I would have thought, Noel, that 'headroom' means that the program would run confortably on todays average computer thus reserving some processing power for the addons which I'm sure MS, the business which supports it and ourselves rely on to keep the sim fresh and attractive over a two year period or more.Surely few of us would spend much time flying the sim straight out of the box even with all sliders maxed - no we rely on all those skilled developers of addons to enhance our experience and make our flying more realistic and challenging. They need some headroom for their efforts to be effective and successful. So the processing power needed for the current MSFS plus all the addons to correct it's shortcomings is certainly two or more years down the line.I'd just like to add that I too think that MSFS is an amazing program, it certainly gives me hours of inexpensive enjoyment. Thankyou Microsoft and all the other great addon developers out there.

Keep in mind that Microsoft does not factor addons into their speed calculations. They assume *they* own your machine. A lot of us are addon happy. Ever tried out just how fast the default 172 is on a high end machine? They could probably double the detail level and still maintain acceptable frame rates. It is only 2004 still. We have a while to go still for the addons to catch up with the hardware and fit within MS's performance window. I run with everything maxed now on a P4 3.2 toy.I just hope next time around they cut a deal with Jepps and give us SID/STAR capabilities in the database. That to me would be the biggest boost to the hobby. Right now, it is a struggle with addons having to use some other data source and crowding MS's stuff out. With a single data source, performance should really go up for all the addon guys.

I don't know Mikado, I stand by my original position that to score a perfect 10 for max complexity, scaling and so forth, you shoot for perfect performance (with a few addons at least) AT THE END of the product cycle, on hardware just then becoming available then. This is headroom--when FS9 came out you could run it on just about any machine right out of the box, provided you moved sliders to the left and had no addons. As I say, with my 1+ y/o hardware, I am running with FSG mesh, Active Camera, PDMG and similar aircraft, ActiveSky2004, and Flight Deck Comp. I run at 16x12x32 2xAA,16xAF, and I get very excellent performance, except in area of dense weather in very dense terminals, 80% traffic, all sliders hard right except cloud density at low-medium (unless in lighter weather, then full density). Now, if I take this same set of conditions, and run it on a machine just debuting in fall of 2005, I'm willing to bet the farm I will have enough to run it virtually flawlessly in any situation possible, maxed out. To me that is near perfect headroom. We may be headed for some alternate routes to actualize Moore's law, and if we do, I am expecting around a doubling of total throughput over my current machine by fall of 2005. The wildcard is the addon. It would be a piece of cake for a 3rd party developer to create so robust an addon that no hardware until Y2015 will run it properly. Of course, there is not much point in that, but it points to the idea that MS cannot be totally responsible for what 3rd party products do to FS' performance.Noel

Hi Noel,I deduce from your comments that you have not yet found time to approach FS-GS. When you do take the plunge, you are likely to be very pleasantly surprised. Your system is clearly very capable. Why not give them a chance to prove to you that it can achieve so much more?Mike

Hello Mike, I haven't gotten a clear answer from anyone regarding one of my original questions. Is it possible to take this experience (we are talking many hours here, and some $$ too) and learn enough to be able to head next door and do the same for another user? I don't want to pay for a one-time, cryptic service, unless I will learn CLEARLY how to do it over and over, on this machine, and another. Plus I am a perpetual tinkerer. I don't think I could tolerate leaving everything untouched for fear of losing the Holy Grail. Can you answer this question Mike, can you now retune your own rig? Could you tune mine? I have a hunch FS-GS would say, after the prelim evaluation, that I am not a good candidate for their service. I may take the time for the prelim sometime, but as you can see above, I'm not whining at all about FS performance. Since you are fairly sure I might be acheiving so much more, can you say with certainty, I will be running PMDG 737NG VC at 1600 x 1200 x 32 x 4aa, 16af, with ALL sliders max right, with 5 layers of dynamic and complex weather using default clouds with ActiveSky2004, and will have a TOTOALLY smooth landing at SFO, every time? If you equivocate even the slightest, than it's iffy, as I sometimes get total smoothness in this situation already. Lesser situations are almost always 100% fluid. All these details I could forget about, IF I could take this tweak knowledge and apply it to this and future rigs. I would also buy software that would do as intelligent an analysis and adjustment as FS-GS apparently does. Then I could use it again when things went awry. Noel

