You know why. Most sims are driven by two main threads. One for simulation and one for IO (ofcouse, there are other threads, but those are the main ones), and FS is no exception IMO. By locking the display frame rate, you are actually giving more CPU time for the simulation. As a result, the calculation of the simulation is more accuate resulting in a smoother experience. I don't know how many time per second FS runs its simulation loop. In LockOn, it is a thousand times per second. A word about AI. Don't make the assumption that if you don't see a plane within miles, they don't take up CPU time. In FS, I believe every AI aircraft, be it parked or flying, near or far, takes up CPU time.The above is just my experience. I am not part of MS team nor am I a beta tester.

>>...for cryin out loud, if you havent done so yet...go install>the latest demo and see how it runs BEFORE buying it!>>Dave>Well said! I downloaded the latest demo and found that my XPS Gen 3 would not do very well, so I told my wife to hold off on my Birthday present. I think by next summer, I can buy FSX at a reduced price and be able to afford equipment that will successfully run it. Until then, I'm lovin FS9Cheers!P4/3.2gHz/ 1 gig DDR / 200 SATA HD / ATI X850 XT PE - PCIe

Honestly, there should be a way to tweak the settings to get that - this version of FS has far more tweakable settings than any previous version did. I'm going to try that tonight - 76m mesh, autogen density similar to what I see on extremely dense in FS9, and pretty much everything new turned off, and see what happens. Hopefully I'll get some decent FPS out of that (and keep in mine, I'm quite happy with 10 FPS when flying around major airports like Atlanta or New York), but hope to see 20 - 24 out in the country.One other thing I'll point out - I was getting probably 10 - 12 FPS out over less densely populated areas, but skimming the surface at around 100 feet AGL, I was definitely noticing texture blurring - there was clearly not enough processing time to keep sharp textures as I sped across the ground at close to 200 kts. I understand why tho.

It's funny. For me running the beta demo (I just downloaded the release demo)I run at 1600x1200, 4xAA 4xAF Anistropic filtering, 1m textures, hi res mesh. All sliders maxed except autogen and the water- that kills frames. I'm in the middle on both (2xlo on water) and I'm smooth- 25+ consistiently in the CR7, even staring at Maho beach on final.I run an Athlon 2400+, 1GB ram, system. Yeah, it's a 3 year old box, but I run a Radeon 1800XL (256 vram) at stock speeds.Vram is the key- it was the biggest improvemetn for FS9 too. I went from an unplayable ATL (single digit fps on final, Jim Vile's update with teh new terminals and well, more or less full AI at ATL too), to playable-10+ FPS on short final. I'm sure that if I load up on AI and other dynamic objects, my pc will crawl.I'm planning on an upgrade in the first half of '07. Dual core minimum, maybe quad core (I know about threading, and how there is not much other than server apps and Alan Wake :) that will use 4 cores)

I am running a velocity micro intel core 2 duo processor (2 2.13 ghz processors) with 1gb ram and a geforce 7600gs graphics card. I have everything maxed out on the newest demo. Everything is on ultra high and I am running at 18-20fps. I have maxed out at around 25fps but on average it's about 18-20. My problem is when I get close to the ground (either taking off or landing) the graphics aren't so good. It almost seems like the graphics are meant to be viewed from an altitude of 1000+. From 1000+ everything looks great. Flying through clouds and looking down at the water is simply amazing but I want it all to be amazing. I want to fly down close to the ground and see everything really good. Perhaps I should upgrade my graphics card to a 7900 series or maybe just be really patient and wait for vista and dx10 and then upgrade ram and video card. My settings are maxed but is there a way I can go directly to the .cfg file and configure that way with the demo??I put an attachment here. This is flying over princess juliana airport.

There is nothing wrong with running FSX with sliders to 80%-90% to the right with today's PC.At 15-20 FPS...its far smooth in FSX than 15-20FPS in FS9.Today's machines are fully capable of running FSX9. So if anyone has no interest to go beyond FSX ...I don't see a problem here. The gap and dissappointment in some quarters including myself.... is room for addons like Ultimate traffic cranked 80% or what not. And there are no new hardwares (CPUs) out in the next year either.Manny

What drives me nuts is that we cannot create a standard set of variables to test with. That way you don't have one person saying "I get 30FPS+ over here" and another saying "How the heck do you do that? You mean over water, or over the city with exactly 542 autogen buildings displayed, 42 cars, and some birds" LOL that's the problem. Not to mention the various systems we all use, various display drivers, software running in the background, settings in FSX, etc etc. It's too dang tough to compare FSX performance between two people. They'd have to sit next to each other and tinker until all settings were equal....Yikes!

