Thad-I wasn't asking for advice, I was making a comment...look at my sig, trust me I'm vaguely familiar with the nuances of FS thanks.Second, AMD specifies the 4800+ DualCore even though it is 2x 2400Mhz processors WHICH I overclocked to 2x 3200Mhz OR 6400+ by AMDs marketing specs. AND if you still find it hard to believe, well, I guess I'll just have to live with that.Thanks for the links, great job, you're the man.

No not until you take that shot at KSEA, with autogen and aircraft.

Hey Mike,I'm getting OK frame rates at KSEA by using a couple of the "quick texture" fixes offered by a couple of our forum wizards. I have found that a small change in setting (lower scenery complexity 1 notch) can make a huge difference in performance. Your system is far superior to mine, so might try tinking a bit. And after you get it running OK, then try LAX. LOL...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158286.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158287.jpg

>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 gameplay>30-40 FPS average yet playable>40-60 FPS good gameplay>>60 FPS best possible gameplay>>Why do flightsimmers except such low performance?>>We accept such performance because the requirements for smooth gameplay in flight sims are different than they are for FPS games. 30 is the magic number for a flight sim in pretty much any situation. I like at least 30 and am happiest with a little more cushion in combat slight sims, but for just general tooling around in FS9, as low as 20 is tolerable with mid 20's being perfectly acceptable.

I empathize with you Mike. I bought FSX Deluxe. Yes, you have to slash and burn the settings and take off a lot of what is supposed to make FSX what it is. But don't worry, there's people out there getting 40 fps in high density cities and gee all their settings are almost to the max....;-)

The sad thing is, Bob, that your first screen shot looks poopier than what FS9 can do for a whole lot more frame rates. Seattle must be an FSX FPS black hole!Gary

Hey Gary,The reduction from 5 million bytes to 64 thousand does reduce the quality a tad. :) Remember this is default FSX and one thing I notice is that 16fps in FSX is much smoother than FS9. I'm not defending the conscience decision by ACES to release a simulator whose apparent texture count is close to Avogadro's number. LOL. Since I can't contribute much technically, I have appointed myself as a designated "gopher". I'm tyring to contribute by testing some of the early changes and providing feedback to the authors. Can't wait to see this forum on the afternoon of the 17th! It is going to look like a prison break. :)Bob...

>No not until you take that shot at KSEA, with autogen and>aircraft.I had a steady smooth flight out to the needle. (my computer cant take all the credit, been playing with some stuff, I think it's got a lot more to offer visually, but trying to maintain a balance with the FR's is an art all by itself.)butter

Ok, any reports of how MegaScenery Northwest affects SEA frame rates? I've got it along with Atlanta, MidAtl, and I've "imported" those in, just not NW yet. I'll try it tomorrow.BTW - the load times on MegaScenery is insane in FSX, and though it isn't any better looking in FSX, it does fully work (so far). I think the load time is connected with using 1m terrain mesh, which is more than MS actually is, is loaded as if it was 1m.

Perhaps the real clue is the default airport one flies from on their first flight in FSX?One of the things FSX added is lots of highly detailed airports of shareware quality. In the past I had bought some add ins(Detroit, San Diego ) for fs9-and these high detail airports brought my fs9 down to single digits in the frame rate area. Fsx now includes many airports with such detail along with new moving airport traffic etc.Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that if I go to Lga, or Detroit, or any of the other high detailed fsx airports like Seattle that the frames go down. My first flight was out of kptk-a fairly detailed airport but not one of the above, so my performance was good. As I explored fsx I found that there are some areas that take me down (New York for instance) but the the vast majority of the sim runs well -for instance mountain areas with dense forests and autogen maxed out.So I would suggest-explore the sim more, check out other areas, and yes try some of the tweaks-they work. If you only want to fly out of the heavily rendered new detailed airports-be prepared for a hit.If you want better than fs9 performance in these heavy airports-you could I guess disable the fsx scenery files for the particular airports-and import the fs9 ones-then you could probably run it maxed autogen-but then these airports would look like fs9..or you can turn off autogen when flying to/from these airports-enjoy the new detail-and then turn it back on for the rest of the world. :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Image reductions aside, it still looks poopier IMO.I do agree with you that lower FPS in FSX is much more acceptable than in FS9. I would not tolerate a 15 FPS lock in FS9, but in FSX it's actually quite acceptable and smooth, with 20FPS being the "bees knees" in relative terms.I'm normally a glass is half full kind of guy, but my own experiences with the FSX demo and beta, plus hoopla here on AVSIM, make me think that my half full glass is very quickly evaporating away! Thank golly people here are coming up with hacks/workarounds to bring performance up to respectable levels on mid level systems.Prison break is likely a good description of what we will see on release date. I'm surprise we haven't seen a "we demand an FSX patch" in the main AVSIM theatrette already with the results many are experiencing already before the official release.Gary

Have you guys tried removing the traffic bgl or bgls out of FSX. Then see if you get the same flying east. I know in the demo you get about 10fps boost removing the traffic bgl even when you have traffic off.Then replacing it with good AI traffic form woai or pai takes almost no hit in the Demo. But you have to remove the stock bgls from it and store them in a safe place.

>Image reductions aside, it still looks poopier IMO.Well, let's see those same shots from your FS9 with FR's.then we'll know for sure :-)

Well, I have found that adding UT 2004 traffic to the FSX demo and beta barely affects performance, so I don't think AI is the specific issue here.Gary

>Second, AMD specifies the 4800+ DualCore even though it is 2x>2400Mhz processors WHICH I overclocked to 2x 3200Mhz OR 6400+>by AMDs marketing specs. AND if you still find it hard to>believe, well, I guess I'll just have to live with that.Well, actually, you're not quite right there... the 4800+ implies that it will perform equivalent to an old original Athlon clocked to 4.8Ghz would (which is not totally realistic since we're talking dual core to single core...)Anyhow, if you've OC'ed your 4800+X2 up to 3.2Ghz (stock is 2.4Ghz) you've gotten a NICE OC out of her! But that's not the same as saying it's a 4800+ clocked at 6Ghz. I think that's where the confusion was. Be better to say it's roughly running at 6400+ speeds.All that said, finding it hard that you got suchg bad performance. Runnign it on Vista RC1 probably had a lot to do with it. Was resolution on the monitor? AA/AF levels? etc.I'm just saying, not many people have gotten their hands on this beast yet for us to get a good handle on how to properly tweak it, or what the best hardware combination lies.--2002cbr600f4i