Here it is from the horse's mouth. Tdragger himself quoted here:-"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."This comes from another post but I felt it important not to have it lost in the mayhem of the forum.Not bad at the top end of that target, but what about when wanting to use complex addons like a PMDG Queen let's say at a Fly Tampa airport, let's say with a reasonable amount of AI, interesting weather systems and so on. For you bush flyers that's no problem, but I prefer urban flying in complex airliners with challenging weather systems. I can only just do it in FS2004 and even then it's only just possible.

It strikes me that the GA drivers have finally got their own sim! :-hah

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/eddd2.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSCH Products Yoke, Pedals and Throttle Quadrant[/font color

In the United States-Ga traffic makes up 60% of the airtraffic.Perhaps it is about time! :-lolhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

To quote from the latest FSInsider page:"Most people consider 15-20 fps a bare minimum for creating an enjoyable and believable experience in Flight Simulator." How many of us are getting 15-20 fps MINIMUM with the default settings? So, what are they really testing when it comes to performance?Doug

This is precisely my concern - many persons who are perfectly content simply do not own these complex airliners. They are sims in and of themselves, and eat frames for breakfast, lunch and dinner, plus snacks - additional headroom is crucial. ACES are well aware of this I am sure - having had close contact with devs like PMDG.PMDG has expressed the committment to maintaining or bettering performance from fs9 to FSX, so we know they are working hard on their end. I am sure LDS etc will do the same. Later on, on better hardware these products will again grace our LCDs - I can just imagine short final into KLAX overflying traffic at dusk (VC of course) - gives me shivers :)regards,Markhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

I wonder what they were on when they honestly thought that 10fps would be acceptable! FS9 was not as bad as this when it came out, I remember that much because I had a bad PC and it ran fine, with the majority of users having fine FPS. It seems this game came out 1 year too early.

They target for that FPS 'range', based on users 'average' system specs. It doesn't mean you can't or won't be able to get more as we've seen by some people.

Well, I admit that I don't think the framerates are that bad. After all the negativity I've heard, I was expecting a slide show.I picked it up last night at Gamestop, fired it up (big install!), and was pleasantly suprised. I didn't muck around with the graphics at all- everything on medium, and the 'extra' traffic all pretty low (cars on 11%).It is completely playable- and very fun.I did one of the missions where you have to find a baby elephant in Africa. You start on the runway, and there are some huts near you, and a few elephants walking around. It was pretty immersive. And when I took off, the scenery was fantastic- compared to previous versions you definately felt like you were in Africa! And flying over Connecticut (where I fly in real life) is close enough to give a real suspension of disbelief. I almost keeled over when I looked down and saw the river that I use to practice steep turns in real life! I could actually do it exactly the same in the game! It was uncanny. The only error I noticed so far is a building in the middle of a river in New Haven- The bridge goes right through it. By hey, for the first time ever the Q bridge is there!Sure I would love to be able to crank everything up- but just because I can't doesn't mean the game is a flop. By future-proofing the graphics the developers give the product a much longer shelf life, which is one of the reasons it's so popular.I think my sig is old. My system specs:Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Dual Core2 Gig Corsair PC32002x SATA 150 80 gig drives in RAID 02x XFX 7800 GTX SLI

Interesting quote.I can understand the rational behind it, but obviously it spells the end to the addon community who generally soak up a minimum of 10 fps all by themselves.I think 35 fps would have been a bit more acceptable to the community as a whole but Microsoft is in the business to sell their product, not someone elses.Oh well, 2008 is not that far off ;)

>Sure I would love to be able to crank everything up- but just>because I can't doesn't mean the game is a flop. By>future-proofing the graphics the developers give the product a>much longer shelf life, which is one of the reasons it's so>popular.>>I think my sig is old. My system specs:>>Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Dual Core>2 Gig Corsair PC3200>2x SATA 150 80 gig drives in RAID 0>2x XFX 7800 GTX SLI>I'm getting reptitive I know, but FSX is not designed for the future!!!The future is multi-core, not single core 5 gig processors. Unless a multi core patch is released, we'll likely never see this game reach the levels promoted in the adverts by MS.

