Thanks for clarifying tbat... I don't know if the ATC/AI experience, which is what most of us with lower systems sacrifice, requires a high level of performance. In fact some sims that seem more dedicated to training, like Elite, have virtually no eye candy at all. I don't see how one can say that a preference for smoothness equates to a preference for a "game". Heck, you could get a decent IFR workout by maximizing the panel, hiding the outside view, and using instruments and ATC to assist with training for "RL", as you put it. I haven't sat in a cockpit in years, but I did sit in one enough to know that eye candy isn't required to take MSFS as a serious training tool. But I'll concede the process can be more complete when certain visual cues are there. And that can be achieved even on a low end system, IMHO, enough to satisfy all but the most specific of training situations.I'll even go out on a limb and say that any simmer here with a preference for smoothness is MORE interested in RL flying, cockpit drill, etc... I don't care if I see every rivet of that 777 following my Cub on approach. All I care is that I can see it, and get out of the way, without having to wait for frames to draw. As for Autogen, I don't care if it looks like KFC or a generic box--I just want to know that an object's there on final that I have to deal with. And there's many airports I can practice that skill without need for Autogen.I'm sorry, but I don't agree that a low end system means a lack of interest in RL skills, since that's what it seems like you're saying.-John

John (and Michael),My point is that the "eye candy" is just as important to a safe RL flight experience as the info derived from the cockpit panel. To forsake the eye candy (which plays a very important part in relaying situational awareness) for "smoothness" is faulty, IMHO. There must be a balance between eye candy and smoothness, and that can be difficult (not impossible, just difficult) to achieve on a low end system.But all this doesn't matter if a simmer just bought the product to use as a game. Then I'd turn all the eye candy off and fly along at 75FPS everywhere. Wouldn't be healthy for my RL proficiency, though.Cheers,Greg

>I used to think 10 FPS was OK.I keep telling myself 10 FPS IS ok because with my XP 2000, Ti4600, 512mb of RAM, and 100% display options, it IS good ;)

>My point is that the "eye candy" is just as important to a>safe RL flight experienceThis is another "gem" statement of yours. Clearly you know little about "RL" IFR flying. But I am going to leave it at that.Michael J.

"There must be a balance between eye candy and smoothness, and that can be difficult (not impossible, just difficult) to achieve on a low end system."I think the first half of that statement is my point as well (and thank goodness you're one of the few who can discuss this without dukin' it out :) )My point is there's a misconception that the eye candy that's needed to simulate RW flight goes out the window for low end system users. But I like your term "situational awareness", because that's how I use the sim. Depending on the situation, I tone down what's not needed, and crank up what is. And really for me, that comes down to AI and Autogen. If I want to use AI without fps loss, I fly into Santa Ana instead of LAX. If I want autogen to simulate those trees surrounding the field in the bush, I crank it up and tone down AI a bit. I get smoothness AND the eye candy I need. They are complimentary and both required for the best training experience, IMHO. RW training doesn't depend on one's system being run at 800x600 or 1280x1024. Nor does it depend on whether that blinking dot in the distance has a thousand polys or ten thousand. It just depends on interest and focus, and it isn't hard to adjust FS2004 to compensate. -John

"But I am going to leave it at that."Probably wise that you do.Greg

"My point is that the "eye candy" is just as important to a safe RL flight experience as the info derived from the cockpit panel."Not *all* eye candy is important, though. Removing those randomly placed fast food houses, churches and other autogen won't affect the "realism" (as long as you keep something for vertical reference), neither will turning off scenery shadows, lowering aircraft texture detail or lowering mesh detail a notch or two. Sure, it will not look as pretty but it's not like you completely loose all outside references.The 3D clouds certainly help to make the weather look more real but I don't think using simple 2D clouds in the sim would cause any permanent bad habbits to be carried over into real flying.Smoothness is also extremely important. Things like flaring at the right moment on landing becomes very dificult - almost impossible - if the sim stutters. At one moment you're still far from the touchdown point, then the scenery yanks forward and you're already on the ground. You just get a better feel for the airplane when the refreshrate of the scenery and gauges is smooth.

"My point is there's a misconception that the eye candy that's needed to simulate RW flight goes out the window for low end system users."I agree, John. But my perception of the original post is that the simmer is forsaking the eye candy for smoothness. I think we both agree that there must be some kind of balance, as you've proven with your arguements in this thread.I've seen many of your screenies, and clearly you know know how to get the most out of your system for the type of simming you wish to do. Others would do well to follow your heed in system config.And with that I'll retire from this discussion (before Michael blows a gasket). :-) Greg