 with the FPS counter circled, and that was in the PMDG 747 with FSDreamteams KDFW. I used REX DXT clouds but I DO NOT use the 2048 or 4096 sets because frankly I cant tell that much of a difference over the 1024's vs. performance, and I was using UT2 and some WOAI for traffic.Honestly, I never understand how people refuse to believe that good performance can be had, especially when screen shots are posted showing otherwise.

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

Then I guess 40-60+ would really make ya a skeptic and thats with 4096 textures

Honestly, I never understand how people refuse to believe that good performance can be had, especially when screen shots are posted showing otherwise.

I stopped wondering a long time ago and just enjoy FSX ( as you do) while chuckling at some of the posts. It's the old 'you can lead a horse to water' thing I guess.

I stopped wondering a long time ago and just enjoy FSX ( as you do) while chuckling at some of the posts. It's the old 'you can lead a horse to water' thing I guess.

LOl, I guess I should quit wondering also. I just noticed that you and I both had out setup done by the same firm. I attribute my success to them as well, probably the best money I ever spent on FS frankly.

FSX is broken, didn't you know that? :( Oh, let's just give it a shot! And mind you: this is FSX very much blown up, texturewise. I run LOD 8.5 and 4096 textures for clouds. And the weather has been re-set to something heavier...

FSX is broken, didn't you know that?

I agree and after looking at your shots it appears you need to format/reinstall to correct the issues that you have shown you are having :(

@Word Not Allowed:Yep, FSX is broken, and you have hardware problems that needs attention, right?Nice pictures, still pictures!But is it smooooth, fluid, magic, no humps and bumps, ya know what I mean?Posting nice pictures makes no sense to me whatsoever, sorry...BTW: Any particular reason for keeping your monitor at these settings:Samsung 245B LCD Monitor @ 1600x1200 for FS9&FSX ?

@Word Not Allowed:Yep, FSX is broken, and you have hardware problems that needs attention, right?Nice pictures, still pictures!But is it smooooth, fluid, magic, no humps and bumps, ya know what I mean?Posting nice pictures makes no sense to me whatsoever, sorry...

Hi Word Not Allowed, I noticed apart from 1 shot all the pics were external. Any chance you could repost the same scenes but all from a VC perspective.Bryan.

FSX is broken, didn't you know that? :(

Too funny Word Not Allowed, lol. I though I read something you wrote not to long ago in the FS9 forum that you were back to using FS9? You back to FSX again?Are we both running the same airport by FSDT in our shots, because yours looks like it has different colored textures to is, almost like a shade blue? Maybe its just my monitor though.On of the doubters is going to jump on you for posting JFK without any AI :( Nice shots btw, if I am getting what I am getting on my old CD2, I can only imagine what it will be like when I upgrade to a rig like what your sig indicates.

Hi Word Not Allowed, I noticed apart from 1 shot all the pics were external. Any chance you could repost the same scenes but all from a VC perspective.Bryan.

Some other guy with an older computer posted some VC pics into the same airport on page 2 of this thread and his FPS were pretty high for that area so I image Kostas would be even higher since he has a better computer than the first guys shots.

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

Yes, that´s the same set-up I started with, but you can get better performance in FSX.Download Nvidia nTune, and overclock your CPU with the tool.http://www.nvidia.com/object/ntune_5.05.54.00.htmlWith a better cooler you can get it up to around 2.6 / 2.7 Ghz.Also, have a look at NickN´s advise:http://www.simforums.com/forums/topic34141_post198187.html#198187

I don't see any traffic in those pictures you guys are posting... show me PMDG 747 on FSDT KJFK in VC with UT2 while on final.

Yep, let´s see some AI Traffic!Oh, and remember Cars and Boats too, not the flat, UTX roads imprints only...PS: Of course "The Usual Vatsim Guys" get´s awesome performance when they fly without AI Traffic, Cars, Boats and the monitors turned down to 1400 / 900!!

I don't see any traffic in those pictures you guys are posting... show me PMDG 747 on FSDT KJFK in VC with UT2 while on final.

Look on page two halfway down, I posted 2 on final from the PMDG 747 VC on final with traffic, and 2 external shots with the same a/c and UT2.

Wow, I'm amazed you guys still reply to the OP. A typical case of "There is no worse deaf person than the one who does not want to hear" unless it's just trolling...Whatever proof you'll provide, it's perfectly clear by now he's not going to believe you anyway or pretend so, so why bother ?

Look on page two halfway down, I posted 2 on final from the PMDG 747 VC on final with traffic, and 2 external shots with the same a/c and UT2.

I failed to see any traffic except on picture nr3 but I believe you there is 50% UT2, so my bad.