I bought my 3.4ghz system with a 9800 pro a couple of month after release of FS2004 and it ran quiet good with ultimate traffic right away! But there is no new system that can handle FSX in the making!

Oh not cyberpower. Hate those people`

>>Ok so basically you are making this assumption that FSX>will>>not play better on Vista/DX10 by playing a BETA version of>>Vista WITHOUT DX10. When we get our hands on the retail>Vista>>with DX10 and if they are going to patch FSX to DX10 then>it's>>a surefire thing that it will perform better. The main>thing>>we have to keep our eyes on is if FSX is patched to make the>>best out of DX10. DX10 is not just an upgrade...read on>>http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/articles/447226.aspx>>Yeah, sure. Continue to trust into it. Some people really>behave like they got a nice brainwash.>>It's not gonna happen, ok? Believe it or not.>>Vista is no longer beta, it is in RC state which means that>the code is more or less *final* minus bugfixes and small>adjustments. No big architectural changes or optimizations>will be done until it hits RTM status. That's a fact.>>And DX10 + DX10 hardware will improve performance, sure. It>may then compensate the loss which Vista alone produces>because of its increased own resource usage. Fine.>>And we all know that MSFS always has been very dependent on>*CPU* speed and we all also know that single CPU cores aren't>going to improve speed a lot in the near future. Things have>changed and the dual core approach is only the beginning.>Multiple cpu cores are the future and the software design will>need to change to effectively use these new designs. Software>which fails to do so won't benefit much from new CPU designs.>That's just another fact and it seems that people simply don't>understand it (or don't want to).>>There is no definite answer. There is no right or wrong here. It's all assumption. You want to assume that DX10 won't be a big deal and it won't overcompensate for the 10% or so drop with Vista then so be it. I want to believe that the next generation hardware (graphics cards) with next generation software (DX10) will easily outperform any current setup. We are stepping forward into the future not back. It really amazes me that you still think that games will play worse on Vista/DX10 then currently on XP/DX9. With FSX that very well may be true if the game isn't optimized for Vista/DX10 but I am sure MS has something under their sleeves. They aren't going to wait 3 more years or so to release FS11 to run on DX10 or possibly DX11 by that time. I just find that hard to believe. Either way believe what you want...we don't have DX10 hardware and DX10 to play with now so it's all assumption positive or negative. Usually it's positive assumption when talking about the future not negative but so be it.

Not a recommendation, just an indication of cost.I agree, their warrantee is totally worthless when you look at the fine print, and their service stinks. It used to be you couldn't get a part replacement, until it was recommended by their hired service group. That group wouldn't recommend anything because they wanted to keep the contract with them. I don't know how it is now.That's how I learned to just build my own machines. It's easier to just buy a new MB, etc, and fix it yourself. A new MB is a no brainer these days.Tigerdirect has really good free instructions on how to build your own unit.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

>How can I back up my claims on something that is not even out>yet. So how can you make the claims? Just by believing the MS hype? Before XP was launched they were stating that this would be such a secure OS that you wouldn't need a personal firewall! Two service packs and hundreds of security critical updates later we all know what to make of MS hype!Iain Smith

With the settings above I then took a Cessna with the G1000 in it. Without light bloom:8 fps on 34R KSEA runway. In the air following runway heading 10 fps. Turned east toward mountains 16-18 fps.

"Forget running this on scenery settings which are maxed. Even with autogen cut to low, traffic density 50% (as well as leisure craft, etc.), air traffic + ga 15%, at 1280x1024 it was a dog's breath 2-3 fps on the tarmac of KSEA. Unflyable."Just a reminder, at the Avsim convention, one of the Microsoft speakers said: The sliders should be set to about the middle for "today's state of the art" computers and video cards! Any system not "state of the art" at this time should try lower settings. The higher slider settings are for video cards and systems yet to come...... ....frank

>However, this is not without severely marginalizing additions>which were also intended to set FSX apart from FS9 and with>severely compromising your AI traffic to a point unaceptable>to most who enjoy a modicum of activities at airports. And>again this is with the paltry gauged motorized trike. Have you tried using the "autogen trees" mod posted by Matt in the other thread?It has boosted my fps with autogen on NORMAL by well over 50%... where I was getting a solid 20fps, now I'm seeing 30+fps... ;)The trees are apparently a real fps killer here.Matt also posted an adjustment to the variety of autogen roofs which has helped a LOT without sacrificing much in terms of observable detail.

