Have you tried turning Bloom off? It apparently requires each frame to be rendered twice.Yes and I've lowered AA to 2, mips to mid level and AF to 4 on my ATI control center settings. I don't like bloom off for the obvious reason that I bought this version to take advantage of that feature. The marginal increase in frames (maybe a half a frame) is not worth the loss. It's a nice effect. I suspect that the water is a huge fps hog and I'm going to try some manipulations with that. Quite unfortunately because that was a huge selling point for me.

Yeah...but considering it doesn't work on your computer, I thought you might like to cut your loses.

Yeah...but considering it doesn't work on your computer, I thought you might like to cut your loses.I should have bought 4 HD DVDs in its place. But this wouldn't be the first time I got burned. Any other version which came before I could recommend. Not this one. Here's MY system requirements MS (not your 1.0 GHz 32 meg card business): Highest dual core you can get, with 2 gigs of ram, and a direct x 10.0 compliant card with 512 mb of memory.

Can you post a link to the 2nd Demo? Ive only got the first.

Len, for what it is worth, I agree with you. Yes, we all expected FSX to be hard on the system but it is waaaay too hard.Simply put..it is a resource hog that in it's current incarnation cannot hope to run all the existing 3rd party add-ons out there. It struggles with the stock aircraft already with no traffic in desolate areas (under 10 FPS).I am shelving it until I see that some major tweaking has improved the FPS significantly. Wasted $70.00. Too bad. Anyways, does anybody know of any tweaks to the FSX.cfg file beside :[MAIN]FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.33Thanks

I am shelving it until I see that some major tweaking has improved the FPS significantly. Wasted $70.00. Too bad. I agree.

try this post If you have An Nvidia card .I got 30% more FPS.http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=91623John

With the default settings varied a little from above (autogen off) and using the motorized trike in the desert I easily get 20fps (locked at 20). I put that same trike on KSEA runway and its 5.5 fps. Up in the air avg. 7.5 fps. I've kept the resolution at 1280x1024 because anything lower you may as well go back to the old days. In any event running it at 1280x768 gives me about 1.5 increase. Poor substitute for worst graphics.

Essentially, if you want equal performance you need to set all sliders to MEDIUM LOW. But in doing so you will lose all the eye candy...and it will look WORSE than FS9.:-(

I agree 100%. FSX delivers heartbreaking performance.No studio should expect users to splash out another $2K on hardware to run their bloated inefficient code. Plus, the hardware doesn't even exist yet.The majority of mainstream users with average systems purchased from BestBuy, Staples etc, don't stand a chance of running this. Even hardcore users with Duel Core, SLI turbo water cooled 'on crack' systems, are knocking back the features to squeeze out a few FPS.Occluding autogen isn't an option for me. I would have really liked to use Bloom & Water effects but I guess such features are only pluasable in quality titles. This IS a DX9 product. Not DX10. DX10 is just a graphics API & new shader model. I doubt it'll make any performance improvements whatsoever. Only brute CPU & GPX power can force this turkey to fly.Unfortunately, Intel, AMD, Nvidia & ATI don't have chips good enough yet.

O.K. let me get this straight, you

"Even hardcore users with Duel Core, SLI turbo water cooled 'on crack' systems, are knocking back the features to squeeze out a few FPS.":-lol I told you guys this was a mess... Imagine running FSX (without autogen mind you) with PMDG's upgraded 737NG series. The thing would be at a stand still. I just hope Vista/DX10 is the saving grace for this sim. If not Aces may very well have wasted their time in the last three years working on eye candy... I mean who could use this thing let alone run add-ons under it; you'd have to stay with FS9. FSX is not even designed to run with dual processors. So in a year I get a new machine only to see one fully functional processor just sitting there not being used. Fast Bus speed and hopefully GPU speed are all anyone can hope for... Technology is doubling up processors not making them faster anymore. So what is a program like FSX going to do a year from now? Vista/DX10 had better work some miracles...Oh Yea since we aren't the target market this statement really hits home:"The majority of mainstream users with average systems purchased from BestBuy, Staples etc, don't stand a chance of running this."

All I can do is smile. :)

You guys are crazy.I predict FSX to be the civilian flight simulation of the year:-xxrotflmao

>You guys are crazy.>I predict FSX to be the civilian flight simulation of the>year:-xxrotflmaoWhich other one could there be ? They are not exactly releasing them left, right and centre...