I confirmed one of your findings by watching the intel dcc utility showing activity per processor on my core2duo during flight. Indeed, most processing occurs on one core, but spikes on a frequent basis occupy the other core. Bob

>I run FSX in 1024x768 and have tried many of the tweaks>discussed in this forum. I have not resized any textures.Hi, I'm not sure if makes a difference but I'll mention it anyway. Originally, FSX was to be released with Vista. Vista minimum requirements for screen resolution are 1280x1024 Perhaps one should use these minimum screen resolution requirements during testing/data collection. Keeping up with Vista may, in the long run, pay off.

Matt,My IO Data Operations for FSX averaged nearly 200/sec, much higher than yours. Paging was very low; it would spike a bit when changing settings then drop back to 0.Interesting that you are thinking of building a Velocity. I'd be glad to have an offline discussion on this (it's off topic here :-)). BTW, I'm one of the designated factory aircraft inspectors. I've attached a couple of pictures of mine.I haven't found a good air model (or graphic one for that matter). I've been working on both. The one I found in the library is too pitch sensitive. Actually, I find the Turbo Mooney to be somewhat similar, if you leave the flaps up all the time! I'm also enjoying the G1000.Real Velocity's need a lot of speed for a light single to takeoff and land. I rotate at 70 knots and climb out at 120+. Landing I cross the fence at 80 knots minimum, more in a cross wind or gusting wind. My plane routinely cruises at 170 knots TAS.Regards,Glenn

>>On my setup fsx has not used more than 1.1 gigs ever, But I>>use resized textures for almost everything. It uses 1 gig at>>klas with lots of scenery going>>That is what the perfmon data that I have shows as well...>over five minutes, polling every 5 seconds, with the scenery>constantly changing, it never exceed 1.1-- It ALSO barely>accessed the hard drive and the page file...>>I would love to get more data from more people-- It would>definately help in looking at where to do my next upgrade--->and I am sure it will also help in developing new addons...>>Thanks..>>MattI'd like to see your test re-run where you are doing mach 0.80 between FL290 and FL390 for about 15 minutes. I say this as you'll likely pass scenery boundary areas which cause disk activity to matter.Another variation is to go up to about 8,000 feet in something that'll do 250 KAIS and record that for 15 minutes.

After reading, and experiencing, various performance issues and false starts with FSX, I decided to take a serious look at what the system was doing while running FSX and see if there was anything specific- a magic bullet- to solve the performance I was seeing. I will preface this post by saying it is lengthy and somewhat technical.

Actually, I think you got that the wrong way around.FSX is by far more accurate in flying terms so IMO FSX = serious pilots who what flying realism.FS9 is for the less serious simmer who what to have more dense packed autogen and animations running.In other words on todays technology it's my opionion that it's FS9 that gives more fps at higher levels of eye candy if you like. Also, great for the train set builders who want to add extra add on's and scenery enhancements etc. over time of course that will change more in balance of FSX.FSX needs to be backed off a bit to give acceptable fps and smoothness but once done it's by far the better performing in terms of realism.

>so sad. FS9= pilots and serious simmers. >FSX=gamers(suckers).Is there a moderator here?I feel that this pompous attempt at an insult out of nowhere for absolutely no good reason whatsoever in the middle of a courteous and enjoyable discussion concerning the technical apsects of FSX performance on computer systems is an extremely rude disruption deserving of a BAN on the above poster.Yours Truly,Jim

My system is similar to yours... Same MB, memory, disks, but an ASUS N6600 256MB graphics card.Yet, all of the RAM and Video tests I have performed, using the attached utility, show that FSX uses between 700 and 900MB, and the graphics card (AGP, with aperture set to 128) between 80 and 90 MB!!!I have most of the features disabled, including the rename of default.xml and the use of reduced textures in most cases as per suggestions in:http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41and this led me to believe that what is really needed is a faster CPU and GPU... Preferably with DX10 hardware acceleration... Have to wait a few more months.

>Yet, all of the RAM and Video tests I have performed, using>the attached utility, show that FSX uses between 700 and>900MB, and the graphics card (AGP, with aperture set to 128)>between 80 and 90 MB!!!>>and this led me to believe that what is really needed is a>faster CPU and GPU... Preferably with DX10 hardware>acceleration... Have to wait a few more months.>>After reading through everything here- And I am really excited to see how many people have gotten involved in this conversation--- It looks to me that we are all in agreement that DEFINATELY a system needs between one and 2 gigs of ram---Anything less is way to little and anything more is going to be a waste...What does everyone think on Hard Disk Speed? My personal findings show that a faster hard drive does not really contribute to a better flight performance?It really looks like CPU and GPU are the major components for optimal performance... whar are other's thoughts?Matt

From your tests it seems that 1G is in the edge but enought. Right now I have 1G PC2700 and thinking about 2G PC3200. Is it possible to perform the test: Limit DRAM speed to 333MHz to see if it influences.ThanksJos

>FSX is by far more accurate in flying terms so IMO FSX =>serious pilots who what flying realism.:-roll

>Are you enjoying the PMDG 744 in FSX? How about the Level D>767 and the PSS products?>Hi,Was the PMDG 744 or the Level D 767 released within 2 weeks after FS9 was? An avid Flight Simmer would remain involved for "the long haul" enduring till FSX runs as smooth (as you have your 744 / 767 now) or better than FS9. I'm sure you did exactly the same thing with FS9, perhaps upgrading your CPU, or increasing the amount of RAM, or even a new Video card, to get the best performance. This DATA is neccessary to determine such upgrades.

Disk access is indeed crucial.Last night I was flying multiplayer when, all of a sudden FSX started "violent" stutters and FPS dropped to de 4-5s.Since I installed FSUIPC4 and AS6.5 I was expecting some degradation, about 1.5 fps from FSUIPC4 and stutters resulting from dynamic wetaher loads initiated by AS6.5, but I verified AS6.5 was not downloading and exporting weather to FSX, so, I looked for other reasons and found AVG performing a schedulled disk scan! This type of disk scans should be disabled when running flightsims, but I forgot it, anyway this type of problems used to happen when I was using fs9 and the impact was a LOT LESS evident.This also leads me to believe that I will probably revert to my previous 2 HD solution, just to have a pagefile on a separate partition and on a different disk from MSFS. Anyway I now have a SATA2 250 GB disk, and an older IDE 40GB disk. I will try to move my swap partition to that other disk.Just one more thing: I tend to debilieve disk-defrag solutions for better FPSs but indeed, and for the very first time in my long time experience with MSFS, after defraging my FSX partition I noticed an increase in FPS, and less variability on the figures displayed!