One of the fallbacks for those experiencing poor performance in FSX is to set the sliders to give FS9 equivalent graphics to give hopefully at least FS9 equivalent performance. The logic goes that if this can be achieved, then the new version can be considered at least as good as the old under the same conditions, and therefore performance concerns at higher settings should be tempered with this in mind.I've had a go, but I'm having trouble finding settings that don't make FSX look unfavourable against FS9, most likely because I don't have a stock install of FS9. Has anyone worked out what FSX slider positions are required to emulate, say, an all slider right FS9 output for a stock install?Gary

IF you are going to set it up to look like FS9 default, would I get the FPS of that FS9 as well running on the same machine?:)Manny

That is the question Manny. If FSX offers better performance than FS9 at equivalent settings, then the new sim is better than the old.But as we are beginning to see, it won't be that easy. If you fly over the Canadian lakes in FS9 you won't get equivalency as the lakes are missing in FSX. If you fly over the beaches in California, the new Navteq data is more detailed than FS9 deafult, so the truest comparison would be against an FS9 fitted with UT. Then there's the mesh argument. If we could find an island or small region broadly equivalent, then it would be easier to set up the comparison. Or accept that the basis for comparison should actually be a modified FS9 installation - as its easier to add to FS9 than take away from FSX. Allcott