Murmer, try the old spotplane view from beneath the plane with no clouds..only viewing sky and monitor FPS. Now view from side or above so that you now draw scenery and compare frames....should convince you that the GPU experiences a distinct slowdown on FPS.This method has been around a long time and is not very scientific, but does make a difference on performance....same happens when you load a lot of weather or AI :-)

I don't want to see low FPS when I spend money I don't have to buy a great setup

Yahoo or not, FS is not GPU limited. Maybe second, but CPU is the main determinant of FS performance. My upgrade from a 9800 pro to a 6800 GT is a case in point and has been rather disappointing on this front. My upgrade from 3200+ Athlon XP to 3700+ A64 has been a much more significant upgrade.IMO, better utilisation of modern GPUs, thus taking the load off the CPU, will be one of the best things that FS10 can bring.Gary

fasten your seat belts folks, this is another wild FS10 post.. :-kewlmy only wish is no default aircraft of such poor quality, but then again, thats MS, i think they deserve a bone. Oh, and nice AI and less ATC screw ups would be a delight! :)

<>Actually every one of the features you mention has a greater impact on the GPU than the CPU. The calculations that run the AI sim, compute scenery object locations and mange cockpit state are pretty straightforward. It's when you convert those into polygons and textures do they really take a toll.

I don't want to see anything that can't be improved by a 3rd party developer. billg

I think for the most part, FS can be completely re-done using nothing but the code as-is.Scenery, aircraft, gauges, sounds, textures, etc etc.FS2004 has had a some-what make over of its own with the current addons avalible from the community and other developers.

>Actually every one of the features you mention has a greater>impact on the GPU than the CPU. The calculations that run the>AI sim, compute scenery object locations and mange cockpit>state are pretty straightforward. It's when you convert those>into polygons and textures do they really take a toll.Really? So can you explain me why in certain situations (complex airport, complex cockpit, but all other graphic settings at lowest) do I have only a minimal fps loss when changing from 800x600x16 no AA no AF, to 1600x1200x32 2XAA, 4XAF? While OTOH having a big fps increase when scenery is reduced or a/c cockpit is very simple and frame rate friendly?I may be partially wrong on AI and scenery, but I'm 100% sure on complex cockpits.Marco

>>MSFS is not CPU limited, it is entirely GPU and bus>limited.>>Wow! This statement is quite surprising to me. From what I've>read or experienced, quite the opposite is true. Are you>saying that FPS on FS9 are usually limited by GPU power?>Consider there are many factors (i.e. AI traffic, scenery>density, a/c with complex cockpit) heavily depending on CPU>rather than GPU power.Actually, if you read the new "blog" one of the MSFS developers has started, HE says almost exactly the same thing... ;)"It's always super fun to read posts that follow some sort of presentation like this to see what people think about what's really going on behind the scenes. Online forums are filled with long threads about what the game does or doesn't do and/or what it should do in the future. I chuckle at some of the assertions like FS not taking advantage of the GPU. Think about it. If all the processing was still done on the CPU, why would installing a kick-butt graphics card increase the frame rate?"

That was me but its more like a month after the release. The reason is simple...the F team reads what we want and it does hel to mention what the end user feels is missing or could work better.To answer the post I would probably say the need for SHIFT+Z to see FPS! Kilstorm

>Actually, if you read the new "blog" one of the MSFS>developers has started, HE says almost exactly the same>thing... ;)>>"It's always super fun to read posts that follow some sort of>presentation like this to see what people think about what's>really going on behind the scenes. Online forums are filled>with long threads about what the game does or doesn't do>and/or what it should do in the future. I chuckle at some of>the assertions like FS not taking advantage of the GPU. Think>about it. If all the processing was still done on the CPU, why>would installing a kick-butt graphics card increase the frame>rate?"Actually, I never said FS doesn't take advantage of a more powerful GPU. But the extent of these advantages is highly dependent from many factors. And saying a thing like "MSFS is not CPU limited, it is entirely GPU and bus limited.", well, sorry but I doubt this assertion.Marco

Two things (of many) regarding ATC:1) Ground Control - Instead of saying "taxi to alpha bravo charlie,", (s)he should say "right on alpha, left on bravo, left on charlie to the ramp."2) Stop the Yo-Yo altitude directions. A great example of this is when I fly from KBFI-KBLI. I set my requested altitude to 4000 (just in case I get runway 34). When I get ILS 16, ATC tells me climb and maintain 5900. One minute later, descend and maintain 5100. The next minute, climb and maintain 5900, and so on.BTW, yes I do know about VATSIM (and I'm a member), but right now my rig is not powerful enough to handle everything. If I use it, I get single-digit frame rates :).

that doesn't say anything...One person from one website talking to one person from one company about a product produces by another company mentions a possible future product of that third company.As long as there's no press release from Microsoft you know nothing.

>>>MSFS is not CPU limited, it is entirely GPU and bus>>limited.>>>>Wow! This statement is quite surprising to me. From what>I've>>read or experienced, quite the opposite is true. Are you>>saying that FPS on FS9 are usually limited by GPU power?>>Consider there are many factors (i.e. AI traffic, scenery>>density, a/c with complex cockpit) heavily depending on CPU>>rather than GPU power.>>Actually, if you read the new "blog" one of the MSFS>developers has started, HE says almost exactly the same>thing... ;)>>"It's always super fun to read posts that follow some sort of>presentation like this to see what people think about what's>really going on behind the scenes. Online forums are filled>with long threads about what the game does or doesn't do>and/or what it should do in the future. I chuckle at some of>the assertions like FS not taking advantage of the GPU. Think>about it. If all the processing was still done on the CPU, why>would installing a kick-butt graphics card increase the frame>rate?"Does it?I installed a new super duper GPU and it didn't increase framerates by anything approaching what would be expected if FS was purely GPU sensitive because my CPU is the bottleneck in my system.Of course it uses the GPU, but it also relies heavily on the CPU.When one is struggling to keep up, changing the other to something more powerful won't do much.THAT's what many people do forget, you can never increase systems performance reliably by just replacing one part with something a lot faster. It's a ballancing act between all the components in the computer, change one and another becomes the limiting factor.

>>Is there anything that people hope is NOT in the game?>>Long pauses!>>Paulframerate counters