AllThis is not a complaint really. I make sure that I only complain if I also have a solution. I have been trying to make sense of it all. Most are having issues with FPS etc and are disappointed. I have a very fast machine and I too am a little disappointed. It just doesnt make sense to me. This went out to God knows how many beta testers.I would say with 100% certainty that the beta group had to have given them #### about the issues we are now seeing. So what happened? Did they run out of time? Is a bad design? Maybe they got locked into a design and it was to late to make changes. Maybe Aces needed more time and Marketing said no. Maybe all the other folks on the Vista bandwagon are correct and when Vista comes out, all will be beautiful. I guess I am just a little frustrated. Hopefully Aces will come back of their vacations and spread a little love.Let me know what you thinkBob

FWIW we performance test FS on a daily basis on a variety of configurations. Depending on the config and slider settings we target between 10 and 25 FPS with minimal stutters. That's our criteria. If people expect something else all I can say is that we don't test for it.

OK, I can't let this go by without comment. Surely MS are not suggesting 10 fps is acceptable or flyable? If they are, then this may be the reason for so much angst. My experience is that 20 fps is the minimum and 30 optimal. Lower and the sim becomes too jerky for accurate control inputs.Do others agree?Cheers,Noel.

I remember playing a Sim or Game called US Navy Fighters. I played it and played it. Funny thing is I never payed one bit of attention to the FPS till I discovered you could bring it up well it was 14 FPS I never got motion sickness or seen one stutter in that game.Now lets fast forward to the present FSX gives you the same deal how the ACEs guys have done it who knows but anything in this game above 15fps will give you the sense off motion and speed it should just like the old game from EA did.Do not look at FPS on smooth game.

I'd say 15 FPS on the low end to make a decent landing. I'd like to have 25....and I can get it on my low end machine. Just hate to give up all of that beautiful new scenery!

Thats not my experience, i am more than happy with my 20 FPS in FSX, 15 could do it because its still very fluid. Sure 30 FPS would be great, but its absolutely not a must.With some tweaks and messing with the sliders and graphicscard options i found that with my settings 20 FPS is the sweetspot, it almost never drops below that so everything is smooth and ground textures can keep up, so no blurries either.

TdraggerI'm guessing you talk to the folks at FS.Could you please let them know that despite the demo clearly showing me that this FSX was going to be a huge disappointment, I went ahead and purchased it anyway. Why you might ask ? I remember what happened to the last Combat Flight Simulator. It was also a failure and it seems MS dropped it. I don't want MS thinking that sales reflects the quality of this product. The lack of compatibility and performance proves it's premature. Of coarse I will be buying FS11 when it comes out too. I hope they get it right next time. We need performance, performance, performance. Not compatability.With this version we have neither. Very SAD. :-( The lack of dual core support was a HUGE MISTAKE and MS's explaination doesn't satisfy me at all !

Thanks TdraggerYou know, the more I fly without autogen and stare at the photo-realist textures the more I like it. Maybe they just put the autogen in to overload the system and force us to move to just photo scenery. You know sort of ween us off of it. I guess we just need to give it some time. Bob

I am kinda edging that way too. Without autogen I get xplane smoothness-and the visuals are very realistic. The autogen looks great at low altitude-yet still a little cartoonish.Maybe this is the transition point-and autogen was a "fix" for a few years.Right now 50/50 on the switch....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

17 fps is the sweetspot on my machine, and it's very flyable at that, the scenery looks good.I think the problem a lot of people are having is that they are comparing FSX with FS2004 with 2 years worth of specialized addons and tweaks.Lets see what FSX looks like in two year's time.Out of the box, FSX is still significantly better than an out of the box FS2004 (disclamer: at least on my machine :-) )-Bryan

Hey, I hope FSX turns out to be a gem. I'm not saying it's all bad. I like the eyecandy, always have. Your probably correct, it will take another couple years before it can handle many of the great addon aircraft available like PMDG 747, LD 767 and Kingair. Unfortunately just in time for FSXI.I hope this isn't true, this is my hobby. I would know doubt get bored flying default aircraft. I get know joy taking screenshots and missions don't do it for me either, I have xbox 360 for that kind of gaming.It looks like I will continue to use FS9 and the addons for it.

