To be honest, I figured that most of you complaining about the performance in FSX were going overboard and just complaining just for the sake of complaining. SO I wandered down to Best Buy in Tinley Park, IL and picked up the last copy of FSX which was on the bottom shelf two rows away from the new releases, next to Mavis Beacon Typing Tutor 2004.I rushed home and loaded FSX up on my rig and resolved to start my life as an FSX'er at KSEA in the Boeing 737-800. And after 30 minutes of install time and 5 minutes of loading...I was met with a beautiful rendition of KSEA alive with lots of ground traffic and aircraft. The mountains looming to the East and West were shrowded in mist and I could see traffic busily going about their affairs on the hiways in close proximity. It is truly beautiful.But the MOST striking thing about FSX is NOT the scenery...its the fact that I GOT 5 FPS at KSEA! I turned down autogen to sparse and it jumped through the roof to 6.5 fps! Of course I was locked at 20fps so I'd not overtax my CPUs :-badteeth Man o' man, check out my specs below AND I'm running Vista! *sigh* sigh* *sigh* *sigh* *sigh*I guess, I'll put FSX away until the tweakers get to work or I can afford a Cray Supercomputer...which ever comes first. Edit: Spoke to a Cray Supercomputer guy...he's getting 10 FPS! Oh well, I read that Quantum Computers with Squid Nurons linked to multi-laser optical cores are due out any decade now.I won't say anymore because its all been said already: except that I am doing cartwheels with utter excitement that I didn't unistall any part of FS9! Oh, and you guys were right with ABSOLUTELY no exaggeration!Disclaimer: My personal findings, not speaking for Avsim!

Hey MikeI love KSEA and surrounding area. Anyway you could post some pics.Maybe 400 feet above the runway 34 and take a pic of the east,north and west. Really would appreciate. I live in Bremerton and I have not found a retailer yet carrying FSX. Too close to MS I guess.ThanksBob

So, does that mean you won't be the one who writes the review? :-)Doug

First off you don't specify your FSX settings to get that 6.5 fps. Second, I find it hard to believe you over clocked a ~2.6 ghz cpu to 6 ghz. I'll bet you over clocked the 2 core's to 3.0 ghz but you seem to think that is equal to 6 ghz. Third, you are not running DX10 on that video card. Vista my have a version of DX10 but no (retail) video cards or version of FSX currently supports DX10 so you're really running DX9. Last, I've got frames locked at 20 fps and holding steady on my Vista (RC2) box which isn't quite as good as yours. See my FSX and Vista thread here: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...topic_id=354962If you

I think your biggest problem is that you're running it on Vista if I read your post correctly. If you're running it on XP then I stand corrected. Craig

DX10 is irrelevant to FSX performance. Even if DX10 hardware & a final version of Vista were available, FSX would still deliver a slideshow. The framerate issues are because of inefficient code & an obsolete graphics engine. FSX's visuals, even at their best, look very amateur compared to what is coming out of professional games studios. Framerates are high in other products that look 10years ahead of FSX.FSX is little more than a displaced, blurred version of Google earth with a few boxes scattered on the surface. A horrible data driven cluster of bloated over budget data. No evidence of any art direction whatsoever. The Autogen patch is appreciated but I would expect Microsoft to have been capable of optimizing there own product.

wanna buy a "cray supercomputer"? :-lol :-roll

HiEverything that I have been reading about performance in FSX makes me wonder what kind of systems the Betatesters were using.Oh well I already made up my mind to hang with FS9 before all this happened anyway.Pete

There is "something" about the Pacific Northwest...I was happily flying my Citation II from KLAX enroute to KSEA, clipping a nice, steady 22 fps with "NORMAL" for most settings......as sson as I got within 80nm of Seattle though, it was like I hit a brick wall. The further I flew into the area, the lower the fps dropped, until I was down to 0.6 fps...So, my lesson is not to fly in that area until "someone" figures out why it sucks the life out of the framerates. :-eek The sim by that time was so bogged down, I could only kill the fsx.exe process to recover.

Hmmm, I had to try to duplicate the KSEA experience and got 9 FPS instead with autgen at DENSE, but NO traffic. Looking out side of cockpit at scenery gave 12-14. Traffic did slow it down to 6-7 fps. Traffic, in my opinion, is more a framekiller than autogen!!!Admittedly, I am using full beta at this point.SystemAthlon 4600+ dual 64 2.4 MHZGeforce 7300 GS PCIE 256MSliders all around mid level. Some a bit higher (level of detail on max, scenery complexity dense, water 2.x mid)

30 FPS, nice. A photoslaped mesh, with a few scattered boxes. Some very poor looking 2D clouds & not forgeting the low res terrain mesh on the horizon. High Tech stuff; for the mid 90s.See the Guru3D guide to FPS:Frames per second Gameplay<30 FPS very limited gameplay30-40 FPS average yet playable40-60 FPS good gameplay>60 FPS best possible gameplayWhy do flightsimmers except such low performance?

Actually DX10 is very relevant given the major changes to the underlying architecture that will allow for

Troll alert

We accept such performance, because if we didn't we'd all still be flying FS2002 now to have it :-lol It's not as though there are scores of alternative but equivalent products out there.Gary

I concur with your comment about this area Bill. Even with Beta 3, I can get a constant 20 FPS (locked) at medium high graphics settings on my "old" A64 3700+, 1G, X800XT everywhere else BUT around KSEA.Gary