I have used all the performance improvement tips and now get 20fps even in the cities (apart from Seattle where its only 15).I have all the settings half way or higher. Traffic is set to very low.I am running an Athlon XP 3200+, 1.5gig RAM, 512mb Geforce 7600 GS.The sim looks fantastic and i am very happy. FS9 eat my dust!

Nice job, I'm thinking that I can actually enjoy 10FPS depending on where I'm flying...(in big cities), but i dont mind 20 in rural areas....even with stuff turned down, it still is fun

heres some screenshots of flying in new york city:Lined up on the runwayhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159340.jpgTake offhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159341.jpgBuildings ahead, frame rate drops a bit but still smoothhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159342.jpg

Not to be "negative" here, but as a person who lived in NY for half his life, that is not even closely representative of NYC. This is really apparent in the second screenshot where you are facing north over Queens looking at the Throgs Neck Bridge. This is on the approach path to Rwy 4 and KLGA...it looks nothing like that. Where the heck did all the lush green farmland and forest preserves come from??? That is all supposed to be a VERY urban area. Similarly, the last screenshot is facing west over Long Island City with the Citibank tower in the foreground. LIC looks nothing like that, it is an very ugly urban area...there are no forest areas, maybe a concrete kiddie park or two, and maybe a few trees planted in front of the apartment buildings but NO large areas of vegetation to be found. It is an area covered in industry: factories, apartments, concrete, gas tanks, et al.Similarly, I can confidently say that the remaining forests and farms have been removed from Manhattan since the 1900's. As far as I can remember, the MetLife Building (old PanAm building) is not in a park. MS did a FAR better job of representing NYC in FS9's default scenery.This is where the suspension of disbelief goes right out the window. I know some don't want anything "negative" about FSX said, but there is no way that can pass for New York. Having flown the River Visual into KLGA in real life, I know that was many years ago, but I can't remember it feeling like I was bush flying into NYC! :-)Apparently now we have the "Great Deserts of North America" AND the "Lush Rolling Forests of New York City". :-xxrotflmao It's like MS built the world in a Planet of the Apes type style with forests and deserts and when you happen to find the Statue Of Liberty buried in sand, only then do you realize that you are in New York City...which is about the time when you fall to your knees and yell NOOOOOOOOO! (like Charlton Heston) :-badteethIn all seriousness, I think that pulling sliders back to get performance is fine (if you can live with that), but not to the point that your flight environment looks totally alien from real life. IMHO, that is simply TOO much of a compromise!

Mike, Roger that, I didn't rec NYC from those shots at all, LOL...then again, I haven't gotten FSX yet, just using FS9 with Aerosofts Manhatten scenery, which is rather accurate however much of a FR killer it is.Hey, by the way, did you get my latest e mail?Best, Clayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

LOL, now that Planet of the Apes comment IS funny. And I agree that screenshot is in no way a satisfactory rendition of New York City, unless Al Quaeda have flown into 70 percent of all the other buildings too and we haven't heard about it yet.The buildings in general and in particualr autogen are and always have been a weak point of FS. I don't want a sim that takes a guess at what it thinks might be a building that looks a bit like what might be there, possibly. Try flying around a UK city that you know well and you'll be aware of how misrepresentative autogen is; sticking the Palace of Westminster next to a blue line in amongst a bunch of generic buildings does not make London.FSX is much-improved flight emulation-wise, but the visuals in terms of buildings, is laughable. Luckily for me, I prize the flight dynamics far more highly than the scenery, but one look at that picture is all you need to know to decide that things could be done much better.I'm glad you are satisfied with FSX for you, as indeed am I in terms of flight modelling, but I can well understand the feelings of people for whom the desire for scenic realism is a high priority, for they must be truly disappointed with the all too apparent lack of progress.

I've now also reached a point where tweaks have suddenly made a difference.The two that really bumped fps up for me were:1. Changing TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=xx so xx is now 1002. FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.33 - this only made a small difference until I changed 0.33 to 0.13. That was the major Eureka moment for me. I'm now getting around 50% higher FR.

>This is where the suspension of disbelief goes right out the>window. I know some don't want anything "negative" about FSX>said, but there is no way that can pass for New York. Having>flown the River Visual into KLGA in real life, I know that was>many years ago, but I can't remember it feeling like I was>bush flying into NYC! :-)>Yes, you might have lost New York, but I got my two missing lakes that I have'nt been able to re-establish with FS9 addons! :7 I'm thrilled with FSX because my suspension of disbelief was heightend! These two lakes just sit one peak over the mountains, thirty miles from home, and I fly over them all the time; not to mention an airport that sits by one. In FS9, they were drained and full of vegetation. But now..........they pass for real water filled lakes! :-hah As to sliders, auto-gen & water off unless bush flying. Topography/scenery sliders at near or full max. Fluid flight at mid 20's to 30 fps. FPS target set at 30.Is FSX perfect --- no. But enough extras over FS9, that I like it. Believe it or not, it's still more smooth and fluid than FS9 ever was. It just doesn't stutter with my settings.L.Adamson

lol..i understand your points about the city not looking as it does in real life. i have never been to NYC so i guess i didnt really notice :) that would be a real kill joy though for those who know or live in NYC.i think however that since i have not been to most places i fly in FSX i cant say whether the landclass is correct or not so it doesnt really bother me. still, i expected NYC to be a little more urban :)hopefully the add-on developers can improve on it. for ACES developers to accurately depict every city in the world would be asking for too much.