My question is simple:When MS came out, the highest CPU was under 3.0 and the graphics card was Ti4600.I'm all for tweaks but there has to be a point when we say, the software code is now crumand its time for MS to create a product that can be 100% maxmized given current but most importantly FUTURE technology (3.2, 3.4, 5.0 Ghz along with 6800 Video Cards etc.).Tim

When FS2002 came out, (or was it 2000?) there was an interview with a developer. He claimed that they intentionally designed the program with faster machines in mind. Specifically, he said that maxing out all the sliders would "choke any machine on the market."So, unless they've changed their philosophy, it's not likely that you will ever be able to run with all your sliders up, unless you're flying over the ocean or you like slide shows.

>When MS came out, the highest CPU was under 3.0 and the..But now it is barely above 3.4 ..There hardly has been a revolution in hardware in the last 12 months that would allow a drastic improvement in speed in FS9.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

-"...its time for MS to create a product that can be 100% maxmized given current but most importantly FUTURE technology (3.2, 3.4, 5.0 Ghz along with 6800 Video Cards etc.)."-Tim,I truly hope they never take that route. They could easily do away with the sliders and limit each system to the default settings that the machine starts up with. The faster systems would have higher defaults than older/slower systems and everybody would get decent performance and could say they run maxxed out. Of course maxxed out would be look different on different systems and would only be maxxed out because we don't have anything we can adjust.I'd much rather have the choice to turn off settings I don't care about and turn up other settings that are more important to me. I may not be able to turn up every slider all the way, but at least I can make the determination of what level of settings vs. performance I am most happy with. I'd dislike that ability being taken away and have to live with a combination of settings that have been set for me.I consider the sliders and on/off settings a bonus.Kurt M

Let's see it the other way around :-)Sliders are featured BECAUSE it is more easy (and more cost effective) to let the user filter out the features through the sliders and to tailor the software to his hardware, instead of optimizing EVERY SINGLE piece of subroutine in FS in order for it to be able to be ran full slider alike setting on any average system...Besides, considering a 2 years product life cycle, and the assumed double CPU power every 18 months...is it really important for a vendor like Microsoft to spend maybe twice as much money to optimize everything while the hardware catches up in the meantime?Hope this helps!

FS has a 2 year product cycle. With this in mind, they must do their best at trying to predict exactly how far the hardware will go in the next ywo years. Then they put in features and sliders to control them that will allow the product to just barely run acceptably*** AT THE END of the cycle. By doing this, they give the end user the maximum complexity possible. Plus, the end users can decide for themselves where to adjust sliders to least impact the part of the sim they want to most protect. Any other option is a downgrade from this basic strategy IMO. It would be cake to make FS9 run fully smooth on any modern machine from day one: just start removing complexity (graphicly and otherwise) until you're there. I like to get a peak at the future myself.*** might be a fully smooth 25 or 30 FPS for example.Just my 2 cents,Noel

This is a great discussion around my topic. I was expecting some smart a$$ stuff but this is what the forums are about.Tim

I don't really see this you know. If MS plan this on the so called two year cycle (and I'm pretty sure they do) then by the time the hardware and us catch up MS are bringing out a newer version which then requires another two year hardware catchup - perhaps. So we're never able to run the current version fully maximised at all, that is if we all upgrade the moment a newer version is available - and most of us do, don't we? Can anyone at this moment run FS9 to it's full capacity despite spending unlimited amounts of cash - no! As a previous subscriber has said the hardware is just not there yet and how far are we away from FS10? I wonder, when will we even catch up with FS9? I'm running FS2002, fully maximised, beautifully and I love it - I'll wait 'till the hardware catches up before I upgrade even if it does mean I'm one (or more) version behind permanently.FS2002FSNavFS SkyworldActivesky WXreFDCFSHotSFXFSUIPCUltimate TrafficDreamfleetPSS etclots of lovely custom Airportsand many utilities which do work!

