Hi!I've been trying the XPX demo and am pretty sold on it, but have decided to wait out until Aerosoft release their European edition before purchasing. In the meantime, i've gone back to XP9, which i've had for ages, but never really given it much of a chance. In setting up the rendering settings, I found that in order to get decent FPS (30+), I can only run with objects at 'a lot' or lower. Any setting higher than 'a lot' for objects reduces FPS to 20, which I don't feel comfortable with. No other setting makes that much difference, it's Objects which is the killer. I would have thought, after reading XP9 like FSX is primarily CPU bound, that my 4GHz processor should be enough to run it pretty much flat out, but clearly not. Is there something wrong here, or is this normal? Can anyone run more objects than that and on what set up?Thanks!

What are all your settings.You'll find that per pixel lighting, volumetric fog and complete water effects are the FPS killers.Where a setting has efault" as one of it's settings, it's best to choose default.If you could post a screenshot of your settings, we could get a better idea of where you're at.

Hi,Here are the settings i'm using. I found that changing the lateral field of view to 6.5 or 7.5 increases FPS and allows for higher objects, but I don't like the viewpoint (seems to low if that makes sense)!

Change texture resolution to extreme. (Makes everything clearer without hitting the fps that hard)Change resolution to match your desktop resolution. (I've heard having it at a custom setting affects fps)Airport detail hits the FPS pretty hard when on it's highest setting. Experiment with different settings.Experiment with your pixel shaders, volumetric fog and per pixel lighting. They hit the FPS pretty hard.TRY "compress textures to save VRAM". In a few cases, this can increase fps. I know you're not using much VRAM anyway, but it's worth a try to see how it goes. Other than that, everything else looks good how it is.FPS also depends on what aircraft you're using.