>It is such a laugh to hear people still complaining about>their FPS. Get a life (or a state-of-the-art new computer)>dammit. You should seriously start to get some idea about>computers and highly detailed games/sims. >>For us all - please whine to your door instead. Christian,Do you have FSX? What is your computer background? Instead of posting a negative, flamebate, comment why don't you use you expertise to help us " whiners" get the results we were hoping for.I respect Mike's comments and he has been on these forums for quite some time. Since you are such a computer expert I'm sure you can tell his system isn't a low end deal at all.Have a nice day!

At least with FS9 you could buy the latest HW and get 25+ FPS out of the box with all sliders to the right and still be running 15+ FPS with multiple FS9 addons three years later. Case in point is the Athlon XP 3200+, 1G RAM and Radeon 9800 that I had, then passed on to my son and recently retired from the FS scene. This system did just that.With FSX, it seems that even running the most extreme HW available today, that you can quite easily get single digit FPS even without all sliders to the right. As such, FSX seems much more performance challenged at this this stage of its life than FS9 ever was.I am usually a glass half full kind of guy, and I'm sure the community here will come to the rescue and get some respectable performance happening eventually, but this release seems to have been birthed and headed straight for neonatal intensive care rather than going home with mommy after a bit of a clean up! Gary

I figured for certain if anyone's machine would run FSX at it's 'worst', it was yours as you are among the closest to the h/w and s/w for which the sim was ostensibly optimised.Thanks for the postings Mike - it's info like this I'll be watching as Vista/DX10 boards/drivers settle in - surely the bottlenecks, whatever they are, will pass. Then and only then will I venture forth - I hope.Was'nt there some argument about FSX being updated for Vista after it's (Vista's) official release??regards,Markhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

Did you read Mikes last post above? That is what the "fluffer" boys have been saying all along....By the way-the autogen xml file in fsx is 4926 kb long filled with hundreds of object-the one is fs9 us 59 kb.... http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

14-15 fps in FS9 seems fine to me. It's not an fps simulator so as long as my flight is smooth and stutter free I could careless about frames. 30 minumum? I don't have 5000 dollars for a system that can achieve that in New York uless Cray releases a desktop for under 200 bucks.Ian.

Come now, I've never seen anyone (until now :) ) refer to an o/c'ed dually rig as a 6400+ or 6 ghz or what have you. Guess I've never seen this AMD marketing ploy you refer to.RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

Good points Ian. I can tell you, for sure, that 14-15 FPS with FSX is a much better experience than with FS9. FSX is much smoother and I've seen none of the little micro-stutters that drove us all crazy in FS9. And no blurries at all.Doug

I just thought I'd contribute, odd as it seems fsx on my machine seems to run better than some with much higher end systems than mine. I get 15-20fps in most situations with medium high settings (edit: autogen set to sparse) on a 3000+ athlon 64, 768mb ram, radeon 9550 pro (overclocked videocard but thats it and even that woulden't make much of a difference on such a crappy card)Andrew

>"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 ???">The casual users are more numerous than us. Their needs are>bound to be more important than holding patterns etc, which>the casual user will never use.I could care less about holding patterns, I was refering to why a new product was released that looks and performs worse than it's predecessor while being used on the exact same rig. I don't think it was being unrealistic to expect progress, not digression, in the area of performance - there was autogen in FS9 - now unusable in FSX. I also wouldn't expect a new product to keep the menu bar constantly in your face (why?); a huge ATC window pop-up in front of you, instead of being more integrated and pilot-friendly; having the sim spring back from the Windows taskbar while you make a change in Ati TrayTools or do anything else on your desktop; and still have that stoopid message flashing on the GPS (and now it seems harder to turn the message button off.....go figure)I am not trying to paint FSX a total bomb - I just think it was rushed and many things that I know were problems common to many who use this product on a daily basis, were simply not dealt with. Why have beta-testing and focus-groups????..............JMHO

I have no choice. I have to develop for it. Not that it offers any performance headroom for expansion but by the looks of the visuals it sure needs extra work.

>>>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 >I suppose it's a case of what with, where, and settings; but at least I can make some test's of my own based on forum comments. Hadn't tried any ILS in IMC work yet, and set up the following:Cessna 172, ILS Runway 13, KPVU (Provo,Utah). Just used "fog" in the weather menu.In total IMC, my frame rates stayed at 29, which is my frame rate limiter as of yesterday. When slightly "breaking out", and mountains in the background, as well as a lake in the foreground, and some auto-gen buildings from a "sparse" setting; I saw a momentary dip to 16 fps, another at 17, then back to 29 or close to, as fog once again covered most scenery except for the runway.This particular, complete ILS approach was happily, very smooth! I'm sure that others will vary.L.Adamson --- Athlon64 3800/Geforce7600GS 1600*1200res

Mike, you are running DX9. There is no DX10 code to run at the moment. AMD CPU names are just marketing names - they don't bear any relation to the actual clock speed of the CPU. AMD marketing came up with it because their CPUs run faster than Intel's given the same clock speed. For instance a AMD 4200+ X2 runs at 2.2 GHz per core. This actually ends up being faster than a 3 Ghz Pentium 4, so they didn't want to market the chips as 2.2 Ghz because people would think they were slower.

I DO have FSX on my old Intel Pentium M 2.0Ghz laptop. I can run FS9 in 1680x1050 with no problems at all. Just because I can do that, I do NOT expect to run FSX more than a slide-show. And so what? Its excatly the same with every other release of FS. Non did run very good at the time of their release. And why? Well because a game like this is made to last a good couple of years. It has a lot of new graphics, more polygones and more options which all takes CPU/GPU power.My guess is that in 2 years you'll be able to run FSX with all graphics on in at least 25FPS. And hey - maybe FSXI will come out at that time. AND GUESS WHAT - all will whine about how bad it runs on their new "Brand-name new" computer.This is seen before and it will repeat itself again and again. So sick and tired of hearing people whine about it like it's a surpries each time.If you don't learn about mistakes done in the past, you're doomed to repeat them.

>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! >>Mike, I wonder if Paul is refering to your system in his blog?Could that be your problem? http://blogs.technet.com/p-12c_pilot/archi...ce-Anxiety.aspxI don't have the FSX final, yet, but the Demo2 seems to run pretty well on my AMD64 4000+, 1 gig, 6800GT system with XP Home SP2 OS!Pete S.

Pete, Are you sure Vista isn't part of the problem since it's still a Beta version? Lot's of stuff out there re: Vista drivers, etc. Anyway you can try it on XP? Craig