"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."I believe that myth has been debunked a number of times already.Randall

>"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.">>I believe that myth has been debunked a number of times>already.>>RandallIndeed it has...No other game ambitiously models as much of the world, in real time, as MSFS does (that I know of at least). I don't think very many "apples to apples" comparisons are available. Next gen Graphics APIs, hardware and OS are LIKELY to give us progress, but FSX was developed during the maturity of DX9.

>I would buy such a version of FS-X in an instant. Being able>to turn on bloom and shiny water when I finally get that new>Cray super computer would be an added bonus. Blurries and FPS>drops spoil my fun in FS much more then missing eyecandy. My>lowest target FPS would be an absolute rock solid 30 FPS. 60>FPS without drops would be super.Who needs 60fps in a flightsim? That might be desireable for a fast paced shooter, but not for a flightsim.When flying "big ones", 20-25 is enough, as long as they are steady and stable (which is the key to a smooth experience - stutters and fps drops are the most annyoing thing out there). When flying a F-16, a littler higher fps can be useful as movements will be much faster in such a plane, but even Falcon4 didn't need more than 30fps for absolutely smooth flying.

Good performance from me...Not an FX processor, but it is AMD...

It's been developed on the DirectX 9 platform. That's because DirectX 10 is not available yet. But DirectX 9 is defenitly the not the most effecient platform it will run on.DirectX 10 will be a much better platform for many new games.The FSX developers HAVE been developing FSX with next generation hardware in mind. When DirectX 10 is released with Windows Vista, and the newly hardware designed for this platform. FSX will be updated to take use of these new features.Quote from fsinsider.com"Will

>>>Who needs 60fps in a flightsim? That might be desireable for a>fast paced shooter, but not for a flightsim.>>When flying "big ones", 20-25 is enough, as long as they are>steady and stable (which is the key to a smooth experience ->stutters and fps drops are the most annyoing thing out there).>>>When flying a F-16, a littler higher fps can be useful as>movements will be much faster in such a plane, but even>Falcon4 didn't need more than 30fps for absolutely smooth>flying.Many of us do.. so we can add Ultimate Traffic, Aerosoft's Manhatten, PMDG 747, Aerosoft's Frankfurt airport, Gatwick Pro. Fly Tampa's KSEA, KSFO, Flight scenery Portland and Providence, Megascenery Megacity Northern and Southern CA and North West. Ultimate Terrain, FSGenesis mesh... like we did in FS9.I am not trying to be patronizing...but, do you know about these add ons?FSX is a platform.. A starting base for many of us to build the end (or never ending) product called Flight sim.Manny

>Who needs 60fps in a flightsim? That might be desireable for a>fast paced shooter, but not for a flightsim.>>When flying "big ones", 20-25 is enough, as long as they are>steady and stable (which is the key to a smooth experience ->stutters and fps drops are the most annyoing thing out there).Everything is subjective. I consider anything less than 40 FPS unacceptable for smooth flying. Indeed, it's very hard for me to understand how in the world 99% of simmers are more than happy with 20-25 FPS. But if they're happy this way...Marco

>>Who needs 60fps in a flightsim? That might be desireable for>Everything is subjective. I consider anything less than 40 FPS>unacceptable for smooth flying. Indeed, it's very hard for me>to understand how in the world 99% of simmers are more than>happy with 20-25 FPS. But if they're happy this way...Depends what you fly, like I said. You certainly don't need 40fps to fly a 744 as it banks and pitches so slow you won't see the difference between 25 and 40 fps.If you fly a very agile aircraft very low to feel the "sense of speed" at low altitudes and enjoy the terrain passing by at high speed - then yes, 25 fps may not be enough for a really smooth experience.I felt that 30+ are enough, even in LockOn which probably has the best "sense of speed" when flying at low altitudes.

