A few shots proving once and for all that FSX can really soar in the frame rate department. No Autogen, no cars and no AI. Global is very high, biliner filtering, lens flare, advanced animations, LOD max, SC low, Mesh 76, mesh res 38, texture res 5. Some might say that this is too much of a compromise but what I see flying is so much more than FS9 ever could produce. There is more room to play in settings since the major frame rate killers are off.. Now back to FSX heaven!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159139.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159140.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159141.jpgBest,Randy J. Smith<<>>

WOW that looks terrible, why you can be satisfied with this i will never understand.

No offense Randy, but those screenies aren't going to convince anyone. That looks worse than FS8 IMHO.

Best,Randy J. Smithhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159142.jpg So this looks terrible? There are a few like me who long for smooth flight dynamics and accurate scenery. I found it with the Alaska Scenery and FS9. It looked amazing but out of the area it looked - well you know. The 3 shots above were taken at the time of day that is almost dawn. The last two were KSEA. It looked good enough on my setup to fly super smooth and to know exactly where I was. Is that not the point of fligth simulator? For 51 dollars I am using a simulator that is by large much more visually inhanced than a 10,000,000 dollar simulator even at those settings. What do I need to convice people for? I fly to simulate real life flight which never ever looks clear and crisp in any real plane I have been in. What I want is decent reference and smooth flight instruments and that is what I have here now. Now perhaps a year down the road when Duo CPUs drop I might enjoy pretty birds and vehicles below me while I take it all in. Until that time I will fly with what I have and what flys the smoothest. I really don't believe what I have posted here is bad whatsoever. People can take it or leave it...<<>>

the first pic is disgusting! looks like Xplane 1!yuk!

32fps but it looks pre-FS9. Sorry, doesn't look that great.

Looks horrible.

Ok, everybody just slow down.....maybe instead of saying "wow that sucks," you could say exactly why you feel that way....I think it's neat you got the wide effect but I can't see that much in real life and I like the angle that my eyes see to be realistic...however, the glider shot is nice because you probably would be able to see all that with the bubble canopy in real life....very nice

The glider shot is nice, but for me personally I do not want my FS to look like that, but that's just me, I can still have a most things on and get around 18+ FPS, when my FSX was working.

lol...i must admit those pictures look awful. i prefer having the candy and flying at 10fps

Yeah i agree. That looks like the sublogic days there. I much prefer my triplehead 3840x1024 rez with medium settings at 16fps. This sim is a dog, a beautiful dog no doubt, but a dog none the less. Nothing a multi-core patch and dx10 can't fix though.

Wow, Randy, I too have to admit that when I looked at your pics my initial reaction was how terrible those screenies look. It reminded me of FS5 actually...the first foray into photoreal tiles but no substance (ie autogen) to the landscape. That was pretty cool for 1995 but 10 years later where still there?The thing is, most of us have become spoiled. We were getting great frames with more and more realistic topographies with add-ons such as UT, GE, et al. The whole imersion of flight was a visual treat as well as dynamically satisfying.To "dumb" down FSX is inarguably a step backward. We should be building upon the previous FS experience NOT reverting to the experience of FS versions gone by. If Microsoft had put those screenshots on the box, I doubt that there would be enough purchases of FSX to fund lunch for the Aces team. So at the end of the day, I most certainly commend your willingness to make the best of what you have and show a great deal of flexibility and positive attitude, I'm afraid for many of us, however, the emperor simply has no clothes. In this instance no matter how one tries to describe the flowing silk and gold robes of the emperor, for me, sorry...the emperor is butt, stark raving naked (like those screenshots above).

Randy,I, for one, am with you. I very much prefer to simulate flying, rather than the surrounding it happens in.

>Randy,>>I, for one, am with you. I very much prefer to simulate>flying, rather than the surrounding it happens in.How can that look shown in Randy's screenshots help reinforce the illusion of flight? When you fly for real it looks nothing like that- you see things on the ground. From your persepctive it seems that people should be happy with a detailed aircraft cockpit only- no external visual model, no scenery except for a flat mush. Oh, and some strips of simulated concrete to land on. I respect your opinion along with Randy's, and everyone else who likes FSX- but I fail to see the attraction.

> The last two were KSEA.It's a barren wasteland... there are no buildings at a major airport, and the ground textures are all muddy. It really does look like something from about 10 years ago.If you are flying simply for gauges and fluidity, then I guess this will work for you. But for the rest of us, we were hoping for something a little more modern.