I have searched so many threads on here and no one can get 30 fps with everything maxed out. My primary question pertains to a DUAL XEON or DUAL OPTERON processor?1.) Does anyone have a system like this if so what are the frame rates?2.) If you have a none dual processor systems has anyone MAXED out their settings and get above 30 fps.3.) Micorsoft Game Studios developed this game on some sort of workstation that probably got 30 fps. Any ideas?I am in the market to build a new computer. I am up for a single or dual processor system. Please post what you know.ThanksAbe

it wouldnt use your dual cpus on account that it hasnt been written to, otherwise all of us with hyperthreading would be smiling :) wait half a year then you'll get your 30 fps.James

This is a poorly stated question.Depending what you "throw" at FS9 you can get probably anywhere from 3 to 100 fps on the same PC. No, dual *anything* is absolutely useless for FS9.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Whoa,Michael, there is one thing I have come to dislike since the beginning of the internet revolution. And that is RUDE message board replies. The correct response should have been. " Abepilotdoc, FS9 does not take into advantage dual processors or Hyperthreading."Now, Let me explain why I stated the question the way I did. I remember reading the original AVSIM.com, FLIGHTSIM.com reviews stating that the code was written to take advantage of HT technology. I am politely asking for people to post their FPS rates or their experiance using DUAL Processor Systems with FS2004.Thank you for your cooperation.ABE PILOT DOC

I often get 30-35 fps on my maxed-out system, especially using the MS and iFDG aircraft, over relatively scenery-sparse areas. Usually get around 20-22 over cities. One trick at cruise altitude is to use FSUIPC and set the visibility limits to the default settings. This will boost fps quite a bit.As far as I understand, a that's not much in this area, FS9 is not written for dual-processor hyper-threading yet.

If that was the meaning of the question, it was not clear at all.Your title suggests that you are frustrated with FPS insted of you wanting information about the capabilities of Flight Simulator in dual processors.Not to mention all the !!!!!.You should look at yourself first.

>The correct response should have been. ">Abepilotdoc, FS9 does not take into advantage dual processors>or Hyperthreading."Ok, I answer and you convert my answer (RUDE of course) into the Politically Correct Answer. Deal. Michael J.

Dr. From one Dr. to another thank you for answering the post. What kind of PC do you have?

I achieve anywhere from 25 up to 90 with my system, with all settings pretty much maxxed out. Flight Sim doesn't support Hyper-Threading or dual processors, so there wouldn't be much point buying just for FS in that respect.I'd say a single processor, yet fast enough to cope.

>I achieve anywhere from 25 up to 90 with my system, with all>settings pretty much maxxed out. Flight Sim doesn't support>Hyper-Threading or dual processors, so there wouldn't be much>point buying just for FS in that respect.>>I'd say a single processor, yet fast enough to cope.WOW!!!.Where do you get 25 and and where do you get 90?

25FPS on the ground at most of the bigger airports in the default sceneries, Seattle, Chicago, etc., with a pretty good array of AI.90+FPS with the default aircraft mainly, not many clouds or ground in shot. Just aircraft and sky, it sky-rockets.

You have a mightly powerful combo their for components. How is Alienware and their customer service?Abe

