Do you mean Zoom 1.0x? If so, I can understand why framerate was higher. With 1.0 you get a much narrower FOV so less autogen is in view at the same time.I prefer a setting of around 0.7x because at 1x it feels like flying with a pair of binoculars. Unfortunately, this increases the effect of the autogen bug.

After reading your post and results I decided to reactivate my default.xml file to see what it is I was giving up. I really do like a lot of the auto gen in this file but also like my frames. So I opened up my xml file to see what its all about. What I decided to do was keep the big buildings and since the small stuff is seen more than the big stuff I felt I could give up (until a fix or the next version) all the little stuff. So I used Frontpage to edit it and replace it. I also keep the iceburgs since I never see it but incase I fly near the poles one time would like to see it.So I was wondering if I could email this xml file to you and you could run it thru your frame rate test and see how it dows compared to your chart with and without the xml file? I've attached it but not sure if you need the actual file or if the avsim server will allow a xml file with out changing how the file is read.NPhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/57401.html

Yeah, I have an "older" version of X-Plane (does that mean more than 2-weeks old?) and the "next" version (still older than the current one) came out before I got the hang of the one I have. But I'm not talking about airplane flight models, per se. The SF260 that you mention is a superb aircraft to fly, within the FS9 engine. But FS just doesn't have much "feel" of flying, it's like you're on rails all the time (subjective, I know), except when you're on the ground and it "feels" like you're on ice. I guess I should have said flight/flying-envronment engine...

Thank god xplane and fs still don't do real flight models complete justice! :-)I wouldn't have a reason for flying for real if they did...They both have flaws-I keep trying to like xplane but the cockpit instruments and also some missing fm parameters (also in ms but in different areas) leave me wanting more.....I keep trying xplane but still find ms closer in most respects at this point in time...I'll gladly jump ship when I am convinced!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

>But I'm not talking about airplane flight models, per se. The>SF260 that you mention is a superb aircraft to fly, within the>FS9 engine. But FS just doesn't have much "feel" of flying,>it's like you're on rails all the time (subjective, I know),>except when you're on the ground and it "feels" like you're on>ice. I guess I should have said flight/flying-envronment>engine... I don't feel that way at all. Some of my best simulated flight experiences have been with FS2002/FS2004 & third party aircraft. No flying on "rails" here (not since FS95). I personally don't get near the "feel" of yaw, slipping, and STOL characteristics with X-Plane as I do with models such as those from RealAir, FSD, Dreamfleet, and Flight 1. X-Plane models seem to lack mass & are a bit on the "bouncy" side--- IMOSubjective yes, but I've flown many real aircraft from Pipers & Cessna's, to the Pitt's & Marchetti SF260. In my opinion, some just believe X-Plane is superior in the flight dynamic department because it strives to keep frame rates high for the sensation of fluid movement. One more thing......As to "feel" and control, there is a vast difference between my desktop with Saitek X-45 & Thrustmaster rudder pedals, and my laptop with wireless joystick. The wireless reacts fast enough, but the big difference is NO rudder pedals. And BTW -- I tend to agree with Geof's statement regarding the two simultions.L.Adamson

JimmiG you interested in trying this file?NP

>-It's actually a very simple and stupid mistake but it causes>big problems. This is what makes it even more frustrating. It>would take less than an hour for Microsoft to change the>distances and upload a fix. Instead, we've had to live with>the low framerates for 7 months now because MICROSOFT DOESN'T>CARE! (sorry but that's the way I feel). I recently saw a>program about Flight Sim 2004 on Discovery Science. They>talked to a FS designer and he kept rambling on about how they>CAREFULLY designed the sim to achieve a balance between visual>quality and performance. A visibility distance of 27 miles for>autogen isn't exactly what I call balanced.>Excellent post Jimmi!And I'm absolutely with you! I do not understand, why Microsoft puts up with thousands of unsatisfied and in many cases annoyed customers, athough it would be so easy for them to fix the problem and to improve their image. The more, that this "improved autogen" is one of MS' major selling points of FS2004. They mention it as Key Feature on their website and, if I remember correctly, it is also mentioned on the box.http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...productinfo.aspSometimes MS politcs are really, really strange.Wolfgang

