I have avidly read everything in this forum about FSX, as I fall into the category of people who are standing in line at the door when the store opens. I will manage to enjoy FSX with my current FS9 set-up which is ancient by computer standards, until the DX10 cards are available. I suspect there are many others out there like me. My biggest confusion reading the forums is trying to determine where others are getting the best results on the settings, as there does not seem to be any systematic approach as to how people adjust the sliders.Is there a way we can develop a standard scenario and figure some of these issues out? It might even be somewhat helpful to the ACES team. For instance, as a test, I parked the baron on the runway in locked spot view at 0.8 zoom. I then panned north south east and west watching my FPS. They were set at a target of 21FPS. Looking toward the hill I get about 12-13 fps. Toward the terminal I get 19FPS, west 21 fps and south 21 fps. Obviously my setup doesn't like the view toward the hill.Slider settings:1152x864x32, trilinear filteringGlobal texture resolution: highchecked Lens flare and advanced animationsAircraft settings:Global settings: Medium highScenery settings:LOD radius mediumMesh complexity 82Mesh resolution 19Texture resolution 1 meterWater effects: Max 2.xcheck land detail textureScenery objects:scenery complexity: normalautogen density: normalground scenery shadows checkedspecial effects detail: mediumWeather:Cloud draw 60 milesthermal vis: nonedetailed clouds coverage:highdownload winds aloft: checkrate weather changes: mediumTraffic:airlines: 100%general aviation: 0%airport vehicles: 0%road vehicles 0%ships and ferries: 0%leisure boats: 0%My computer:P4-2.0ghz1 gb ramEVGA 6800GT (256 mb)There are literally millions of combinations of hardware and FSX settings, it would be nice if we could systematically identify the major sources of low FPS so people would have some assurance that FSX would perform more or less as well as FS9 on the same setup.From the flying I have done so far, weather is not a major issue. For me it appears to be traffic and/or autogen.

You said you want a simple setup for benching/comparisons. But yet then you post a looong list of settings. That's not simple.How about this:default demo Princess Juliana start. In the trike. 12:00 noon, date 7/1/2006. Fair weather theme. 1024x768x32. Graphic settings .Then there would be no doubt, we'd have a standard setup. We could call it, "FSX Standard" and then everyone would know what settings were being run.Ah, nice to dream eh? :)Rhett

Or, you could simply SAVE your current settings to a named file, and then send the saved xxx.cfg file, .flt file, and .wx file to someone who would then LOAD the same situation you used...Much cleaner and simpler that way, eh? ;)

I tried to do this a few days ago in this thread: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchI used mostly default global settings (eg. Medium High, High, Ultra High) and the freeware version of FRAPS, so it should have been quite easy to set up and run, not to mention provide a more useful dynamic rather than static benchmark. Unfortunatley, I only got a few responses so it has not been that useful as a global comparator. I have, however, used it across a couple of different systems in my house now, and it is painting quite a good performance picture of the various various components in these systems. Hopefully others will use it too (or at least tell me what to change in it to make it more widely accepted).Gary

Great idea, Bill. Thanks for the tip. However, since some of the info in the FSX.cfg file is computer related, someone else shouldn't load mine, should they? I guess it could be used for reference to the settings.Rhett: Sorry for the long post....I was trying to (in a long-winded way) point out that every one of those settings is somehow performance related.

>Great idea, Bill. Thanks for the tip. However, since some of>the info in the FSX.cfg file is computer related, someone else>shouldn't load mine, should they? I guess it could be used for>reference to the settings.>>Rhett: Sorry for the long post....I was trying to (in a>long-winded way) point out that every one of those settings is>somehow performance related.I'm not referring to the FSX.cfg file, but rather the one that is created whenever you SAVE a specific configuration. This is an entirely separate xxx.cfg file... ;)See tdragger's blog for further details on this.

Gary, you make a liar of me!;) I said I'd read everything, but apparently missed that post. We are exactly on the same page. I will test it tonite. Why not upload it as a file to the Avsim library where people (like me) won't miss it on the forum?

yep! Now I remember....OK, Thanks, will do that!

>Or, you could simply SAVE your current settings to a named>file, and then send the saved xxx.cfg file, .flt file, and .wx>file to someone who would then LOAD the same situation you>used...>>Much cleaner and simpler that way, eh? ;)Nah that's too much trouble, then you'd have to bother with all of that saving and loading and this and that dialog boxes here dialog boxes there, filenames blah blah. :)Rhett

>>Rhett: Sorry for the long post....I was trying to (in a>long-winded way) point out that every one of those settings is>somehow performance related.Oh no, I don't mind long posts, I do them myself most of the time. I think your point is a good one, that there should be a "Standard" setup that we can all use for comparisons.The way I suggested, there would be no need to swap files, no need to fiddle with settings, and no need to even move the trike off the runway. Just load and hit SHIFT-Z to see your frames.Rhett

I think messing with an external program like FRAPS is complicated in and of itself.If it was just FS and the SHIFT-Z key I think that would be so simple, a caveman could do it. :) :)Rhett

FRAPS is pretty simple to set up and use, and produces far more consistent results than the inbuilt frame counter. If we want to produce something worth comparing, then this little bit of extra effort is all it takes!Gary