He has no need to upgrade. It should run fine on his machine. It runs fine on mine. If the only advice you can come up with is to upgrade then why even bother to post. Craig

Len, Not sure how you can say that. Perhaps you could offer some advice to Colin instead of telling him crap. Craig

I haven't seen an FS release that hasn't needed tweaks since 1984. Craig

With the file removed the amount of autogen is decreased but not eliminated. I removed the file, which resulted in a useful FPS increase, but there is still *loads* of autogen and it looks fantastic.Best regards, Chris

>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 sense from the comments from beta testers and developers>that the problems stem from management. >>At least they have a exceptional return policy.Any version of FS had to be tweaked to trick out the most performance. FS is not a typical game in the traditional sense, but a highly sophisticated toolbox that brings us a close to real-life simulation.If you hardware cannot produce the desired results, turn back the sliders, but if you really want optimal results then you need to tweak. Noone has ever claimed that you need to run everything maxed. With the current hardware it is impossible. Period. ;)

>>> He has no need to upgrade. It should run fine on his>machine.He was joking.

>> Len,>> Not sure how you can say that. Perhaps you could offer some>advice> to Colin instead of telling him crap.>> CraigPlease stop being so rude to people. There's no need for it and it doesn't help anyone.

Hi Colin, Suggest you try all the tweaks - they definately work for many of us. My system is below yours in capability (as per specs), but FSX runs great on my system. I don't have any other suggestions aside from trying the tweaks.Good luck,

Please stop being so rude to people. There's no need for it and it doesn't help anyone. With all due repect his response was and still is crap.

>- Add FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=XXX to the [main] section or>fsx.cfg...>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).Out of curiosity, what is the default FSX assumes for this setting if none is configured in the config file?

>>- Add FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=XXX to the [main] section>or>>fsx.cfg>...>>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).>>Out of curiosity, what is the default FSX assumes for this>setting if none is configured in the config file?0.33. Its been mentionded several times in the forums - look in the big Fiber thread started by Rob YoungAllcott

Thanks, I saw 0.33 mentioned in a couple of threads but thought it was some kind of "suggested value" to start tweaking with.

>>>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.Dang, i don't know how you do that.... with max scenery settings (mesh @ 80), ZERO traffic of any kind, and extremely dense autogen and max 2x water I only can get ~10FPS in even this small city of eau claire, WI....I have the fiber time @ .26, and matt fox's autogen fix, 800 for trees and 1500 for buildings, err maybe 3000, can't remember....though I kept the default.xml for autogen cause I don't like how it places things randomly.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159854.jpg

>>I don't have the patience to go around tweaking etc. Fine, then you'll never get it to run well on your system.30 minutes of tweaks = FSX running decently for you. You can achieve pretty good results. I can, with a similar speed cpu as yours.The choice is yours.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>> Please stop being so rude to people. There's no need for it>and it doesn't help anyone. >>With all due repect his response was and still is crap.>> And that's why you feel the need to be unpleasant in public? Couldn't you just keep your comment to yourself?I apologise if I offended you, it's just that these forums seem to be filling up more and more with insults rather than help/advice - I just find it sad.