I know that my current hardware isn't up to FSX, so I'm holding off until I upgrade. I have tried the "trial version" (demo #2) and was surprised by how well it DID run, and extremely pleased with the new look, voices, aircraft, features. Based on the demo, I'm optimistic.Here are some things I've noticed reading threads on this forum and elsewhere. I'll stick to big items that stand out a mile away.1. Good demo #2 performance is not a reliable predictor of good final version performance.2. There is something wrong with autogen when even the "sparse" setting is too much for most users. The secret to getting acceptable performance in the new version shouldn't be "Completely eliminate one of the basic features that was working well in the previous versions." I know there are kludges out that can help. But they are kludges. ACES, we can't solve this one on our own: we need a patch.3. At some point we need to have a couple of surveys. Now is too early: better to wait for a month after the actual release date, when there are lots of copies and people can give reports that are not just first impressions. First survey: if FSX is working well on your machine, what are you running it on? Second survey: if FSX is not performing well on your machine, what are you running it on? Showing up on the "bad" list a couple of times won't mean anything. But if the same video cards keep showing up on either list, that will be a sign.

Re #2:comment about autogen...The lower settings for autogen in fsx make it about the same as the highest autogen settings on fs9 (though fs9 doesn't have the variety).There really is no mystery-if you crank fsx autogen all the way up-it is drawing 10 fold the objects fs9 did (and more variety too). If you run at normal to low fsx autogen settings (which would be about the same as fs9 run at high) , you should get about the same performance as fs9.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>There really is no mystery-if you crank fsx autogen all the>way up-it is drawing 10 fold the objects fs9 did (and more>variety too). If you run at normal to low fsx autogen settings>(which would be about the same as fs9 run at high) , you>should get about the same performance as fs9.The reports we're getting aren't from just users who "crank FSX autogen all the way up." It's the some-or-nothing choice that's a problem, where just one notch of autogen kills the sim. In my view, one notch of autogen should be playable. Right now it's not for a lot of users.

I haven't seen that one-please direct me where this was reported?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

That comment about autogen is wrong. Look in your FS-X install for vegitation.bgl and disable it. You can now crank up your autogen (without the trees of course). Now FS-X sparse autogen is in no ways comparable with full FS9 autogen. Sure for the trees this may be the case but its the trees that cause the FS-X autogen problem.

Running on an old e-machines w3080 amd athlon 3000+ here with 1 gb ram, 6600 gt. I played with the settings and locked at 15fps, very smooth setting.Demo 2:High global textures. (not much difference from medium as far as I could tell).Mesh at 100.Terrain at 2 cm. (very crisp and clear)Water at 2.x low. (Love the water, best feature)High scenery complexity.Sparse Autogen.Advanced animations.6o mile cloud draw distance.100 % cloud density.Airline and GA at 100% (not much traffic here so this is not a good guage of performance).cars at 50%. Boats at 50%Overall, a very pleasing view out the window. I will say it's a very nervous 15fps, flying near the forest behind Julianna dips to 13 a little. These are the settings I will attempt with the retail version, but I'll most likely have to drop either the autogen to none or the Terrain res to 5m to get 15 locked. As a note, I tried locking to 13 but that was slightly too low as i could discern that chop when looking down at the airport.I'm not sure why systems that are much better than mine are causing 2 fps? Maybe drop some settings down? I wish I knew first hand.As far as the sim itself it's a joy to fly. As stated, there are subtle changes to flight dynamics, atmosphere etc...that really enhance the feeling of flight. It seems very fluid even at 15 fps (which is what I get in FS9 with all the add-ons), and no stutters that I could see. I do hope the performance issues get resolved for everyone because despite the negativity it really is a great improvement over FS9.Ian.

