Great advice by Rob, I would try exactly what he said but focus on these sections especially:I also like a Pan rate of 800 but that is me :)[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GS.0]Mode=1440x900x32MipBias=7TriLinear=1[DISPLAY]UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=30TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=90.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=4TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.500000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=4.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=232[sCENERY]IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=4DYNAMIC_SCENERY=0DYN_SCN_DENSITY=0DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1SUNGLARE=1LENSFLARE=1

ok, so according to the recommended cfg that you guys are giving me, its recommended to keep the frames @ 30fps? and what do you mean by activating the AA via the card?

Can I come in here since psolk and Rob have been very very helpful here. Don't mean to hi jack thou.- I always turn AA on from inside FS9, and set 4x AA from Nvidia Setting. I have never tried higher than 4x before but I can only get better quality only if I'm using AA from fs9. I don't know how it impacts my FPS since I never compared with or without AA on from fs9. Will I get better FPS if turn FS9 AA off? I get 25-55 FPS depends on the cloud thickness, airports, 2D/VC or aircraft addon.- TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19 >> there's a payware airport addon that tells us the value needs to be set to 21 so the bridge or other details can be seen. My question is what does the value mean?Thank youregards

Coltrane,The settings I gave are not for a high end system, my cfg is tweaked completely different, I have found over the years that one cfg setting may not work well for another.Yes turn AA off in FS9, download NVIDIA inspector, head over to the PMDG forum and have read of Ryans sticky post at the top of the forum.Regards

- TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19 >> there's a payware airport addon that tells us the value needs to be set to 21so the bridge or other details can be seen. My question is what does the value mean?

It controls the detail of your mesh. With the value set to 21 you get the most out of addon meshes like FS Global. It can cause some problems with other addon sceneries though, but I use 21 since a few years and am happy with it. Just keep in mind that setting a higher value will also affect your performance, since this means a higher load on your system.

It controls the detail of your mesh. With the value set to 21 you get the most out of addon meshes like FS Global. It can cause some problems with other addon sceneries though, but I use 21 since a few years and am happy with it. Just keep in mind that setting a higher value will also affect your performance, since this means a higher load on your system.

Okay got it. Thanx for your help

Coltrane,The settings I gave are not for a high end system, my cfg is tweaked completely different, I have found over the years that one cfg setting may not work well for another.Yes turn AA off in FS9, download NVIDIA inspector, head over to the PMDG forum and have read of Ryans sticky post at the top of the forum.Regards

Thanks again Rob. :)

Ah yes, back to topic people, I have just done a clean reinstall of my fs9 and things did not seem to change. Here is another instance, since its mentioned that FS9 is very CPU dependent, another friend of mine is using his i5 laptop @ 2.33GHz (same as mine) and running FS9 with PMDG and FSDT and getting 50fps! I really dont get whats wrong with my FS9. When I loaded it up with deafault scenery and PMDG @ KSEA hoping that something was fixed, I then got around 20-30 fps on my PMDG with deafault scenery. It really rings a bell and it is very frustrating to see people have the same rig as you and getting higher performance than you :sad:Should I consider reinstalling my OS?Just to add on, I'm haveing FSX installed on the same drive. Does that cause any interference?

Ah yes, back to topic people, I have just done a clean reinstall of my fs9 and things did not seem to change. Here is another instance, since its mentioned that FS9 is very CPU dependent, another friend of mine is using his i5 laptop @ 2.33GHz (same as mine) and running FS9 with PMDG and FSDT and getting 50fps! I really dont get whats wrong with my FS9. When I loaded it up with deafault scenery and PMDG @ KSEA hoping that something was fixed, I then got around 20-30 fps on my PMDG with deafault scenery. It really rings a bell and it is very frustrating to see people have the same rig as you and getting higher performance than you :sad:Should I consider reinstalling my OS?Just to add on, I'm haveing FSX installed on the same drive. Does that cause any interference?

Austin, an i5 @ 2.33 is not the same as your E8200 @ 2.33. It is significantly faster and more powerful than yours.... His RAM is DDR3 hence much faster and more efficient, in short, you have to stop comparing apples to oranges. I actually think what you are getting out of your box is about right. When people were using E8200's when they were first released it was not a powerhouse CPU that unleased FS9 like the next gen cpu's have... The first CPU's to really run FS9 well imho were the overclocked C2D e8500's...I would not re-install the OS if I was you as I think you will end up in the same exact place after all that work...-Paul

I agree with Paul. Your system can't be compared to the i5 and 2.33 GHz is not always the same, it depends on a lot of other factorsThe FPS you're getting with your setup seem about right to me too. I also highly doubt your friend gets 50 FPS with a PMDG in a FSDT scenery. At least not if he has anything else installed like GE, UT, REX and Traffic; which in my opinion are necessary to enjoy FS9 today. My system is pretty up to date and I sometimes get as low as 25 FPS with PMDG/iFly in complex sceneries like LHR or JFK with traffic, other upgrades and the enbseries mod. So don't expect your "old" system to work wonders.

