Flying over Honolulu in flight! with all settings at max, I was struck again at how silky smooth it all was. Keep in mind this is with full shadows, autogen everywhere, water that would be at the very highest setting in fsx.........And it was all perfectly smooth. This started me thinking about FS9 and New York.Back in the day, FS9 was able to do a fairly nice rendition of the city, and on my modern machine nowadays its a no brainer. Yet even to this day, FSX avoids large cityscapes because of frame-rate issues. Even the super-large and detailed airports with all the trimmings that were appearing at the end of the Fs9 life cycle are still only for the very best machines currently on fsx unless you turn down some settings.(Cities especially make very careful tradeoffs in building numbers)Yet here I was with massive auto-gen and settings that would equate to very high in FSX (sans ai) at a comparatively enormous frame-rate.Do you think the cities will return now? With full night lighting, detailed city centers with hundreds of buildings, nearby airports and minimal slowdown?Which cities would you love to see?

Turn FSX to the same settings ( no ai, car traffic,boat traffic) default weather scenerio, and default plane, no add ins and compare flight over Honolulu. I still get blurries in Flight...I think there must be a reason Alaska is next and not Seattle...

Turn FSX to the same settings ( no ai, car traffic,boat traffic) default weather scenerio, and default plane, no add ins and compare flight over Honolulu. I still get blurries in Flight...I think there must be a reason Alaska is next and not Seattle...

I am not sure there is an equivalent setting in FSX for the number of autogen objects at max in Flight. (Just the numbers of trees I see in some areas would probably kill FSX) :unsure:And for everything you take away in fsx you would have to add back from flight, like full building/tree shadows, water at super high, clouds to the maximum visible distance, internal cockpit shadowing, not to even mention the moving trees.........Even during multiplayer, framerate-wise flight still comes in far, far ahead.(Not to mention all the tweaking to get and stay even close to that in FSX)

No blurries here, no framerate killing taking place, all maximum settings. I love not avoiding heavily populated areas. So strange to just run a game and it... Runs..

Very nice screenshot there!

I am not sure there is an equivalent setting in FSX for the number of autogen objects at max in Flight. (Just the numbers of trees I see in some areas would probably kill FSX) :unsure:And for everything you take away in fsx you would have to add back from flight, like full building/tree shadows, water at super high, clouds to the maximum visible distance, internal cockpit shadowing, not to even mention the moving trees.........Even during multiplayer, framerate-wise flight still comes in far, far ahead.(Not to mention all the tweaking to get and stay even close to that in FSX)

I never did any tweaks on FSX and personally considered them snake oil. Yep - I suggest similar settings on both sims for the compare-just as I do when I compare Xplane performance to FSX.

I am not sure there is an equivalent setting in FSX for the number of autogen objects at max in Flight. (Just the numbers of trees I see in some areas would probably kill FSX) :unsure:And for everything you take away in fsx you would have to add back from flight, like full building/tree shadows, water at super high, clouds to the maximum visible distance, internal cockpit shadowing, not to even mention the moving trees.........Even during multiplayer, framerate-wise flight still comes in far, far ahead.(Not to mention all the tweaking to get and stay even close to that in FSX)

There are roughly equivalent settings if you'd like to test them against each other.Here's how I'd suggest setting FSX if you want to match FLIGHT at highest settings:GraphicsFrames: UnlimitedTexture Resolution: Very highLens Flare: CheckedLight Bloom: CheckedFiltering: AnisotropicAA: Off (Use graphics drivers to force to 16AA or turn FSX AA on)Water Effects: High or Max (I don't know the difference in FSX or the equivalent in Flight)AircraftHigh Resolution 3D Virtual Cockpit: checkedAircraft casts shadow on ground: checkedAircraft casts shadow on self: checkedAircraft landing lights illuminate ground: checkedSceneryLOD: 3.5 (set in fsx.cfg)Mesh Complexity: 80Mesh Resolution: 19m (Flight is 22m at max)Texture Resolution: 30cm (this one is a guess, the Flight.cfg references 27 which I'm guessing is 27cm)Scenery Complexity: Extremely DenseAutogen Density: This one is trickier, Flight loads autogen differently than FSX but the roughly approximate settings are cap trees to 4500 in the fsx.cfg and cap buildings to 3000. Again I'm not sure on this settingGround scenery shadow: OnSpecial effects detail: HighWeatherCloud draw distance: 80mi/128kmCloud coverage density: MaximumDetailed Clouds: checked. I don't know the resolution of Flight's cloud textures but I'm going to guess it's 1024x1024, so if you have hi-res REX clouds that skews your resultsTrafficAll off or at zeroIf anybody knows of any settings here that need to be altered to match the sims closer to each other, please speak up!BTW, with these settings I get 30fps around Honolulu, 37fps with water set to high instead of max. If ground shadows are turned off then 50fps. But remember that Flight's ground shadowing is much more refined than FSX's, it looks downright awful in FSX.Try it out for yourself! It's a fun experiment.Just remember to make it totally equal, fly something fun in FSX, looking at your panel the entire time isn't nearly as fun as just flying!

I have seen Flight run with max settings 1920 x 1200 at 30fps steady (with fraps running!)60 steady without FrapsI would like to see others results, though

I never did any tweaks on FSX and personally considered them snake oil.

Straight out of the box vanilla FSX did not give me very many blurries...but add anything on top and things went south quick. This was recovered with many known to work "tweaks." ******* had a good number that really paid off. I do not see anything that resembles an FSX "blurry" in Flight. I have seen you mention that several times Geof. I wonder what's going on? I do wish you could see Flight the way I see it on my machine. I know you like, or used to like, to go "slow and low" in your baron. Since I fly GA in the RW, it has truly made me happy. The best part....I don't even know if this sim has a config file, and all I did was bump everything to High and Max. :)

Straight out of the box vanilla FSX did not give me very many blurries...but add anything on top and things went south quick. This was recovered with many known to work "tweaks." ******* had a good number that really paid off. I do not see anything that resembles an FSX "blurry" in Flight.

Ditto here, if there are blurries in Flight I sure do not see them.

No blurries here, no framerate killing taking place, all maximum settings. I love not avoiding heavily populated areas. So strange to just run a game and it... Runs..

I feel the same way. The game runs smoothly without issue and I rarely see FPS drops even with my single GTS450.

My point isn't to criticize Flight at all-but to point out that if you took away the features it is missing from fsx you get similar smoothness. (One of the reasons I still to this day run fsx without ai traffic). As for the cockpits for compare-the rv6 it appears is using gauges from fs2000 or so and has no frame rate hogging gps. That silver crown Bendix King radio stack was the nuts though in the late 70's/early 80! :lolMy point on the blurries is that you can still get them- I get them over downtown Honolulu. I wonder if Seattle or New York ever come out for flight if people will be reporting them widespread? Alaska seems a safe place not to...

Lot of inconsistency between various systems. Over the cities is where I am actually least likely to see a quick blurry.