Oops, sorry Mike, you did answer my question, which is probably why I forgot about FS-GS. I also don't want a machine I can't touch without it going out of tune or worse. How about this quote "A word of caution though. Don't go doing what I did to try to improve things. Just changing one setting (of the very few available on my video card), caused the machine to lock up completely. That's how finely tuned Mike left it."Lock up completely? Yikes!Noel

Noel I'm sorry but I simply do not agree with your explanation of 'headroom'.If you're not able to use a product to it's full capacity until THE END of it's cycle then the company responsible doesn't deserve to succeed.Would you buy a car that you couldn't drive at more that 40mph until the end of it's cycle when the new updated thingumy is available and you're ready for a new model with newer constraints? I suspect not.If MS doesn't factor for addons then it should and although I suspect they do take some account of this added value they do make it difficult by not releasing their SDK's until late in the cycle. It is largly due to the ingenuity of the addon designers that we have these wonderful addons at all.

Hi,I can understand the various opinions of how MS should try to make MSFS perform. I just thought I insert my opinion. I think they should make it run a little smoother with the hardware that is currently available at the time of release. Perhaps, maybe... :-lol Then again, it's kinda cool that if you upgrade your hardware at a later date and can turn more sliders up and it's almost like getting a whole new sim! ;-) But I don't think they should have to take into account headroom for addons. That should be left for the end user to deal with by ugrading his hardware to handle them.In all actuality I had pretty good hardware when FS2004 was released and I was able to run the sim at pretty high settings all the way around. The autogen bug kinda bites though. So other than that bug, in the end I think they did a pretty good job in the perfomance arena.Just my .02 cents,Jim

We can agree to disagree. The control you have over complexity is the key though in my eyes, because then you cover the full spectrum of potential. Dial FS9 back about to the halfway point, and you will have what you seem to be looking for. I'll take the extra headroom myself. I would agree on the wonderful addons. I think MS has done a fantastic job of scaling FS to the hardware, with even some room for addons, and they still lean towards pushing the envelope, which I wholeheartedly endorse. Give me a taste of the future . . .Cheers

Hi Noel,"Just changing one setting (of the very few available on my video card), caused the machine to lock up completely. That's how finely tuned Mike left it.".....I think you will find that this example is unique to that particular end user and had nothing whatsoever to do with the FS-GS changes made.It's probably pointless continuing this discussion much further as you appear to have made your decision. Pity really, but never mind. You are happy and so am I.I will say one last thing, however. Should you ever decide to take the plunge, you will soon discover why FS-GS WILL leave you with a machine that you can still fiddle with to your heart's content AND yet will remain optimized for FS2004! I'm sure you can work out how this can easily be achieved ;)Cheers!Mike

No, please let's continue the discussion. Just a few more questions. Here's how it stands now, in very honest terms . . .1. With any default bird, with FSGenesis mesh, and static weather, all sliders hard right, including autogen, etc, 1600 x 1200 x 32 x 2AF x 16AF, she runs 100% smooth, stable frames locked at 24, in any terminal in the US. Therefore, I see no upside for this particular situation as it's perfect now.2. If I add ActiveSky 2004, with otherwise the same as above settings, I am almost always 100% smooth, except when in certain types of dense clouds, then there is a steady reduction in frames, sometimes down to 12 or 13 at the worst. You don't get smooth perf at 12. This has nothing to do with stuttering or pausing--it's just you can see the low frame rate. Will I see this improved after SU? If so, and all other factors are unchanged, then there may be some point to SU for me.3. Add the most complex bird in the fleet, PMDG's 737NG, and add all other addons including ActiveSKy, I will usually be locked at 24 frames, but in dense terminals it will fluctuate between 17 and 24, and of course, up in dense weather, it can again drop into the low teens. Smoothness is usually not perfect, but close, until low frames kick in then there is the normal redux in smooth from low frames. Keeping all my sliders where they are, am I going to see less significantly less impact on frames after SU?Image quality is excellent--haven't seen better anywhere. And again, performance seems as it should be. Mike, given this description of my setup, do you still feel there is $65 worth of knowledge to be gleened, plus significantly more performance in this setup? It will pretty much have to be in the realm of improved frames, because stutters, pauses, and otherwise non-smooth performance is pretty much not an issue, except in the most demanding of situations, and then it becomes mostly a frames issue.What do you think? By the way, you are fun to chat with!Noel