Don't waste your money on overpriced, top of the line equipment. If a mid-range computer is struggling to get 8 FPS, a high-end computer that's 25% faster and costs 300% more will also struggle. What's the difference between 8 and 10 FPS? You'd need a computer that's at least twice as fast to get a noticable improvement.I currently have, since almost 1.5 years ago:AthlonXP 2400+ @ 2.2 GHz, Epox 8RDA+ @ 183 MHz FSB, 512MB RAM, Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB, 160GB Maxtor, 120GB WD.Settings:1280x1024, 4x FSAA, 8X AnisotropicAll details to full except:Sun Glare = off (I like it better that way)Sight distance = 60 miles (anything higher looks unrealistic and slows the sim down)Cloud draw distance = 40 miles (big increase in framerate because I'm using full 3D clouds)Mip detail: 4 (anything higher causes shimmering autogen trees and low performance)Obviously I have also disabled BOTH default.xml autogen AND vector objects. Doing that can tripple the framerate under certain conditions. If you can't live without a certain XML object, edit default.xml to remove everything except the objects you want to keep. If you still have problems with the framerate, just disable autogen alltogether. It's one of the most framerate-hungry feature.BTW, It seems, even when there's no autogen accumulation (starting fresh), the excessive view distance of xml- and vector objects slows the sim down quite a bit. Anyone who can confirm this?My framerate:Generic scenery: 25-70 FPSWith photo sceneries that include autogen (Megascenery), I typically get: 30-70 FPSPhoto sceneries without autogen: 40-85 FPSOf course, if you start adding hyper-detailed airports, meshes, 3rd party aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of addon AI flightplans, expect framerate to go down.Some screenshots:http://home.swipnet.se/~w-84952/Jimmi/fps/fps.htm(download and blow them up in an image editor if you can't read the numbers).

I have a 3 year old Athlon at 800 mhz. So its time for me to upgrade. I understand that not everything will be fully MAXED out. For instance, you are absolutly correct about the cloud settings. I just want a nice 30 fps approach and takeoff out of complex airports. I want the sense of realism. I do not want to turn the settings down and not enjoy the majority of the new features in FS2004. This is the reason why I started this thread. I am trying to find that one person who invested in a powerful rig and is now enjoying what I am depicting. Keep the replies comingThanks AgainAbe

Well, the way I see it is that the question needs to be a bit more specific....is it a consistant 30fps regardless of what, where and when? Even out-of-the-box, at a large airport with default AI trafic and no other scenery add-ons you will struggle to get 30fps, system dependant; maybe that nice new P4 3.4gig with a Radeon 9800 or Geforce FX5950 will make it, but...even switching between different default aircraft you'll see a variance in FPS. Once add-ons are added, like new AI traffic (depending on what level you set it to) you'll immediately see an impact on FPS at the same airport. Try using some of the more complex aircraft available with more advanced panels and systems and you'll get yet more of an impact. You can of course download the modified cloud textures, and autogen textures etc. which will help to lighten the load, but even then, if you max-out all the ingame sliders, you'll find slowdown at highly populated areas.It will also depend on where you set the frame-rate limiter...if you set to max, you'll get sky-high rates when flying, but then over cities or during external views etc, you'll start to see stutters and slowdown. If you limit the FPS to 30, then things should be a lot smoother and consistant.I have an Athlon XP2600 (333FSB), 1.5gig of DDR PC333 and a Radeon 9700. I limit to 20FPS and it runs smooth with no stutters, and I have 90% AI traffic (FSTraffic 2002 with several others added too!) and even using a POSKY heavy with a good panel, my FPS only dip below 20 if I'm at somewhere like Heathrow (Heathrow Pro add-on....jeez it's good but it does kill FPS!!), and all sliders at one below max. I also have 4x AA and 8x Anisotropic Filtering set for jaggy-free visuals.If I increase the FPS limiter to 30-35, then I get a steady 30-35 except at the aformention airports....but when viewing out at the scenery, the stutter and lurching effect is present.So, as you can see, there's loads of variables involved with running this programme...it depends on what you are prepared to accept/sacrifice in eye-candy, for FPS and smooth performance. There is a trade-off, and will likely stay that way for quite some time.Your original question was way too vague for anyone to attempt a 'definative' answer...and I can't either, as you can see, and until you decide what you want, based on what you can spend, etc. and then refine and base your question around that, no-one will be able to give an accurate answer.Those that have, myself included, have had to base our attempts at answering the question based on our equipment and experiences..perhaps those will help you make your choices, if not, sorry, but you've asked a question that is akin to 'how long is a piece of string?'