>>I'm getting reptitive I know, but FSX is not designed for the>future!!!>The future is multi-core, not single core 5 gig processors. >Unless a multi core patch is released, we'll likely never see>this game reach the levels promoted in the adverts by MS.Well it bears repeating because I think it is inaccurate to claim that the software is written for future hardware, when it is obviously not even written for current hardware. The fact that an admission is made to get between 10 and 20 fps confirms this. I hope when the DX10 patch or update is released it will also include better optimization for XP users, as I suspect the move to vista will not be rapid. But I thing I dream too much :-)I don't know why we are being sold this future hardware stuff and some folks are buying into it. Bill

>In the United States-Ga traffic makes up 60% of the>airtraffic.>Perhaps it is about time! :-lolSo,..is the sim only for USA simmers then? :-rollI always thoght that there are far more "non USA" simmers out there. :-hmmmhttp://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifFSX..:-hmmm...nah.. Still happy without it!! :-hahMy specs are:Dell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HDMy work:http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

That wasn't really my point. Most people usually think commercial airlines contribute the most traffic in the airspace system-at least in the US I have statitics that show it is the other way around 60/40.Therefore 60% of us should be happy! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Mark,To be fair, MS really shouldnt have to worry about other addons bringing down preformance. PMDG is a great company but if they were to worry about addons then they should worry about all addons including Simflyer stuff.Maybe PMDG and the likes should start designing there products to make use of a second core and run within the sim via sim-connect. Just an out of the box thought.

> To quote from the latest FSInsider page:>>"Most people consider 15-20 fps a bare minimum for creating an>enjoyable and believable experience in Flight Simulator.">> How many of us are getting 15-20 fps MINIMUM with the>default settings? So, what are they really testing when it>comes to performance?>>DougI can't understand why you people don't want to agree with me on this...For this game to be played the REAL minimum requirement is Vista/DX10. DX10 is not just a small upgrade. Read on (http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/articles/447226.aspx)At flightsim.com I have read that when Vista comes out there will be a patch/upgrade available. http://www.fsinsider.com/About/Frequently-...-to-upgrade.htm There it says the following: "If you're thinking about upgrading your hardware, you might consider waiting until Vista and DX10 are released as there will be new hardware that Flight Simulator can take advantage of.""Does FSX require Vista and DirectX 10?""No. Just Microsoft Windows XP SP2. Once Vista and DirectX10 are released we'll release an update that will enable Flight Simulator to take advantage of all their new capabilities."And from P-12C Pilot over at the blogs:"We are looking into improving multi-core processing, and of course working toward the DX10 update. I personally am not involved in any of this work, I just know that it's going on around me. I have great confidence in the team that we will be able to improve some things for some hardware configurations, but I'm not sure much can be done for older hardware, lack of ram, and sliders set beyond what their system is capable of. I should also say that the DX10 update is the only planned code update that I know of, so I have to assume that any perf gains we make internally will have to wait until that release. Any release is a non-trivial event in our studio, so it would be a big deal to release anything earlier than the DX10 update. But who knows, stranger things have happened..."The only reason not to believe this is to simply not believe it or to somehow think that DX10 is going to be nothing special. If you want to believe that then so be it but I am very impatiently waiting for Vista/DX10 to be released.What it boils down to really is to enjoy FSX you are going to either upgrade to a newer computer (not brand new and not a $3000 machine) but if you are back in the day with your PC and you really want to enjoy FSX then you mind as well either stick with FS9 or upgrade your PC so you can put a nice DX10 card in and have 2gb memory. Most people here I would imagine would be fine. I think that's part of the reason some don't want to believe this. The fact that they don't want to upgrade. Unless these guys from Microsoft are simply lying then this is the way it's going to be.