Its already being quoted as a fact the there where always whiners about FPS with every release of FS. Of course there are always people that try to put the sliders to the right on their minimumspec hardware and then complain. However as far as I can recall the biggest complaint we got when we went from FS2002 to FS2004 was the FDE issue.Just to refresh our memory without reviving these threads from the past:"Sad News About FS2004- Please Read"http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=132054&page="If You Think Your 2002 Planes Fly OK in 2004, Read This..."http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ode=full#131970You can do your own research by browsing back into the past. (currently around here http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...=121&page=1423)I'm also sure that any complaint about the FPS when we went from FS2000 to FS2002 would be something like: "Why didn't we get this kind of FPS in FS2000".You have to go back to the release of FS2000 to see some real FPS complaints. Which is telling because FS2000 was a milestone release. It was the beginning of the new WindowsNT based 32 Bit OS (Windows 2000). It was the time we all switched to dedicated 3D graphics cards and DirectX. FS2000 had to support al this new technology and it failed miserably. It failed so completely that even on todays hardware a fresh FS2000 install shows worse framerates then the FS-X demo1.If FS-X isn't patched it will be the new FS2000. Its a hybrid that tries to support both old and new technology and it fails at both. A default install with the by the program suggested graphics settings runs and looks terrible. People are tearing the BGL's, FSX.ini and Shader files apart looking for accaptable performance. Don't assume that there was always widespread complaining about the FPS. FPS issues on this scale is new and its a big issue.

This thread is pretty interesting, replace FS9 with FSX and FS2k with FS9. Same arguments we are seeing today. What's funny is, everything turned out for the best.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...27043&page=1468Ian.

FSX seems to be tougher on FPS than FS9, no doubt not unlike a few years ago with FS2002 compared to FS9. I believe people have a right to speak about it but frankly some take some type of pleasure in attacking anyone who does not see it their way by labeling others as "ignorant" "uninformed" "worthless posters" etc. ACES has been very helpful here on our forums and now with some on the war path I would stay clear too. They can call me a "spokesperson" or whatever but the fact remains that they produce our simulator and I refuse to "bash" them. Attacking never works, helpful dialog does and Tdragger always listens to facts, not runaway posts that amount to personal attacks. Best,Randy J. Smith

So how much other FPS related threads did you see? It doesn't compare with whats posted about FS-X now. The first post in the thread you mention only mentions that the NEW clouds kill frames (you could always switch back to simple clouds to have FS2002 like clouds). I think there would be a lot less complaints if only the new features in FS-X (shiny water, AI cars and ships, higher then FS9 spec terrain resolution) would cause FPS problems. At the moment you can't have any autogen without tweaking files. Thats sad.

Great points Randy! It's clear ACES are committed to the FS franchise and I support them and their significant participation here. As I said in a post in the screenshots forum, when FS-Next comes out in 3 or so years all today's FSX naysayers will be bleating that they're staying with FSX until MS releases a patch to correct FS-Next's performance problems. The cycle does indeed repeat and as is the norm, FSX will survive and flourish.Of course, this is just my opinion.DougDell XPS Gen3 (3.6GHz/800FSB) | 2GB DDR SDRAM | 74GB SATA, 10k RPM (C: ) | 120GB SATA (D: ) | 512MB ATI Radeon X1900XTX (Catalyst 6.8) | Audigy 2 ZS Sound | MS Force Feedback 2 | WindowsXP Pro (SP2) | DirectX 9.0c

> ACES has been very helpful here on our forums and now with>some on the war path I would stay clear too. Ditto.Hopefully things will calm down a bit. Nonetheless, I doubt any of the ACES team will comment on anything until FSX is officially released.I only have the last demo to work with but this sim does seem like it is going to be a performance hog. I hope I am wrong. I remember when FS2004 came out. I got it home and I installed it. A couple days later I was moving all of my traffic and scenery over to FS2004 and I never looked back. Based on the performance of the Demo, I am not so sure that this will be possible with FSX.