>That comment about autogen is wrong. Look in your FS-X>install for vegitation.bgl and disable it. You can now crank>up your autogen (without the trees of course). Now FS-X sparse>autogen is in no ways comparable with full FS9 autogen. Sure>for the trees this may be the case but its the trees that>cause the FS-X autogen problem.Read this thread and download the two provided files. This works wonders on my system, by simply reducing the number of tree "varieties" being displayed in any scene, and reducing the "varieties" of roofs on the autogen buildings.Fantastic "fix" for the short-term, until our hardware upgrades allow us to run at "full tilt..." ;)http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=354861&page=

Hello Ian,On my e-machines T3092, AMD XP 3000+, 512 MB, FX 5200 ---- dumped the xml autogen file like in FS 9(just renamed it, because I don't need burger shacks)- don't have water effects turned on (2x does a double pass and halves the frames, by the way, so you may want to try 1x although it is not as pretty)- keep autogen to normal- global textures to high- terrain to max (1 meter)- auto, ferry, ship traffic low, ai traffic 30%Coming in to Grand Case:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158083.jpgOne of the soaring missions over Lake Tahoe:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158084.jpgI suspect that lowering Global Textures to 512 pixels and terrain to 2 meters will let me fly in dense areas like Paris or New York with comparable performance.Amusing that people with much more powerful computers have such problems.Best regards.Luis

>- dumped the xml autogen file like in FS 9(just renamed it,>because I don't need burger shacks)Luis, see Matt's thread "Some Help for Autogen" for a pair of files that reduce the tree variety and roof variety. Between the two of 'em my fps has a good 50% increase, from a solid 20fps to 30+fps on "NORMAL" autogen setting.It's the "trees" and "roof" varieties that seem to be the huge killer. You could also use the tool provide to snip out the "burger shacks" if ou wished, and leave the rest... ;)

Hi Bill.Turning off the menu bar also gives a slight boost in FPS. Matt's autogen fix actually saves autogen for me!!!All traffic off.All weather sliders to the left, except rate which is middle.All scenery sliders to the right! Except water off, and autogen density normal. Shadoews off and land detail off.All aircraft off except landing lights on.Graphics... Unlimited frame rate, Trilinear filtering, Global textures to the right, Advanced animations on, light bloom and lensflare off. AntiAliasing off.ATI Radeon 9500 Pro, AMD 2600+ Athlon, with 1gb ddr memory. ( old system ).Getting around 30 fps, with dips to 15 and spikes to 42.Edited:One note. I use 1024x768 for full screen and Windows. If I increase the resolution in full screen, the blurries attack pretty hard! Probably a limitation of my older card ( which is DX9 compatible ). And this is running with the Cessna 172SP with 2D cockpit... Virtual cockpit is pretty rough on my FPS.Dick

>Graphics... Unlimited frame rate, Unlimited frame rate took away the smoothness for me. Went back to 28fps. Will try a bit higher though.Athlon 3800/Geforce 7600GS/1 gig ramL.Adamson

But you are not flying in area with lots of polygons and traffic such as major cities! If you get 13 around Julianna, what would you get around New York or DC?

>amusing that people with much more powerful computers have>such problems.>>Best regards.>>LuisPerhaps if they spent a little time tweaking as opposed to the time complaining, they wouldn't have such problems!I too have a low end machine, and FSX is looking pretty good...albeit Demo 2 rather than final.

I thought about waiting to get FSX, but I can't. More correctly, I won't.For me, there is only one important quality to my flightsim experience - fun. I'm here for the fun of it. (If I want painful realism, I'll go to work.) I've flown all the sims from their premature buggy shelving in the store up through the latest patches and iterations. But except for a few clunkers of un-simworthy software (Hello? CFS3?), I've managed to have fun with them all right from the start.From what I've seen in the demo, and screenshots and other media, and from other flightsim enthusiasts, is that even if FSX isn't perfect now, there's enough there to keep me aeronautically entertained as the bugs are worked out. I've got a decent setup, AMD64-3000/1024RAM/AGP 7800GS, and I'm pretty sure I'll find fun stuff to do with FSX right from the start.