After tinkering about with FSX for a couple of hours I wrote this:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...58006&mode=fullI spent most of yesterday tinkering about some more, applying various tweaks found by others, and I must say FSX is growing on me.The Good:The new VCs in the aircraft are beautiful, a huge improvement over what we had in FS9. I think I may become a VC flyer yet! As I mentioned before, it seems as though FSX handles cloud cover much better than FS9. I just took off in the 172 from Manston using real weather. As I passed through 2,500ft I had a fog layer below and an thick cloud layer above. I noticed no appreciable drop in framerate... in FS9 this would have dragged my framerate down into a slideshow. The new head movement built into the VC is also a very nice touch. I know we have had this before from Active Camera and the Real Air aircraft, but it is nice to have it "built into" the sim now. The landscape of FSX is very good with all the autogen breaking up the terrain and making it look a bit more like the real world, and not like a texture sheet with a few objects scattered on top. The sim itself seems to be smoother overall. The stuttering that plagued my FS9 is gone. Even though I may be getting lower framerates in FSX, the lack of stuttering seems to make the experience a more enjoyable one.The BadFramerate (now there's a surprise). Using the tweaks already mentioned in this forum I can get a perfectly flyable framerate with the default aircraft, albeit I have to disable the custom autogen objects and be very conservative with AI traffic. If like me you want to fly around southern England you'll notice the terrain textures at this time of year (I haven't checked out the other seasons yet) are totally out of place. The default textures give England an almost yellow and very dry and arid appearance more like southern Spain than my native "Green and Pleasant Land". Again the terrain data appears to be innacurate for the one area I really know well (North East Kent). The coast line has some inaccuracies, and for some reason Manston has lots of trees around it, when in reality it is surrounded by open farmland. How the land bridges on the River Thames in West London were not picked up and corrected I don't know.... It seems as though we will have to wait for Ultimate Terrain FSX edition to arrive, which pretty much makes all the extra effort put into the higher detail terrain in FSX a bit pointless if we have to use a third party addon to make the areas we are familiar with accurate.As I said earlier, FSX is growing on me, and I think it will make a very good GA sim in the months to come. However, I think those of us who like to fly the heavy iron will be sorely disappointed. I dread to think what the framerate will be like when someone tries to put an aircraft like the PMDG 747 into FSX, and tries to fly out of a large airport with lots of AI.

>reality it is surrounded by open farmland. How the land>bridges on the River Thames in West London were not picked up>and corrected I don't know.... It seems as though we will haveThe landbridges could be caused by the underlying mesh. Can you try setting your mesh to 153 and check again? Anything above 153 gave me lots of new little islands in the rivers around Rotterdam. It looks like the mesh is coming up through the water. I wonder if the landbridges are coused by the same thing?

The default FS X water dislays a rock texture whenever it encounters a slope. This explains the islands and rocky water.We have discussed this in scenery design and have a fix, but are simply waiting a few more days to see if there are any other issues before releasing.Best regards.Luis

"How the land bridges on the River Thames in West London were not picked up and corrected I don't know"I'm amazed as well! After all, London is supposedly one of the detailed cities!