NoelI agree the we can agree to disagree we both make our points well and I'm sure there's some validity in both arguments. Since frame-rates or preferably smoothness in the sim has been a basis for much debate over many months I'm quite sure that the addon experts have born this very much and most have succeeded to code their programs with little impact on this vexing problem. I spend little time tinkering these days thank goodness, that's why I enjoy my flying so much - I have so much more time.Regards

Oh God, I feel trapped!!!... LOL"By the way, you are fun to chat with!"......Noel, I suspect you are jerking my strings, but how can I resist a further comeback! Give me a moment.....my wife and i have just returned from a viewing of the latest Harry Potter movie and I need time to collect my thoughts and sort out the differences between magical fantasy and the more mundane realities of life, the universe and....... FS-GS :)Right, I'm feeling composed and, once again, ready to respond.Clearly you seem very happy at the moment with your current setup and performance. Of course, this does beg the question as to why you are being so persistent with your questions. Maybe there is a lingering curiosity or perhaps there is a reluctance to admit the existence of a teensee weensee element of pride getting in the way of exploring something which could well turn up a few surprises ;)I do, of course, appreciate that you would like me to be a great deal more specific, but this would not be fair to FS-GS nor would it be very helpful in nudging you towards making your decision to contact Mike Greenblatt. I can only speak from my own experience and have no knowledge of his approach to achieving 'system unification' on other setups. Telling you what methods were applied to my system might prove useful to you and, yes, it is possible that you may have implemented some of these methods already. However, it is also equally likely that these implimentations may either be incomplete or applied incorrectly. Believe me I was surprised by several of his recommendations and needed some serious persuasion to carry them out. However, it was not long before I grew to trust his knowledge and expertise...hence my obvious enthusiasm ;)Your list of requirements is long and deliberately demanding. You must understand by now that I am in no position to offer you any assurances as to what you can reasonably expect post SU. What I have been trying to encourage you to do is establish contact, hopefully with an open mind, and discuss with Michael your hoped for requirements, and/or any problems you are presently experiencing with the sim. He will soon be in a position to advise you as to whether or not it would be worthwhile going through the process.Please remember that FS-GS are not trying to deceive you in any way whatsoever. How can they be when they ask for payment for services rendered only when you are satisfied with the results?! Indeed, I had to ask Michael at the end of the consultation how I should go about settling my obligation to FS-GS! He advised me to go away and play with the sim for a few days before reporting back and deciding on payment. You really can't be fairer than that now can you?One other thing I must advise you about is the issue of frame rates and the way many obsess over this requirement. Michael actively encourages you to switch the counter off and, as I quickly discovered, it does indeed soon become an irrelevance. 31fps turns out, after careful testing, to be my 'sweet spot' and that may be because I have an ATI 9800 Pro 128MB married to a P4 2.4GHz CPU. You are happy, as I am (very), with image quality. The difference here is I run at 1280x1024x32 (TFT LCD FP), AAx6 and AFx16 quality settings. Would you believe that on my system the sim actually ran better at AAx6 than it did at AAx4? I didn't until I saw it with my own eyes!There are numerous instances about the workings of the SU that are both interesting and helpful towards modifying your approaches to attaining and preserving system optimizations. You will also discover that there are many miconceptions about the best ways to achieve this and much well intentioned advice offered by others that, in the event, proves to be relatively worthless.But, as I have stated over and over, the only way you will find out what value, if any, SU has for you is to............Regards,Mike :-wave P4 2.4GHz (400FSB), 1Gig PC2100 DDR Crucial, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB (Omega 2.5.36b), SB Audigy (5.12.0001.0443), Hyundai ImageQuest Q17 17" TFT LCD 20ms Monitor (1280x1024x32), Gigabyte GA-8IRXP MoBo, Ultra-Quiet PSU 400W, WinXP Home (SP1), DirectX 9.0b, AGP Aperture = 128MB