boshar,It's simple, don't use FSX! The fact is if you take the time to work with FSX it is VERY stable and fluid with graphics that blow FS9 out of the water. Is it intensive on current hardware? You betcha. Can you, with a little effort, enjoy the additional features? Yup. I seem to recall that when FS9 was released, many talented folks developed smaller cloud textures, more frame friendly AI, etc. for one purpose. Higher frame rates. Also, stutters and blurries have been an ongoing issue with FS9. FSX seems to have solved that for the majority of folks. As I said in another post, give it a little time! Geez, FSX isn't even officialy released yet! I'm sure that with a little time most folks will be very satisfied with FSX and the talented developers will come out with add-ons that will amaze us again. Then we can all wait for FS11 and start the cycle again.By the way, how ya doing Randy!

Couldn't have said it better! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

As Hornit said a few days ago, there have always been whiners and doom-mongers. What makes FSX different is the sheer quantity of negative opinions, backed up by personal experiences with the demo ;)FSX may turn out to be a classic in four years from now, when the average PC has 4.5 GHz, with 4Gb RAM and 512Mb GPUs!!

So look into the forum and find all those complaints about FPS in FS2004. You have to look very good and hard to find them. So your "no doubt not unlike a few years ago with FS2002 compared to FS9" is based on what? 1 or 2 threads that mention that enabling the new clouds gives them low FPS or that ATI drivers have a problem that needs to be fixed by ATI?There is no shame in telling the truth. The truth is that autogen can't be enabled in FS-X without the framerate droping into single digits. The truth is that simmers are hand editing files that should be good right out of the box. I won't blame Aces for the budget and time they got to program FS-X or the changes in personel they had to endure during the time they made this product I wil however say that the endresult is very dissapointing. FS-X will be in shops this 'holiday season' 2006. For the hardware able to run it we will have to wait 'holiday season' 2007. What good is it to get a shiny new toy at Thanksgiving and then have to wait until Christmas before you can (hopefully! we have to wait and see) play with it.Its not wrong to give feedback on whats faulty in a product. Always being nice and being content with the little you get only will make them scr3w you next time around.

Well I am scratching my head! Truth?My system-3.2 p4, gf7600gs, 1 meg ramI can run full autogen (all the way to the right) and for the most part I see 12-15fps average. In a heavy city like New York with a high detailed airport that is shareware quality I can dip to 8 (this also happens to me in fs9 with a shareware airport in a high detailed area so it doesn't really strike me as unusual) but for most of the world 12-15 average is what I get maxed out full right.Do you own fsx? If you do-I am truly sorry if you only get single digits-however it is not everyone's result and to say one cannot enable autogen without getting single digit results is without a doubt not a truth, but an exageration.Edit-just posted this shot for another user-autogen maxed:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=355486&page=http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Okay....but autogen was also mentioned. Until I replaced out the clouds in FS9 I couldn't fly with them. Autogen was also a problem on my original FS9 system. The point is each release has some problem that eventually gets fixed.Reading through all those old posts it seems FS9 was the worst release in history or the best release in history, it all has a familiar ring to it.Ian.

Ai traffic was another problem with FS9. We've been here before and fixed these problems until systems caught up. I agree with you that they shouldn't release a faulty product, but if they released poor looking Autogen people would complain. Maybe they should have put in a slider to adjust the amount of autogen or had options for different levels of autogen.Ian.

My maxed out add-on packed FS9 runs 24 FPS (locked) solid without dips or stutters. I will never consider 12-fps adequate. So maybe its just that, a different idea about how much real FPS is adequate.BTW I mentioned dips to single digit FPS I did not mean an average single digit FPS.

Your quote "The truth is that autogen can't be enabled in FS-X without the framerate droping into single digits"implies that no level of autogen can be run without getting single digits.I stated that I get an average of 12-15 with autogen Maxed.This was conservative on my part as 20's -30's is more typical-and I only get the dips at high definition airports with ai traffic, and moving airport vehicles, or an intense urban area.Glass half full or half empty....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg