The new sim is very disapointing. I have a AMD Dual Core 4600; 2 gigs of memory and a 7900GS video card; a good ASUS motherboard - and my machine is sucking wind. 11 FPS in a turn over PDX in the Cessna with moderate low graphic settings - no airport buildings even.Unless the add-on developers learn how to allocate the complex gauges to second cpus in dual core rigs, I don't see how their airplanes can hope to work in this environment. I don't have the patience to go around tweaking etc. I've turned off everything on the machine that isn't essential to flight simulation and that helps not a wit (not surprised - the dual core would make the impact of those background services less important).This one goes back on the shelf until Vista comes around and we'll see if SLI helps. Until then back to FS9. Would have been nice if the MS folks had noticed the trend towards dual cores and written code that would have taken advantage of the horsepower. ColinPortland

They noticed. http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/200.../21/711152.aspxPhil

>The new sim is very disapointing. I have a AMD Dual Core>4600; 2 gigs of memory and a 7900GS video card; a good ASUS>motherboard - and my machine is sucking wind. 11 FPS in a turn>over PDX in the Cessna with moderate low graphic settings - no>airport buildings even.>>Unless the add-on developers learn how to allocate the complex>gauges to second cpus in dual core rigs, I don't see how their>airplanes can hope to work in this environment. >>I don't have the patience to go around tweaking etc. I've>turned off everything on the machine that isn't essential to>flight simulation and that helps not a wit (not surprised ->the dual core would make the impact of those background>services less important).>>This one goes back on the shelf until Vista comes around and>we'll see if SLI helps. Until then back to FS9. >>Would have been nice if the MS folks had noticed the trend>towards dual cores and written code that would have taken>advantage of the horsepower. >>Colin>PortlandMaybe you should think about upgrading your PC ...... ;)

>I don't have the patience to go around tweaking etc. I've>turned off everything on the machine that isn't essential to>flight simulation and that helps not a wit (not surprised ->the dual core would make the impact of those background>services less important).You might want to rethink that no-tweaking position. I've got a much less capable system than yours (Athlon64 3500+, 2GB DDR, ATI 850XT) and see 25-35+ fps with the default C172 around Portland with medium to medium-high settings (including scenery complexity and autogen at normal and real-time weather). That's without doing a significant amount of tweaking, just a handful of the easy tweaks posted by Matt Fox.

ColinNo matter how many try to tell you they have a lesser system than yours and get great frames - don't believe it. You have a great system and trusting your own eyes and expectations is all that counts.P4 3.6 GHz HT 1 gig ddr ram ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe card

Don't be jumping to conclusions too soon. Yes, the out-of-the-box settings don't get the best out of your CPU, but you can apply a few tweaks that a lot of people have used successfully (even recommended by MS).The best tweaks so far are to:- Rename default.xml to default.bak in the autogen folder- Add FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=XXX to the [main] section or fsx.cfg- Use TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=400 and TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=3000 in the [Terrain] section of fsx.cfg, where the numbers are the trees/building that are rendered per cell. The lower the value the less densely populated the areas with autogen.The recommended setting for the fibers are anywhere between 0 and 1 where 0.1 for example allocated 90% of the CPU cycles towards rendering (0.2: 80%, etc).I easily achieve 20fps with a setting of 0.2 with everything almost maxed and full autogen and it looks and flies great, except when flying over very densely populated areas where the fps drop in the teens. I assume this is also mostly due to 70% traffic on top of that (MyTraffic X), Active Sky and the Flight1 Cessna 172.This all is on a AMD X2 4800+, 2GB Corsair XMS, nVidia 7600 GT.Good luck.

>The new sim is very disapointing. ...>>Would have been nice if the MS folks had noticed the trend>towards dual cores and written code that would have taken>advantage of the horsepower. >>Colin>PortlandAgreed, we should not have to replace files, recompile textures, add config lines etc. This is not what one should expect from a company with the resources of Microsoft and the time since the last FS release.I sense from the comments from beta testers and developers that the problems stem from management. At least they have a exceptional return policy.

Well,I am too much of an FS junkie not to try the tweaks - but I just loaded a flight in FS9 with the Dreamfleet Beach using the new Portland scenery (very cool - it looks pretty much like it is - and I fly on Alaska/Horizon about 90 segments a year in and out of PDX) and with the frames locked at 30, didn't drop below it and smooth as a pint of Terminator Stout. The new sim looks good - but so does the old one with UT and GEP and is much, much smoother. My only comment on the blog is that there was a good review of the Core Duos on SimHQ a while back - Oblivion Elder Scrolls, by far the biggest "bring my system to its knees" game before FSX, ran far, far better on dual core systems. And it works far better on mine as well. Distribute those tasks. Distribute the complex gauges. Distribute the weather. Then cut it in half with SLI when Vista comes out. We can hope. Also, to the gent who suggested I upgrade, you brought a smile to my face. Thanks!ColinPortland, OregonPS - If you havn't bought the Portland Scenery - do it. It is very, very good. And that's what it looks like here.

>>Agreed, we should not have to replace files, recompile>textures, add config lines etc. This is not what one should>expect from a company with the resources of Microsoft and the>time since the last FS release.>I don't.Auto-gen off, which improves city scapes. Water effects off, just like it was off in FS9. Texture & mesh settings on high. I'll use auto-gen for low-level mountain bush flying. Otherwise, even the mountain textures look good with it off.30fps for target rate & it stays close most of the time. I won't sim fly with slow frame rates either, unless it's very high altitude with scenery that appears to move slowly by. Have even got some smooth fps out of KSEA & KSFO this way, with many buildings still there, and good looking city scapes. Other than that, I've changed no files, config lines, etc. And I may never.L.Adamson -- Athlon64 3800/2GIG/Geforce7600GS/1600*1200*32

The other thing that seems to be missed is when you use autogen it blurrs and covers the high res textures so you don't even see them.It is not so much about losing a feature like autogen-but seeing and using a new feature-the high res textures-which you can really only see by turning the autogen off! To really see them you need to crank up your antialising settings and anisotropic settings to max-but while that would slow down things in the past-it only enhances now. I am flying with lows of 20 -average mid 30's and highs 40-60 this way-and it is drop dead beautiful. I do miss the autogen trees at 200 ft. agl-but at that time if you are looking at the scenery you are a goner anyway.Like Larry-if I am going to do some low mountain flying-or an area that is actually enhanced by autogen-I crank it full right-and except I am not going to get perfect ifr performance.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Don't be jumping to conclusions too soon. Yes, the>out-of-the-box settings don't get the best out of your CPU,>but you can apply a few tweaks that a lot of people have used>successfully (even recommended by MS).>>The best tweaks so far are to:>>- Rename default.xml to default.bak in the autogen folder>- Add FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=XXX to the [main] section or>fsx.cfg>- Use TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=400 and>TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=3000 in the [Terrain]>section of fsx.cfg, where the numbers are the trees/building>that are rendered per cell. The lower the value the less>densely populated the areas with autogen.>>The recommended setting for the fibers are anywhere between 0>and 1 where 0.1 for example allocated 90% of the CPU cycles>towards rendering (0.2: 80%, etc).>>I easily achieve 20fps with a setting of 0.2 with everything>almost maxed and full autogen and it looks and flies great,>except when flying over very densely populated areas where the>fps drop in the teens. I assume this is also mostly due to 70%>traffic on top of that (MyTraffic X), Active Sky and the>Flight1 Cessna 172.>>This all is on a AMD X2 4800+, 2GB Corsair XMS, nVidia 7600>GT.>>Good luck.>>You state that your have 'full autogen' and yet the 'default.xml' auto-gen file is not being used. So am I correct in assuming the there is NO auto-gen'ing on your computer.

>They noticed. >>http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/200.../21/711152.aspx>>PhilVery informative article.

> This is not what one should expect from a company with the resources of Microsoft and the time since the last FS release.All the money in Microsoft's checkbook cannot magically create processor cycles in your computer, nor can it magically create stunning visual rendering systems that somehow defy mathamatics and programming limits by giving you a beautiful picture at no processor cost. Sure, MS/ACES did refine and optimize the code, but there is only so much it can do. If someone expects this magic of Microsoft or ANY development organization, they are in for a considerable wake up call. Still smells like the FS2004 Right-Sliders effect, though. * FS2004 Releases - the underlying engine changes - EVERYone whines it's slow. (check the threads!)* Folks update hardware over time - FS2004 looks better.* Time passes, hardware may be updated again - FS2004 is now running at full sliders with addons and everything. People come to expect "high" detail settings as a right... as a way of life...* FSX Releases - the underlying engine changes - EVERYone whines it's slow. * lather, rinse, repeat...

Sounds a bit to me like your PC isn't set up too great. You sure you've got all the correct drivers and Windows updates installed? The latest DirectX for example?

Colin, As you can see from my specs below, my machine isn't even at the level of yours and I have no problems with smooth flight. Framerate on runway 34, KSEA is a low of 16. I'm using the following settings in FSX: Target 26 1280x1024x16 Global texture medium Trilinear Anti Alisasing checked Advanced Animations checked High Res 3D cockpit Aircraft landing lights Level or detail radius small Mesh complexity 64 Mesh resolution 10m Texture resolution 1m Water 1.x Autogen none Land detail textures checked Scenery Complexity: Dense Special deffects detail: High Airline density 20 General Aviation 8 Airport Vehicle Medium Land and sea 0 I've used many of the tweaks at this site: http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41 My FSX Config is attached if you want to take a look at it. Hopefully you defragged as soon as the install was done. CraigASUS A8N- nForce SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCIe MOBOAMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HT TechLG GWA-4161 DVD/CD200GB Maxtor SATA 150 8MB Cache80GB Maxtor Ultra ATA 133EVGA 7900 GT KO PCIe nvodngov19147-[Guru3D.com] drivers SB Audigy 22G Corsair PC 3200 400MHZ Dual Channel DDR Super Alien 500W P/S