>I don't feel that way at all. Some of my best simulated flight> experiences have been with FS2002/FS2004 & third party aircraft. No flying on "rails" here (not since FS95). I personally >don't get near >the "feel" of yaw, slipping, and STOL >characteristics with You still missed my point (or I'm missing my point ;)I'm not talking about the aircraft flight models and how they handle in flightsim(s), exactly.I'm taking flying lessons now, and when I'm flying the the trusty ole 172 out of the valley, over the mountains to the training area, it is not the smoothest ride on even clear fall days. Air is generally not stable even on stable air days. Mountains have up and down drafts, there are drafts associated with cloud formation. Fly over a mountain in the great SF.260 and you will "feel" nothing disturbing the plane...no matter how good it's FDE is...it's on rails in FS.That's the best I can do :)Cheers,

>And I'm absolutely with you! I do not understand, why>Microsoft puts up with thousands of unsatisfied and in many>cases annoyed customers, athough it would be so easy for them>to fix the problem and to improve their image. >The more, that this "improved autogen" is one of MS' major>selling points of FS2004. They mention it as Key>Feature on their website and, if I remember correctly, it is>also mentioned on the box.Wolfgang, it is obvious that you have never worked in software development.Have you ever tried to pick out a single conversation from a crowded room? That's what most user "feedback" is like.I worked as one of the lead testers for Close Combat III the Russian Front. And when we got reports from "beta testers" it was like that.People who are in software development have absolutely NO IDEA on how to report a bug. They often do not adequately explain the problem, and almost never have any meaningful reproduction steps. Instead you have a deluge of e-mails that simply state things like. German Tank markings are wrong, Barrel is too long, Gun sound not correct.In this case, it looks that the author has provided some valid data and some concrete steps to reproduce. But believe me, that is well in the minority. I make the humble suggestion that all of us read a book called "Testing Computer Software". Not only does it put into perspective the daunting task of software testing but also teaches you how to write and communicate a meaningful bug report.Since most of us are into Flight Sim for the long haul, it would be worth the read.As a community, we can either sound as a beautiful choir or a gaggle of geese.It's our choice, but if our arguments are incomprehensible, we can hardly blame Microsoft for not addressing them.

I see many people have devoted a lot of time testing and complaining about the autogen. For me, it is a "Non"-realistic function in that you have buildings all over the airport that do not exist. Personally, I just leave it turned "Off" which allows the computer more time to run more complex weather and traffic simulations.TerryRet AF Flight Sim Tech

I'll do it now.I actually tried customizing the default.xml file before. What I found was basically that you had to delete a lot of objects to make any kind o f difference, and even with most objects deleted it was still much slower than with the default.xml file removed alltogether.

Here are the results with your default.xml file, compared with default.xml+vector objects disabled and normal autogen. Note that I kept Vector Objects (road signs, telephone poles) enabled when testing your file. I can try with them disabled too if you want.http://home.swipnet.se/~w-84952/test/log2.gifFramerate improved a lot over the city and on final but still takes a BIG hit when turning left to heading 350 degrees for final near the end of the flight.BTW - to those of you who say that noone cares about the autogen bug and the Crash-to-Desktop bug, look at the forum index page. The thread about CTD's and this thread about the autogen bug are some of the most popular threads in the forum if you look at the Views column. Clearly there's interest in getting these bugs fixed.

"BTW - to those of you who say that noone cares about theautogen bug and the Crash-to-Desktop bug, look at the forumindex page. The thread about CTD's and this thread about theautogen bug are some of the most popular threads in the forumif you look at the Views column. Clearly there's interest ingetting these bugs fixed."Because you keep bringing it up! I want it fixed just so I can come here and NOT see a post about it!BTW I liked the little "RUNS AWAY" at the end of your post in the scenery design forum, cute.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VACougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviation[link:www.cgrmthelos.com]Cougar Mountain Helicopters

"Because you keep bringing it up!"Actually it wasn't me who bumped it this time. I just checked my email and saw that someone had replied to it."I want it fixed just so I can come here and NOT see a post about it!"Well that explains one of the 1100-odd views...What about the thread on the CTD issue? Do people view that one just to make such posts go away too?

Thanks for running that test. Looks like theres no way around getting a trade off on this. Well at least I know some auto gen things to look forward to in the next version that will hopefully work that time.NP