Hi all,I bought my new system recently but unfortunately, I won

To answer your questions:1. Is 23.2 FPS normal over EGLL on a system like yours? Yes. This subject has come up on the forums numerous times (do a search for other threads), and will no doubt continue to do so. I don't know what FPS you are seeking (many people are very happy with less than 23 FPS and, indeed, a lot of people have their FPS locked to less than that), but the simple fact of the matter is that there is no system on the market that will run FS9 on full settings at a constant 30 FPS in all conditions. I guess this is just Microsoft 'future-proofing' their product. Your system seems to be doing OK, although I note there doesn't seem to be any weather in the screenshot - you will get even less FPS with heavy clouds.2. Is it considered an acceptable performance? Yes, by most of us. If you want more FPS, turn down some of your sliders. There are also various methods of getting more FPS - see other threads.3. Is there something wrong with your system (or FS)? No, I don't think so - see answer to (1) above.My advice to you is stop worrying about FPS (turn off the FPS display!) and start flying! ;-) Boogie.

Hi Boogie,Actually, this was an FS8 screenshot, but anyway. I understand your point and thanks for the reply!I only use or monitor FPS for benchmarking my new PC. Generally speaking, in cockpit view, I rarely see low or high 'teen values. 30-80fps in most complex scenery and weather situations. It is just that I recently installed a freeware add-on scenery that really kneels my system down in clear weather conditions. A simple scenery, with some objects here and there, one main building, fences, etc.I have already compromised by sliding the MEsh Complexity down to 60 (10+fps gain) and unchecking Multi-Texturing for some parts of my flights (12+fps gain). So, I have a total gain of ~20-22fps, with minimal image, quality and simming experience loss.I guess my main question transforms as follows:Is it not logical to expect for a system like the one I described above, to OVERCOME any design deficiencies (non optimised 3D models)some FS add-ons tend to exhibit??ToucHDowN,Crete,Greece.

Hi Touchdown,I'm with Boogie on this one. Enjoy flying. This FPS thing will consume you if you let it. Been there done that. FS was never designed to be a computer bench-marking tool, you can get them elsewhere.Good luck,Bruce.

ToucHDowNI think your performance is about what I would expect. Just for comparison my system( K7S5A AMD2000XP, T14200/128,512MB ddram,WinXP) in as near as I could make it identical circumstance( except I had 20% AI traffic to fill a few spaces at the terminals) gave me an average 17/18fps.This system runs normally with most things maxed at 30fps(locked) except at places like Heathrow,Seatac etc where 17 is average.I think if I had your system I would be happy with what you are getting.Dave

ToucHDowN,Sorry, didn't notice that you are using FS8 (I would recommend you upgrade to FS9 - there's a thread on that as well ;-) ). However, what I said earlier still applies (I still have FS8 on my system).As to your 'transformed' question, you don't state what add-on scenery you are using, but I know some are very taxing, e.g. a freeware Dubai scenery I tried recently. I'm sure there will eventually be a PC that can cope with such sceneries without affecting frame rates, but I'm not sure that such a PC exists yet. If you can get a steady 23 FPS with that scenery (in FS9), then you are doing well!All I can say is that I wish I had a PC like yours :-smile12.Boogie.