You are actually partially correct. You should not expect FSX to run at 6Ghz because it does not utilize both cores fully so you really are only getting the benefit of a single core for the most part with FSX.

FSScreen. It should be available as freeware in the AVSIM library.Gary

>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?Because aircrafts don't tend to turn 180 degrees in a split second (like that guy in the 3d shooter), for example. In general, movement on screen is slow compared to other games so 30fps really feels smooth (assuming, the 30fps are steady and you don't suffer from spikes or fps drops which would cause the feared stuttering which is much worse than just a bad framerate).30fps is really enough for a flightsim, unless you fly airshow performance in a F-16 or some extremely low altitude bushflying :)Regarding the screenshot - I agree. I'am not so impressed. FS9 can look better with some addons.

Personally, I like the top one better. More definition in the far mountain ranges, and the textures of fs9 don't look all that great. Sure you have a lot more buildings, but once DX10 comes out with reduced overhead on CPU, I'm sure the FPS will go up.Were these two pictures taken at the same altitude?

But, wait, the ugly duckling does turn into a beautiful swan! After geting away from the city and up to altitude FSX is absolutely stunning. The smoothness is actually pretty insane (for lack of a better word) and has to be experienced to be believed. The sensation of fight when everything is smooth is the most real in any sim to date.In the 3D pit I actually got motion sick! LOL! At altitude I'm getting >40-55fps with no limitation the the frames.At the end of the day I agree with what people have been saying about the texture sizes on the autogen, aircraft and buildings. This should be a relatively easy fix for the 3d party scenery guys (I hope). But I think that the smoothness when you can find it, is worth the price of admission.

Stop cheerleading a really excited user.I entitled to my opinion. I worked in videogames for 12 years & done a far bit of FS Scenery design. BostonV2, Fly Seattle.If your happy flying around at 12 FPS with default handgliders thats great. Good for you. I`m not.

Hi Gary,Thanks for posting the screenshots.Comparing the two screenshots, I have to say, FS9 looks much better (actually better than better) which is kind of disappointing since I have been waiting so many months to upgrade my PC and to get FSX.Could you show a comparison of FS9 and FSX at Logan Airport (KBOS), and/or maybe a mid-sized airport? Kind of disappointing that FSX needs to be "turned down" so much just to get flyable FPS. And this is all with default scenery and default planes?

As close to the same altitude that I could approximate. Horizon may look different because I have FS Global 2005 mesh in FS9, which may have reduced FPS a little for that FS9 screen shot.The point is that FSX is showing much less detail and only 1/4 of the FPS in roughly the same areas of FS9 around Seattle. Something's not right with the new kid on the block!Gary

Sure I can check out KBOS, but it'll have to be tomorrow - bed o'clock here now!Gary

I think the big difference for me though is texture sizes. FS9 textures always made it looks cartoony! I love the new textures at altitude almost better than the autogen. ACES obviously increased texture sizes expecting DX10 video cards and it's virtual memory ability to help with performance. I had a feeling that once Vista was delayed people would be dissappointed, but good things come to those who wait!Just hold your opinions until we see what comes in the next few months.Edit: And don't forget the increased mesh resolution! That's a winner for me!John

Aaah but all those people that religiously claim all will be solved if we make the switch to Vista because the "FS-X is made for Vista" marketing claim. Wouldn't they be disappointed by this?

Mike T, I had the same experience at KMIA, with default settings after the install and then disabled autogen to get a whopping increase in FPS to 6.x. This thing is a major disappointment and worthy of an AVSIM 'duck'I dont have the latest and greatest system but I expected better. What really sucks to me is the time it takes to make menu changes. The GUI is slow, sticky, and painful. I cant for the life of me think how anyone in beta testing could not see that and if they did why it wasnt fixed. The demo showed signs of major problems, and all we could read here is wait until the final release..To those who have not purchased yet and have a system anywhere close to mine, save your $$$BillPentium 4 @ 3.4/ 1 GB RAM/ ATI X700 pro pci express

>But, wait, the ugly duckling does turn into a beautiful swan!> After geting away from the city and up to altitude FSX is>absolutely stunning. The smoothness is actually pretty insane>(for lack of a better word) and has to be experienced to be>believed. The sensation of fight when everything is smooth is>the most real in any sim to date.>>In the 3D pit I actually got motion sick! LOL! At altitude>I'm getting >40-55fps with no limitation the the frames.>>At the end of the day I agree with what people have been>saying about the texture sizes on the autogen, aircraft and>buildings. This should be a relatively easy fix for the 3d>party scenery guys (I hope). But I think that the smoothness>when you can find it, is worth the price of admission.>>That maybe so even though I have not taken it to altitude, but the major feature of the sim is when you arrive and then try landing in a slide show fashion, whats the point? Try holding an approach in IMC with sticky jerky stutters...4 fps...no way is that enjoyable or realistic Thanks for your input I really appreciated your honest take. Bill

"What really sucks to me is the time it takes to make menu changes. The GUI is slow, sticky, and painful. I cant for the life of me think how anyone in beta testing could not see that and if they did why it wasnt fixed. The demo showed signs of major problems, and all we could read here is wait until the final release.."Agreed.It's becoming more and more apparent that this release didn't get much in the way of "optimization" or "diligence". I could understand some framerate issues, we have all come to expect that but, there seems to be numerous, simple problems that existed in FS9 that were still not corrected, coupled with new ones that have been seemingly "overlooked". This should not have happened, in my opinion. Edit: As a business owner, I wonder why the common, shared opinions expressed daily by so many flight simmers about what features would make a great sim, have seemingly fallen on the deaf ears of the developers ??? KendallDell 8400 3.2 GHZ H.T.800 FSB/2MB L22 GB 533 DDR2X800XT 256MB/Cat.5.13's6x Adaptive AA/16x HQ A/FIntegrated SoundDual Monitor: Dell 2405/1905CH Yoke/Pedals

Now watch this, taken with FS9 http://jeff.lumacs.net/Do-27FlyinRoundPortland.wmv and then tell me what YOU think is better?