First of all, my specs:Athlon XP 3200+1gig RAM512mb Geforce 7600 GSI run in 1280 x 1024 with anti-aliasing and anistopic filtering both at 4x. I have installed the resized textures. I have all the sliders around the halfway mark.At SEATTLE i get around 12FPS inside an airliner VC. This is with 'normal' autogen.I then went to DETROIT and set autogen to extremly dense and got frame rates between 17fps-24fps from inside the VC and outside the plane. Now before you say there is not alot of autogen in detroit, check out the shots below. My Seattle has 10 times fewer buildings (with mid range autogen) then Detroit city (autogen on full). Sorry, forgot to take some pics of Seattle :)I am not sure its the autogen itself causing our FSP issues. I reckon in some cities (namely Seattle) there is something there that is killing the frame rates. When alot of people post about their bad FPS they normally use Seattle as their example. Try some of the other airports. Maybe most cities are flyable?Note: Some of the FPS are unreadable in my pics:picture 3 & 4 were taken with around 18fps.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159210.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159212.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159213.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159214.jpg

That must be why I am so happy-I live in Detroit.I would think in addition to the autogen-you have quite a lot of terrain in Seattle that Detroit being fairly flat doesn't have.I would suspect that might be why the difference.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Or more scenery objects. Custom buildings.

Maybe a big hidden picture of the devteam is someplace near Seattle eating frames at the company picnic?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Not from the US, went to Seattle once though, so at a guess maybe the water textures are causing the difference?

detroit looks nice... I'd probably fly alot out to and from there when I get full version...

You know I've heard of Seattle getting lower performance than other cities in FS9 too. Odd.... Perhaps the proximity to Microsoft headquarters in the area is killing framerates.Seriously though, I'm not sure. Maybe Seattle has a larger amount of variable autogen where Detroit and other cities have specific types. Or maybe there's a larger poly count there, odd as it seems.I've seen people getting better frames on a full autogen Manhattan than on Seattle (I'm assuming that there is indeed more autogen in NY), so something might be up.

I can not remember KSEA ever giving me a good frame rate in any version. Just something about that city ;)I personally think, especially with this version, it is the custom scenery as mentioned above. Such as all of those port cranes. If you test FSX out in Chicago with the same settings, you will see a large difference in FPS, same with Detroit. KJFK is not too bad but I think all of the bridges around hit with the same type of results as KSEA.duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

Actually it is not surprising to find such a difference between the two cities. The mesh necessary to produce all the mountains in the Seattle area are the cause. Just go to any city surrounded by mountains, and you will find frame rates suffer. Even small cities like Sedona AZ will have slower framerates than Detroit or Boston and even NYC will probably be better. Try flying around MT Saint Helen for a beautiful rendition of the Volcano, and note your frame rates. Fly into Jackson Hole, from over the Grand Tetons, etc...