With all the negative posts on FSX performance, I was a bit affraid to put FSX on my system. As I have had that machine for 3 years now. However, today, I decided to install FSX just for the heck of it, and it turn out to be very playable. Machine spec: Amd xp 2500+ (OCed to xp 3200+) with 1 gig of ram, BFG GForce 6800GT, Seagate 160 gig sata drive. I am running Winxp pro corp.Video: res 1600x1200, 4x anti-filtering, no AAHere are my settings.Global Texture size: maxDetail destince: medMesh compl: 70%Mesh res: 38meterTexture size: 1meterWater: high 1.xScenery Compl: normalAutogen: 1 notch above normalOfcourse: bloom is offGround object shadow: noneI am getting 10-17fps. No stutters at all except when the view point is changed rapidly.Note: when I install xp, the system assigned 3 gig of page file.

Add the growing list of tweaks and FSX is very playable on all but the really lower end specs. I've got demo 2 running very well with the autogen FSX.cfg tweak set.I may yet get the retail version earlier than planned for the fun of it.regards,Markhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

The funny thing is. I haven't had any choice to use the tweaks, and FSX is fine by me. Maybe I should just try them and see how many frames it can gain.

> I am getting 10-17fps. No stutters at all except when the view point is changed rapidly.How about reporting at least the location when getting "10-17fps". This info is vital. I can easily get 20-25fps bush flying but switching to Seattle and 5-7fps is the norm (I have AMD 4800 dual core, 1GB ram, NV7800gtx). I would expect its obvious you were flying in a remote location (with little or no cloud).

If you get the top of the line PC today, you would get 15-20FPS and very smooth flying with all almost all your sliders to the right at 80%-90%There is no problem. FSX is very nice.Only wish it had room for addons like some of us are used to.Manny

>> I am getting 10-17fps. No stutters at all except when the>view point is changed rapidly.>>How about reporting at least the location when getting>"10-17fps". This info is vital. I can easily get 20-25fps bush>flying but switching to Seattle and 5-7fps is the norm (I have>AMD 4800 dual core, 1GB ram, NV7800gtx). I would expect its>obvious you were flying in a remote location (with little or>no cloud).I have similar specs to you (pair of 7900GT's in SLI though, and 4GB RAM rather than 1, same CPU) and I get a good 12-19 FPS in and around downtown seattle with a lot of autogen and water at 2.low and such (sorry, I'm on the laptop right now or I'd post my CFG.)You really should consider another gig of RAM.--2002cbr600f4i

KFRG - where I am taking flying instructions in rl

There is no problem. FSX is very nice.Manny did you start a new job at MS?

Yeah-heaven forbid he is reporting reality-which I confirm...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Your opinion is in the minority 20%(max)

I guess you haven't really been adding up the posts.But this isn't religion to me....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I'm curious, what's going to happen to FSX users the first time a complex payware add-on is added to their system? Take for example, what will happen's with Joe Flightsim's $3000 FSX-laden, dual core, 7-series Nvidia system the first time he adds an add-on of LDS763, PSS 777, CS C-130 or PMDG 744 caliber to the mix?

My guess is that FS-X realy likes those high megahertzes your processor is running on. My XP 2700 (non OCed) coupled with a lowly Geforce 6200 performs beter in some scenario's then my AMD X2 4400+ with ATI X800XL. Or maybe FS-X doesn't like X2's/Dual Cores.At the moment it seems that highclocked single core processors give the best FS-X performance.

So why not set affinity to 1 cpu?