How systematic is this test. Are there different locations in this test? I ask because its easy to get 25 fps at Friday Harbor but that means nothing when you use the same settings at KSEA.My own experiment with FS-X gives me adequate performance with my old AMD XP2700, Geforce 6200 machine. The unsatisfactory part comes from the fact that my new machine (an AMD X2 4400+ with an ATI X800) gives almost no improvement in FPS and there is little in the way of extra features that can be turned on despite the extra horsepower on the machine. In FS9 the X2 4400+ leaves that old machine in the dust.As far as I can tell the current FS-X exe likes high clocked processors and prefers them to be single core. That is a big stumblingblock now that the hardware is going towards dual and quad cores.

I had my hot little hands on a copy of the standard version of FS X this week at the Walmart in Newport Oregon, now after playing the demo I was almost there on buying it.. Problem was I have the deluxe on preorder elsewhere, so I fought the tempatation and just decided to wait..I have been spending a lot of time with the demo and get excellent performance out of it with my machine, about 24 FPS locked, I can go higher but the demo seems more stable at the 24, at least it does for me..Anywho I am anxious to try it out...

I find this post very alarming, with FS9 I can get 60 fps with default aircraft and default scenery, crank up the autogen, AI etc and this drops to 40 fps. Then with the PMGG 747 or the LDS 767 plus 50% AI and autogen I get a very flyable 20+. However it looks like when these addons are upgraded to FSX I can only expect low single digit fps at best if 10 fps is considered acceptable for default aircraft in FSX by MS.Bruceb

Dunno... I think it's all relative, and the same oledeal, just like every other version... They build the sim to run on the high end gear at the time. They have always done that. I remember when I got 2004, it's performancewas pretty awful on my old 500 mhz box I had. I had to run at the bare minumum graphics, and it was pretty jerky.But I upgraded, and all was well in the world. I see much the same here. I'm now running my old 2004box, which is a P4 2.4 clocked up at 3 ghz, with a 128m 9800provid card. Fer sure nothing special these days, althoughit's not to the point I consider it a total slouch.With FSX, I had to idle down the res from my usual 1600x1200in 2004, and I had to idle down the autogen. So far, on mybox, autogen overkill really dogs the machine down in bigcities. When using props, I can use max scenery density ok, but autogen has to be throttled down to "normal" or less. Otherwise, the hits around big cities and airports is a killer.But I've got it tweaked to be able to average between 10-20 fpswith some autogen on. Quite ok for slower props. But for jetsto be halfway smooth, I turn autogen off. That way I usually run 20+, and usually a bottom of about 10 at a big airport.Small airports can be about 15-20 or so with autogen on. It's flyable. But I'll be bumping it up as soon as I get a newer box together. It's the same ole thing I have to doevery upgrade... Hardware will catch up, and in a few monthsI suspect to see quite a few running it pretty well. I don't know what I'll get next, but I imagine it will be a good bit faster than my present P4 and 9800pro. Some thingsabout FSX kind of grated on me. IE: I had to get used to the new view commands, etc. But some things I like. The VC's are better, the night panel lighting is better. The sceneryis better for sure, if you have the horsepower to run it. I was flying the lear with autogen off, and in some aspectsit was already better than 2004 with the autogen maxed out.At high altitude, autogen is kinda mute, and the FSX textureslook a lot better. The horizon looks better in general.The built in street/highway coverage is MUCH better. So it's not all bad. I just need to upgrade to a speedy box. Same as I've had to do after every single FS version I'vehad since FS4.. Just wait a year.... I bet the tunes changeonce everyone gets it dialed in, and the add on stuff is going strong.MK