LOL! Same sxxt, different year. The posts regarding FSX are just about the same as when FS9 was released. Complaints about frame rates, digging MS for making a product that was designed for yet to be built hardware - etc - etc -etc.In fact, it's been about the same as every new release of FS. Interesting - I've bought every version and have had very few problems that I'd say made the experience a negative one. So I get an occasional stutter during a flight, so what?? IRL hitting turbulence or an air pocket is just like a stutter,You know what else? I have my frames ( on FS9) set to 30 and I haven't the slightest idea what I get except that I enjoy how the sim looks and flies.Patience folks and enjoy the ride OR complain and make yourself miserable, your choice.Just MHO,Vic

I believe you can save the setting and transfer the files via email. The best way to do it is have people fly from and to the same airport and report on average fps and smoothness etc. using the same saved cfg file.I have noticed that turning down the texture resolution from 2m to 5m allows me to fly smoothly with autogen. I do like the crisp 2m to 1m ground resolution but FS is a comprimise until the day I upgrade my athlon 2.2 which most likely is a year away. I'm sure there will be replacement textures, but for my system I can run nearly maxed with 2m and even 1m resolution and no autogen around Juliana with water at 2.x low, 38 or 19 mesh, normal complexity, medium global, 60 mesh level, high traffic setting.I'm wondering where the slow down is with >5m mesh and autogen? Video memory, video gpu or cpu?Ian.

AI traffic is killer. Same as with FS9.

>What drives me nuts is that we cannot create a standard set>of variables to test with. Actually this exact point was discussed a month or two ago.I had the suggestion that, a person COULD make a standardized situation file that we could use for comparative bench purposes. Like the KSEA default FS9 startup, for example.RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

>If I remember correctly from the Avsim Conference. A>Microsoft evangelist stated that FSX run at "MEDIUM" settings>is for high end computers of today, while settings of "HIGH">and above have been implemented for systems within the next 1>- 2years from now.>>Suggestions, were to install FSX and run it as is for a while>before starting to tweak settings. As the old FS9 did, it>search for the optimum setting based on your hardware (well as>we all know, that is never usually good enough....lol)>>Interesting.....at least it sounds like M$ is looking into the>somewhat future for FSX. Most of this I am sure has to do>with the fact that DX10 cards will be available by next year,>which with Vista, will really require most of us who want to>enjoy FSX in its full glory to start upgrading our hardware>accordingly in the next year or two.>>I know many of us are going to want to crank this baby up when>we unleash her onto our OLD, MID-RANGE, or HIGH-END rigs, only>to be disappointed when we are brought to our knees, by>undying demand for CPU and GPU power.>>Time will tell....and may we all enjoy the joys and woes of>tweaking this new animal when she is let out of the cage. I>probably have to wait abit longer than the 17th since it has>be shipped from the Avsim store. ;(>>Kroswynd There is a lot to be said about this point...Hardware and software play a leap-frog game where advances in one require advances in the other.Microsoft, wanting us all to move to Vista, has features which both enhance the user experience and yet extact more demands on hardware while doing so. So, leaving room for Vista and DX10 to bestow improvments upon your FSX experience means that more people would be compelled to buy Vista and the hardware to run it.

Hi,I tried both demos and find FSX works well on my system (see spec below). Also, I found the second demo is alot better ten the first. i expect the retail version to be like the 2nd demo.I think it may take some time fiddling with the sliders to get it working ok. Good luck...

Guys, remember FSX has been designed for a next generation system (Windows Vista and DirectX 10 interface). But it has been released a little early.According to Microsoft, DirectX 10, will offer six to eight times the graphics performance of DirectX 9.You can read more stuff about Windows Vista and DirectX 10 here: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6143883/p-4.html

>I have a dell xps with a p4 3.6 non dual core processor, 2 gb>ram, and a 7900gt with a matrox triplehead setup at 3840x1024>and i get 25fps smooth flight everywhere except for major>cities. I dont think there is a machine that can run this>thing in new york city maxed out but even my midrange box runs>the fileplanet beta at totally playable and fairly smooth>frame rates. I'm a frame snob too and the game is more than>playable and i have the sliders all about 3/4 of the way up>and with 2xAA and 4xAF. Sometimes when near water it bogs down>but not always for whatever reason? If i turn off the AA and>AF the frame rates are even much smoother. My dad has a fx-62>with a 7950gx2 and his frame rate is well over 30 at the same>settings and remember that this is at 3840x1024 here. At>1280x1024 my midrange machine chews up fsx like its nothing.>Not sure why the guy with the core2 and 7900gtx is having>problems running this game but he might want to check his>machine to make sure its running right. That machine should>run fsx like glass at 1280x1024 and if it doesnt then you've>got something setup very wrong.A lot of guys have posted that they get great FPS and they seem to have one thing in common A AMDFX cpu with high end video card. This might need more looking into.