>So we're never able to run the current>version fully maximised at all, that is if we all upgrade the>moment a newer version is availableI have had this 2.53GHz machine (running at around 2.8GHz now due to the summer warmth) for over a year now, and I have had excellent performance in all but the most taxing situations, and I use taxing addons as many do. Strip it to defautlt everything (with maxed sliders) and its pure honey through n through. Since FS2006 will not be out for quite some time, I'm guessing people buying new top end hardware somewhere near the next FS release will be quite pleased with their perf, maxed out sliders not withstanding. I think MS has even left in a bit of headroom for all the complex 3rd party addons as well. Don't forget, the next release is not due out for a while (i hope there is a next release), and there are serious hardware upgrades ahead, including PCI-express. I imagine by the time next FS comes along you will be seeing routine 4GHz machines, and graphics cards and designs beyond ATI's R423 and the nVidia equivalent. So I maintain, bring on the complexity--turn down your sliders if you can't run it, but don't take away complexity for those who will have the ponies to run it. Again, my one year plus old machine is pretty dang good at max sliders with heavy addons, though dense AS2004 clouds will kill it. I back off on the weather if it's too much. I like the headroom is my point. To deliver less headroom, is to deliver less potential. I don't see the rationale for producing a product that does not give your hardware a run for its money. It's up to us to dial down the sliders and adjust as needed. Be sad to have the ponies, then have MS release something that would not reach your hardware's potential. Now that's a bad thing!Noel

Hm, I guess it would have been easy for MS to leave out the most detailed slider settings. Then some people could have said "I run FS9 with everything maxed smoothly", but nobody would have gained anything, because that simply would have meant less details at max settings.I really like the possibility of choosing features that are important to me. Personally I fly VFR in small GA planes most of the time. I can run pretty high autogen and AI traffic settings on my medium range computer because I normally stay away from big cities and international airports.One other thing that seems strange to me is that people are not satisfied with FS9's performance when they are running highly detailed 3rd party addon planes, scenery and AI traffic. I'm quite sure that FS9 out of the box with default planes, no addons and sliders to max or max-1 performs very nicely on most current computer systems ...Just my 2c (EUR),VOlker :]

The folks who start these threads (there was another very similar one about two weeks ago) make the mistaken assumption that the sim is intended to be run full out (all sliders maxed) and that only when it is are you truly experiencing it the way its meant to be enjoyed. I think the truth is that MS designs the sim so that you can fully enjoy all aspects of it with the sliders set somewhere lower than full right. That way, we can choose to max some sliders and lower others and tailor the sim to our own needs. I've got a very modest PC (not even "bleeding edge" when FS9 was released) but even I am able to run the sim in such a manner that it looks just fantastic, has amazing real-world weather with 3D clouds, some nice scenery I've downloaded as well as a huge pile of freeware and payware planes and I still get between 20-30 fps most of the time. I don't have to turn the sliders down that terribly much either. I run the planes maxed, mesh at 100%, scnery dense/very dense...I keep the autogen at sparse, but thats as much becuase I'm not crazy about autogen in general as it is a necessity for performance. In fact, the more I use FS9, the more impressed I am. I don't think we give MS enough credit for how good it really is. Its got some issues of course, but overall I think its an amazing product and given its complexity I'm more often than not blown away by the fact that it works at all... :)

I would agree with that. Microsoft is giving you a huge range of adjustment so that everyone can run the sim as they like and tune it to the capability of their hardware. The other aspect of this is there's no way they can allow for the extra laod that people tend to put on this thing. It's always interesting when I see a post about performance that's followed by a list of installed add-ons a mile long. TonyDigital-Flight

but overall I think its an>amazing product and given its complexity I'm more often than>not blown away by the fact that it works at all... :)My sentiments exactly! It just keeps getting better . . .Noel

Video game companies have a hard time making PC games. The problem is that to make a game sell the most, you have to make it run on a bigger range of computer setups. So to get FS9 to run on, say, a 1.4 thunderbird like my old machine, you have to detune and code FS9 to run faster and cut corners. On the other hand, if you have a 3.2 p4 machine, you want to run everything maxed. Unfortunately, the game really isn't tweaked to run sliders on full, because the most time was spent getting it to run good on slower machines. Thats why I'm having such a difficult time finding the right settings to run on my roomates 3.2 p4 without the frames jumping below 10

FS2004 gives us amazing visuals, and the slider settings allow us to customize it for just about any hardware. Now, the day FS2004 came out, I could just about max out the sliders and run everything reasonably smooth. I can't now however. Why? Is there something wrong? Maybe I should "tweak" my PC? Of course not, what has changed is the addons. I don't fly default aircraft, ever anymore. My traffic has all been revamped by Ultimate Traffic. My terrain has been changed by FS Genesis. The list goes on and on. The bottom line is, I can play with the sliders, and get good visuals (with compromise) with all of those addons working together. You can't have great addons and still get the default fs2004 out of the box performance.