First I want to thank someone for coming up with this "low-2" water setting. Not only it does improve performance but in my opinion it actually results in better looking water. At least for me this is a great find.Whereas in FS9 I pretty much found that "unlimited fps" setting gave me the best overall results - I was quite shaken when I tried it with this FGX demo. It resulted in quite a bad scenery stutter. To Microsoft's credit the aircraft continued flying smoothly but the scenery below it was slightly better than a slide show though the fps counter was showing very respectable 60+ fps (typical was wild gyration from 30 to 120 fps!!). No wonder they send this demo with 25 fps setting as default - it makes perfect sense here. I always wondered why in FS9 I really saw no trade-off between fps setting and scenery quality - well do I see it in FSX!Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

The framerate slider works the same way since FS2k2... from end to end it's been a case of:Feed the Framerate / Starve the SceneryStarve the Framerate / Feed the Scenery...the trick has always been to find the best balance between the two extremes for one's specific hardware situation.Now that there's a lot more Scenery detail, the effects of the slider are much more pronounced... ;)

>Feed the Framerate / Starve the SceneryThat's my point - you could never 'starve' the scenery in FS9. At least in my case but I know that many had the same experience.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

Hm. Well I think most people could starve the scenery in FS9. It was called "getting the blurries". It happened more often if you jacked the frame rate too high for the gpu/cpu.Why am I speaking in the past tense about FS9? heheh.Rhett

>It was called "getting the blurries". I once spent a lot of time trying to compare amount of "blurries" as function of fps setting. I could not really see any difference.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

That has not been my experience at all with FS9. Steve Lacey wrote a long piece in his blog early this year about the interaction between frame rate vs. the blurries.Rhett

>Steve Lacey>wrote a long piece in his blog early this year about the>interaction between frame rate vs. the blurries.Yes, I read it too with interest and marvelled how little it has to do with my own experience.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

Sorry, I'm just trying to help you out there...giving you all the information I know of...Rhett

>Sorry, I'm just ...no need to be sorry for anything ;)Michael J.

>Yes, I read it too with interest and marvelled how little it>has to do with my own experience.Something you may not know is this: the same "fiber-starvation bug" that was recently found and fixed in time for RTM of FSX......was first introduced in FS9... ;)...which only serves to illustrate that it was NOT something "simple to find" at all. :-lol