Eric, Have you tried the Beta3 and last Demo? Craig

> .. the readme file it clearly says and I quote "Flight Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista > operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to the completion of Windows Vista." That > right there really sums it all up..That doesn't sum anything up. That was just stuck in at the last moment to convince you to go and buy Vista. Tdragger (ACES program manager) posted on simflight.com the following comment:"Truth is we designed FSX for DX9 'cause that's all we had to work with. When DX10 cards are ready only then will be *start* thinking about what to do with them."http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=55148

>>You don't seem to undertand my post. "understanding" your post has nothing to do with it. All I said was what Microsoft said. I made no statement of opinion or agreement or disagreement. I was merely repeating what MS said in the hopes that this might help you out when adjusting your sliders. ????>Furthermore, MS also notes on the box 'system requirements' ->processor 1.0 GHz.' LOL! >Yeah I saw that. 1.0 ghz is LOL for sure. And so is a 32 mb graphics card. LOL!! :)>I've now slaughtered mesh, texture, etc. down to 25% - yuch.I'm keeping the mesh at 75, water at 2.x low and I am keeping Autogen on Dense, amazingly enough, and most times it hits my framelock of 20. But in a dense area like around KLAX it can drop to 12-15. Also in turns it seems to not like the dense autogen, either. I think we will be seeing alternate changes to the existing autogen textures...I did the FIBER_=0.33 tweak and also TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULTIPLE=160, but I have not figured out if the latter helps in FSX yet.RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

Len,Try setting your mesh resolution to 300m. Unless you do a lot of canyon flying, it's not going to make a huge difference in sim quality, but ####'ll probably double your frames. Worked for me, anyway.

"The bottom line is this, FSX doesn't look that much different than FS9..." That's your subjective opinion and you're entitled to it yet, its not a so called fact you can blanket to all users. As one who does nothing but testing, I can say that the FSX world as seen on my setup looks soooo much crisper and the texture details are far ahead than all my FS9 scenery add-ons. Best,Randy J. Smith

I have a 3 year old system and I get from 12-40. It really isn't that hard to get better performance....Lomac and Pacific fighers-sorry-not in the same league....do they emulate a vor ambiguity-or the hundreds of other things fs does?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I must say, that I'm having a whole lot better time with FSX today, than with my old Athlon 1900XP/Geforce3Ti500. Yep, that was basically un-flyable!My new system isn't state of the art either, but it's doing a great job of keeping fps in the 20-28 range with fps target set at 28. I fly a lot of mountain country, and can keep the auto-gen at reasonable settings for the "tree" effect.When flying out of the mountains over the Salt Lake City/ Provo area, I turned auto-gen off, and actually preferred the city streets without it, as Geoff Applegate mentioned. With auto-gen off, I'm maintaining a straight 28 fps over these cities, while looking at the roads and subdivisions below. And that's quite smooth running! I might even turn the fps target up.As with FS9, I'm running this with water effects "off". However, at low "water effect" settings in the mountain country, the water fps still wasn't bad. I'm also running terrain settings on the higher end.System is Athlon 3800/Geforce 7600GS 256MB, and 1gig RamL.Adamson

Geofa turning autogen off to get that minor improvement in performance is just plain unacceptable, give it up man...

If you read the other thread, you will see that MS admitted that VISTA gaming will be 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP.

>> .. the readme file it clearly says and I quote "Flight>Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista >> operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to>the completion of Windows Vista." That >> right there really sums it all up..>>That doesn't sum anything up. That was just stuck in at the>last moment to convince you to go and buy Vista. Tdragger>(ACES program manager) posted on simflight.com the following>comment:>>"Truth is we designed FSX for DX9 'cause that's all we had to>work with. When DX10 cards are ready only then will be *start*>thinking about what to do with them.">>http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=55148>I wouldn't run out and buy vista that quickly. All it would do is make me research more on the internet about vista and how it plays on vista compared to xp and then buy it if it does in fact play better.I think this better sums it up: "Q: Will

Personally I could never turn off the autogen completely like Geofa and have a totally flat world. I would much rather go back to fs9 or do something else.

My opinion!!! Have you been reading the threads man??? Who the heck started this thread and many others about performance anyway, it wasn't me. More users who have the release version of this sim are dissatisfied than ones that are not. I'm not writing most of this stuff on FSX others are. I can't believe you of all people are going to defend FSX's ultimate incarnation... Of all things Randy we're on crisp textures with slide show performance. Let's try this one for size since your still on Beta2

> "Q: Will

>Alright, I've purchased every version of this series way back>to Bruce Artwick and my C-64. Bought the Deluxe Edition>yesteday.>>1. Loading up is very slow.>>2. 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.>>I then cut all my scenery settings back 1/2 including water>leaving autogen at low and I might have gained about 2 frames.>Unflyable.>>>This may be worst coding ever for this series. It's bloated.>As you will see below I have a decent system which has now>been brought to its knees by this unflyable version. Not>without totally stripping the version down to a shell of what>it excels at can I fly this thing. What's the use of beautiful>water and, mesh, etc. if in the end it must get sliced and>diced out?>>The most disappointing version yet. The potential is lost>completely in the implementation.>>P4, 3.6 GHz, 800 Mhz fsb, 1 gig ram, ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe.Now you say that this is the most disappointing version yet. Don't you just find it an amazing coincidence that vista is coming out just 3 months after the release of fsx and the fact that fsx is not playing good on the last 3 months of life for xp?? I think it's marketing for sure but good marketing that doesn't trick us. This game is going to rock on vista/dx10.

>>The bottom line is this, FSX doesn't look that much>different>>than FS9 and nothing much has improved under the hood that>>simmers asked for. Seeing what it takes to run it is insane.>>>I just hope Vista/DX10 alleviates these issues because>turning>>off autogen is not acceptable for a brand new simulator>>furthermore we need allot of stuff to run under and on top>of>>this thing. We can