>Many of us do.. so we can add Ultimate Traffic, Aerosoft's>Manhatten, PMDG 747, Aerosoft's Frankfurt airport, Gatwick>Pro. Fly Tampa's KSEA, KSFO, Flight scenery Portland and>Providence, Megascenery Megacity Northern and Southern CA and>North West. Ultimate Terrain, FSGenesis mesh... like we did in>FS9.>I am not trying to be patronizing...but, do you know about>these add ons?I do, yes. I was talking about the "final" framerate - the framerate you get when you run the sime like you want it to run, including all add-ons.I know that, on a reasonable fast and up-to-date system, a default FS9 won't give you *any* framerate issues nowadays. A default FSX may do so and that's exactly why I'am gonna wait for a while until I upgrade. I don't even *want* to imagine the fps you get in FSX *after* installing ActiveSky, UT, RadarContact and a PMDG or Level-D class aircraft add-on. Really, I don't want to know. The system which can run such a install at 20+ fps simply doesn't exist. And it won't exist for a while. But that's ok - FSX isn't even released and will be the base for the next 2-3 years. I'am sure we will be able to run FSX like we currently can run FS9 when FS 11 is about to hit the stores :)

Just wanted to check in with a quick update... I reset all the settings in FSX to default tonight, then incrementally upped the detail one setting at a time til I got a very acceptable compromise - about 10 - 12 FPS at KATL, and around 15 - 20 flying everywhere else. I'd say the settings are very comparable to FS9, and I'm _very_ impressed with the detail of the textures now - especially with anisotropic filtering turned on on my card... no performance hit whatsoever! :)

I have only a AMD2800 XP with a Gig of 2700 RAM and 6600GT 128 card and I get better than 5-15 fps. Somthing is wrong here...AND this is on the FP beta.

I don't think the increase from 2.4GHz CPU speed to 2.66GHz is going give a boost from 5-15FPS to 30 FPS "locked-in" in anyone's dream.Gary

what's your settings now?? You just reset to default?? Have you tryed flying on default before?? I basically have the same machine as you. I am running a 6400 with core 2 duo processors (2 2.13 ghz processors) and 1gb ram and a geforce 7600gs graphics card. I know that my cpu is good but I could upgrade ram and most definetley can upgrade my graphics card. I would say my graphics card is average at best. It's the best graphics card or there abouts that uses ddr2 memory. With vista coming out and all I am worried about buying a new graphics card now. I'd rather get the best I can get when vista comes out so maybe in january but if I can't enjoy fsx at all I am going to have to upgrade now.

>>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.Well, based on that statement/observation I'm betting it's a combination of 2 things (both memory related...)1) I'm betting most people seeing good performance have 2+ GB of RAM.2) I'm betting FSX is VERY memory IO intensive, and/or the data sets it's using are too big to fit inside the L2+L3 caches of the Core2Duo. The Core 2 Duo design is VERY memory sensitive. The memory interface has a only slightly better latency than the P4's had (both of which are slaightered by the A64 integrated memory controller design) and if the data that they need aren't found in the cache, the CPU spends a lot of time sitting around twiddling it's thumbs waiting. If the data sets are too big for the cache, the Intel chips are screwed.The A64 design on the other hand uses smaller caches but a MUCH MUCH faster (almost an order of magnitude less latency) memory interface. So even if it does have a cache miss, it recovers in like 1/4 the time as the P4 + Core2 Duos do.Also, remember, that L3 cache in the Core2 Duo is a SHARED cache between the cores. So any system software you have running in the background is chewing up 1/2 of that shared cache, not allowing the core running FSX to make use of it...Again, this is speculation based on the observations that others have stated. As more people get their hands on the retail version and more "side by side" comparisons of Apples to Apples (same video cards, similar chipsets, similar HD's, same settings, different CPUs) can be made, I'm sure we'll figure out what's up.--2002cbr600f4i

>My system specs - Athlon XP 4000+, 2 GB RAM, GF6800 Ultra>w/256MB, Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS. This machine was close to>top of the line a year ago (when I built it).Dude, I think you mean an Athlon 64 4000+ (and I should know considering I helped you pick out the parts! ;) )--2002cbr600f4i