Austin, an i5 @ 2.33 is not the same as your E8200 @ 2.33. It is significantly faster and more powerful than yours.... His RAM is DDR3 hence much faster and more efficient, in short, you have to stop comparing apples to oranges. I actually think what you are getting out of your box is about right. When people were using E8200's when they were first released it was not a powerhouse CPU that unleased FS9 like the next gen cpu's have... The first CPU's to really run FS9 well imho were the overclocked C2D e8500's...I would not re-install the OS if I was you as I think you will end up in the same exact place after all that work...-Paul

hey Paul, thanks again for this piece of advice and taking the time to explain. Really appreciated :)

I agree with Paul. Your system can't be compared to the i5 and 2.33 GHz is not always the same, it depends on a lot of other factorsThe FPS you're getting with your setup seem about right to me too. I also highly doubt your friend gets 50 FPS with a PMDG in a FSDT scenery. At least not if he has anything else installed like GE, UT, REX and Traffic; which in my opinion are necessary to enjoy FS9 today. My system is pretty up to date and I sometimes get as low as 25 FPS with PMDG/iFly in complex sceneries like LHR or JFK with traffic, other upgrades and the enbseries mod. So don't expect your "old" system to work wonders.

Max, Thanks too, will work with what I have for now :)

Everyone here has provided some good information, I would only like to emphasis a couple of things, generally speaking, and they are as follows:1. NEVER compare what you get from your system to what another gets from theirs UNLESS they are IDENTICAL in every way.2. Tweaking your .cfg is dependent on your system and what addons you have, so see point 1 above.3. The eye can't differentiate any FPS above 25 - regardless of what some have said here.4. If you have everything maxed in FS and you are getting an FPS of above 30 - then you really shouldn't mess with anything.5. My system runs FS maxed with a load of addons around 70 - 90 FPS constantly and up to 130 - 140 FPS at times - big deal, I have bragging rights but doesn't improve my flight experience one little bit, which is why I set my FPS to a MAX of 60 FPSAgain, if you are getting an FPS of 30 or above with everything maxed out, you really don't have a lot to complain or be concerned about.Cheers and good luck,wombat

3. The eye can't differentiate any FPS above 25 - regardless of what some have said here.

Post #7. If you can't see a difference, go see an eye-doctor :wink:I can always tell you if my FS runs at 25-30 FPS or at 60+. It's harder to tell the difference between say 40 and 70 FPS, compared to the more obvious difference you see between 15 and 30. But my mind clearly tells me this looks a lot smoother at 70...

It's a easy test for see the difference of FPS .. over the famous 25 FPS wall :( IMHO .....Some aircrafts (props driven) have this instance in the texture aircraft.cfgprop_anim_ratio=1.025 or whatever numberCheck what happen with the movement of the prop(s) at 25 FPS and after check with a higher valueYou will see a difference of speed rotation (movement)

3. The eye can't differentiate any FPS above 25 - regardless of what some have said here.

Really? http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2298626 I agree with Max, if you can't see a difference here you really need to get your eyes checked.... Not to mention, where does 25FPS even come from, the old video standard was 24FPS with double or even triple buffering so you actually saw 72 FPS, not 25 FPS which is a number everyone seems to be pulling out of thin air...I don't know why but it really gets under my skin when people say you can't see more than 24FPS. I can tell the difference between 50 and 60 because 60 FPS on a 60Hz monitor is FS heaven. So again, ignore any comments about 24 FPS being the most the human eye can detect. 24 FPS was an old video standard completely irrelevant to modern day video games or simulators...-Paul

Early silent films had a frame rate from 14 to 24 FPS but by using projectors with dual- and triple-blade shutters the rate was multiplied two or three times as seen by the audience. Studies by Thomas Edison determined that any rate below 46 FPS "will strain the eye."^[2] In the mid- to late-1920s, the frame rate for silent films increased to about 20 to 26 FPS.^[2] When sound film was first introduced in 1926, variations in film speed were no longer tolerated as the human ear was more sensitive to changes in audio frequency. From 1927 to 1930, the rate of 24 FPS became standardized for 35 mm sound film; a speed of 456 millimetres (18.0 in) per second.^[1] This allowed for simple two-blade shutters to give a projected series of images at 48 per second. Many modern 35 mm film projectors use three-blade shutters to give 72 images per second—each frame flashed on screen three times.^[2]Beyond measurement and bragging rights, such exercises do have practical bearing in some cases. A certain amount of discarded “headroom” frames are beneficial for the elimination of uneven (“choppy” or “jumpy”) output, and to prevent FPS from plummeting during the intense sequences when players need smooth feedback most.