The "member since xxxx " does not reflect how long a person has been using AVSIM. I've been using AVSIM since it's inception and problably since half the whiners have been in diapers. Craig

Just two questions: (not for those who bothered to post system specs and config settings.) 1.)Do you want cheese with your whine? ) 2. Why wouldn't you want to post objective as opposed to subjective information in order to help EVERYONE with FSX. I've about given up on this thread as it is going nowhere. I previously posted that making a statement about FSX; good or bad ispretty much useless without hard evidence; ie: PC specs and config settings. I've been reading ALL the posts and apparently people either make a blanket statemt and NEVER read any of the other posts.I think if you took a survey of the demograhics of those complaining youwould find that most are of the "instant gratification" age groupand aren't used to having to work for something.Albeit they are of the "glass is half empty" generation.Since I have been using FS since 1984 I have yet to see one that didn't require a bit or a lot of tweaking. Fortunatley we have had AVSIM to look to for tweaks,fixes and advice many fine folks avegiven us; mostly which have bee FREE. Again after asking that folks post their system specs and config infothe only one who seems to be doing it is the original poster. So that being said I will patiently await objective information so that when I do get my copy I will have much of the info I need at hand.If you can't provide objective information then why waste your time posting.As I said before I will happily post specs and config settings whenI load FSX.To those folks who don't want to be bothered doing that I would say this.You can be the lead dog or follow the pack. Craig

I think Microsoft got you all pretty neatly. They inserted a few lines of code that make the performance awful if FSX was installed before the official release date.If they didn't do it, they should have thought of it!I'll just be patient and remain optimistic.:()

> EDIT: Oops, looks like the original poster said he was running Demo2 and not the Retail:-lol thats funnyThis was expected anyway. If you load up fs9 at Julianna and fly around and compare it to Seattle you notice the same kind of drop in performance - and for obvious reasons.

Bill, What thread was the Augogen trees mod in? Haven't been able to locate it yet. Thanks, Craig

> Have you tried using the "autogen trees" mod posted by Matt in the other thread?> It has boosted my fps with autogen on NORMAL by well over 50%... where I was getting a solid 20fps, now I'm seeing 30+fps... ;)> The trees are apparently a real fps killer here.Stop pulling his leg. I tried that tweak and got a got increase of about 2 fps. Theres no single mod that can improve performance by over 50%!

>As I said this many times before, I think ACES has misjudged>the direction of techonology. The advances in Hardware are in>multi-cores CPUs and multi GPUs! FSX will not take advantage>of either technologies!The first seems to be true as it doesn't really fully utilize more than a single CPU core. The 2nd might not be so true, depending on how it's done. SLI or crossfire setups, for example, are technically compareable to multicore processors (there are 2 GPUs), but handled completely different as they appear to the software like "one huge and very fast GPU", so the software simply doesn't have to care about optimizing its code for multiple GPUs - optimizing for multiple CPU cores is a completely different story though, because it can only be done by completely redesigning an application for heavy multithreaded operation.>clock speeds in the next 2 years as used to be the case 5>years ago! This is true - the fast increase of clock speeds is over. But the clock speed is not the only important factor in CPU design and performance. The internals of a CPU have a huge impact also - the way it works and the way how effectively it can work on multiple instructions simultanously.Why were AMD chips much faster than Intel CPUs while running at significantly lower clockspeeds? Why did AMD have to invent the "p rating" to make their clockspeed look like Intels, because most people buy a CPU solely based on its clockspeed?