Hello everyone. The beginnings of a frustrating road are upon us now with FSX and all the performance woes. I just wanted to put out a big public Thank You to those here that have come up with some tweaks to help all of us get more enjoyment from FSX. As time goes on, I am hopefull that the Aces team will also be able to resolve some of the frustration that some of us have. I look forward to more creative mods as we grow into another new generation of Flight Simulator. Thanks again.

Yes, I fully agree. Thank you to everybody who helps in improving the performance of FSX on computers that are available today and not in two or three years time. Special thanks to Matt Fox for the autogen fix.There is just one thing I am wondering about:Why did the developers of FSX not come up with such solutions (the possibility to reduce the autogen varitiy or different texture sizes for non-high-end machines) that should be already part of the program? They could have easily done this with one or two extra sliders.They were able to print on the boxes the minimum specifications for FSX but they obviously forgot to include the tools to run the program under these specifications.What have they done in the 3 years of development and the last weeks/months of beta-testing? Matt Fox has given us a simple file of 90kb within days after the the appearance of the program in the shops. It's almost unbelievable that some simmers report performance increases of over 100% with these simple fixes.This makes me think that the developers of FSX deliberately do not want that the sim runs well on today's or yesterday's machines, so that everybody thinks they have to upgrade there computers which of course will generate also future business for the software/operating systems industry (like MS)...Walter

>>There is just one thing I am wondering about:>Why did the developers of FSX not come up with such solutions>(the possibility to reduce the autogen varitiy or different>texture sizes for non-high-end machines) that should be>already part of the program? They could have easily done this>with one or two extra sliders.Takes time, they didn't have it is all I can guess.>They were able to print on the boxes the minimum>specifications for FSX but they obviously forgot to include>the tools to run the program under these specifications.>Marketing-types put those specs on the box. Not dev team people.If they put Core 2 Duo E6600, 2 gigs ram as min spec, do you think anyone would buy FSX? :)>What have they done in the 3 years of development and the last>weeks/months of beta-testing? Matt Fox has given us a simple>file of 90kb within days after the the appearance of the>program in the shops. It's almost unbelievable that some>simmers report performance increases of over 100% with these>simple fixes.>Yes good point, but do not forget that MS FS team is very small and has limited people to do this. But truly, you would think that at the very least in beta testing, this would have been taken care of. >This makes me think that the developers of FSX deliberately do>not want that the sim runs well on today's or yesterday's>machines, so that everybody thinks they have to upgrade there>computers which of course will generate also future business>for the software/operating systems industry (like MS)...>Oh, surely not. I don't put much weight in conspiracy theories Walter :)RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.