>>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...>>Bill>>I'm not using autogen. So why should I even use a modified>version, which, while it may increase fps for those using the>default autogen, would actually result in further degradation>for me because I'm not using it, period?Len, your "question" makes absolutely no sense whatever. If you aren't using autogen, you could DELETE the bloody files and it would make no difference whatever to your experience.The point was, that by using the modified autogen tree and roof files, you COULD turn on autogen to some level without as much of a frame rate hit as you get without the mods...

I installed the Deluxe version on my son's computer. He has an AMD 1700 - 1.4 Ghz, ATI 9700 PRO, 512MB RAM. We turned off water,cars and autogen, everything else is pretty much set mid to high range and he gets 20-30 FPS with real weather.So why not go back to FS9 with everything on? The reason FSX is different in many ways has caused you to 'remove' some of those features just so you can fly.

This thread is too long. I think it should be locked :)-------------------------------------------If it doesn't have a VC I won't be concerned :)

>I installed the Deluxe version on my son's computer. He>has an AMD 1700 - 1.4 Ghz, ATI 9700 PRO, 512MB RAM. We turned>off water,cars and autogen, everything else is pretty much set>mid to high range and he gets 20-30 FPS with real>weather.>>So why not go back to FS9 with everything on? The reason FSX>is different in many ways has caused you to 'remove' some of>those features just so you can fly.Does FS9 have a towable glider? I'd rather enjoy some of the new features and anticipate future enjoyment of the features I can't use presently, than do without them at all...I guess that's one of the differences between a "glass half full" and "glass half empty" mindset. For me, the milk is still being poured into the glass... :)

I can name a few:1) missions2) smoother instrument response3) better flight characteristics on the default aircraft and new instruments including g1000, stec autopilot etc4) viewpoints in the vc's-smoother instrument response here,and sharper graphics5) higher resolution mesh 6) photo real textures that look sharp at low altitude 7) Better sky environment8) aircraft outside more detailedJust a few off the top of my head-there are many more.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Just last month alone I spent more money on single airplane add-ons than on the purchase of FSX... I have FSX installed and I have FS9 installed at the same time, I have fun with both and I'll have a nice seamless transition while hardware and add-ons are catching up.

The thread is getting very long and most of the response have little or nothing to do with the original posters intent. Sorry there aren't many posts to answer your post Len. With that said I won't take up any more space until I get a copy on my machine. ce

The point was, that by using the modified autogen tree and roof files, you COULD turn on autogen to some level without as much of a frame rate hit as you get without the mods...Of course my post makes sense. My fps are already, in city, down to a less than acceptable level with a plane full of gauges (traffic, etc. down to 15%) with autogen off, why would I want to turn on an even economical use of autogen? Surely you're not telling me it increases my fps.lol!

With you on that !!

> I guess that's one of the differences between a "glass half full" and "glass half empty" mindset. > For me, the milk is still being poured into the glass... :)Don't leave it in the freezer 'cause it could end up shattered, like many customers who purchased FSX.

I have to agree with some of the posts above in regard the sliders and FSX performance. Tested the retail version this weekend and after several hrs realized that with FSX sliders half or less than FS9 ( almost max settings) the performance was adequate and the visuals also. Visuals looks like FS9 with max settings. Locked at 25 getting 20-25 average). I also went to the AVSIM convention and spoke several hrs with different members of the FSX ACES studio team.They said that currently there is no system that can run FSX with setting max and have smooth performance. It was designed with longevity in mind. Still I have more testing and tweaking to do. Haven't tried with addon planes yet, just default ones. Carlos Syst specs:DELL 4 Gen P4 3.7 HT // 3 Gig RAM // ATI 1900 GTX 512 MegSeagate Alpine 250 Gig HD

and start a Part 2.....this is taking up 2/3 of the page.....Thanks....I have started a Part 2 thread...http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=355511&page=