>Of course, this does beg the question>as to why you are being so persistent with your questions.>Maybe there is a lingering curiosity or perhaps there is a>reluctance to admit the existence of a teensee weensee element>of pride getting in the way of exploring something which could>well turn up a few surprises ;)I can see how this would be part of the differential, but I would have to say it's more curiosity or disbelief, than pride. I don't have any pride whatsover, which is why I am perfectly humble all the time :()>One other thing I must advise you about is the issue of frame>rates and the way many obsess over this requirement. Would you >believe that>on my system the sim actually ran better at AAx6 than it did>at AAx4? I didn't until I saw it with my own eyes!Many moons ago I came to the conclusion smoothness was what mattered, that is . . . until frames drop down to a critical level, at which point frames becomes the problem. For me that is around 12 or so, or 13, as this is perceptable to me. I definitely don't obsess over frames, and what became obvious until I did my own version of SU was that it was possible to have frames >40 and not have smoothness.>But, as I have stated over and over, the only way you will>find out what value, if any, SU has for you is to............Indeed!To be quite honest Mike, the biggest deterrent to this for me is the whole idea of spending 4-5 hours myself on the phone or chatting with someone. For this kind of time committment, and having to undo anything that is already working well in my recently formatted and setup system (I have a fairly complex system with pro audio stuff and 3 sound devices, scsi drives, etc) would be a huge pain for me. This matters more than the few bucks. What would definitely do it for me though, is knowing that I will learn enough to make the time worthwhile. In all the info you have provided, however cryptic, I still can't say with much certainty that it will be worth the 5 hours and any potential undoing of what amounts to a very stable system.If I could drop the machine off at FS-GS' office, and pick it up the next day in a hypertuned state of bliss, I would gladly write the check and be off!The curiosity though, you have piqued this, and this alone is what keeps me chatting on this innane subject.I will tell you what will have me dialing 1-800-FS-GS: I am headed for an upgrade to Radeon X800XT PE, and if I have any sort of downgrade in performance after setting it up the best I know how, I will be on the phone in a hot second!Cheers,Noel >Regards,>>Mike :-wave >>P4 2.4GHz (400FSB), 1Gig PC2100 DDR Crucial, ATI Radeon 9800>Pro 128MB (Omega 2.5.36b), SB Audigy (5.12.0001.0443), Hyundai>ImageQuest Q17 17" TFT LCD 20ms Monitor (1280x1024x32),>Gigabyte GA-8IRXP MoBo, Ultra-Quiet PSU 400W, WinXP Home>(SP1), DirectX 9.0b, AGP Aperture = 128MB>>

"having to undo anything that is already working well in my recently formatted and setup system (I have a fairly complex system with pro audio stuff and 3 sound devices, scsi drives, etc) would be a huge pain for me.".......relax, Noel. As I have already hinted at, your installations, careful configurations and hard won stability would all be secure...guaranteed :)"I am headed for an upgrade to Radeon X800XT PE".......nice, but really unnecessary. Wait for the next generation of CPUs and GPUs, by which time we will have FS2006 and you can indulge in a complete rebuild which will be both worthwhile and financially justifiable. As you can see, my system is hardly cutting edge by today's standards, yet FS-GS have managed to wring a level of performance from my machine which, hitherto, I would not have believed possible. I was starting to wonder whether I needed a new MoBo to get me that >3GHz processor grunt (my current MoBo will only accomodate speeds up to 2.4GHz without overclocking). Now I am feeling relaxed in the knowledge that my hardware still has some very useful life ahead. I have discovered that my graphics card was being underutilized and that is the key. For me, that modest expenditure for the SU service proved to be a very sound investment and I am grateful. Think of the addons you could purchase with the cash saved!Go on, contact FS-GS for that preliminary chat. It only lasts for about an hour by which time you will be in a position to decide whether the process would be worthwhile. Besides, I'm quite sure everyone who has been following these exchanges between us is now dying with curiosity to see how you get on, I know I am. Don't disappoint us, please!Cheers!Mike