"It's ashame they don't have on option to display under a certain altitude though as sitting on a runway looks rather bleak."I agree-maybe in a patch I hope? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Green griffon wrote:"I like mediocrity,:-) so can we count on you to keep your promise?"Greengriffon, That explains a lot. I'll take you at your word. I'd wondered why some many of you put up with FSX the way it is and it never occurred to me that mediocrity was sufficient to satisfy you simming needs. Do you think you speak for the many or are you unusual in accepting a lame duck? I wiil keep my promise and not trouble you any more. Enjoy the stuttering joke that is a flight over Seattle unless the sliders are down to pre FS2004 appearances.:-) Oh yes, I nearly forgot, watch out for the flying buildings!

>I propose the following in the spirit of genuineness and fair>play. I say this because I have been a FSX critic. >>I would like to see from someone who says they can run FSX and>preferably someone who says they are satisfied with FSX, a>screenshot with FPS showing, of a flight over Seattle with the>following, some cloud weather, some autogen, and some visible>AI, some water detail, no blurries. In short a shot to look>something like the quality of the Aces screenshots we all saw>a month or two ago. This seems like a good and fair way to>settle some of the heated debate we have going at the moment. >Can anyone provide such a shot? The following is not exactly what you asked for but I think it is fairly close. No AI, he has all traffic disabled. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for with 'cloud weather', but...Clouds... check, some autogen... check check check!, some water detail... check, no blurries... check.I read somewhere that the guy has an E6800 Extreme CPU with a really good cooler overclocked to 3.6 GHz. I know Conroe CPU's run cool and overclock well but I still wonder how long the CPU will last him.http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92413&st=0Jim

.

Same parameters as indicated in my first post. This time, I thought I'd low fly downtown Seattle fps 25-30.Great product/tweaks do work/more to follow to help the community.My latest tweak (thanks to the originator in one of the hundreds of forums) was in the "Display" section of fsx.cfg: Texture_bandwidth_mult=400Mine was set to 34 before...gained about 5fps given same exact parameters/settings from before. For a couple of posts that said you can't extrapolate based on a static shot, I guess you'll have to trust me when I say it's a fluid show with no stutters at all.RakeAMD FX-60Nvidia 7950GX2 (1GB) overclocked to 612Mhz GPU4GB ultra low latency RAMRaptor 150GB (10000rpm) HDDell 24" (run FSX in 1920x1200x32bit)

>> Greengriffin,>> How does world or ai work? Does it replace the default AI>aircraft> or disable them in some way?>> I know there is a traffic or AI bgl somewhere in the files.> > Just trying to understand how it works.>> CraigActually it does seem to disable the default AI aircraft. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but it seems to drop a single .BGL file for each airline into FSXSceneryWorldScenery.With the installer, you can also individually uninstall any airlines as well. If you get rid of them all, then FSX reverts back to default traffic. There must be some mechanism in FSX that detects 3rd party AI and disables default traffic if it's detected.The only downside I can see is that I don't have any GA traffic, but there is also a good GA traffic package out there somewhere...I just haven't had a chance to track it down yet. I think it's called Ultimate GA Traffic or something like that.GGEDIT: BTW make sure when you install each package, that you select FSX as the target from the drop-down menu. It defaults to FS2004, and you won't get any indication that you're installing for the wrong version if you forget to change it.

>Green griffon wrote:>>"I like mediocrity,:-) so can we count on you to keep your>promise?">>Greengriffon, That explains a lot. I'll take you at your>word. I'd wondered why some many of you put up with FSX the>way it is and it never occurred to me that mediocrity was>sufficient to satisfy you simming needs. Do you think you>speak for the many or are you unusual in accepting a lame>duck?Nope, only speaking for myself. Did I mention how much I love lame ducks? Yes indeedy...Why don't you try helping your fellow simmers rather than fanning the flames of a pointless debate? Why pour fuel on the fire? If you spent half as much energy on sharing tips with others as you do bashing FSX, there might not be as much rampant bitterness on these forums. Then maybe, just maybe, we could all go back to getting along and enjoying this hobby as a community again.Some people might not realize that they really can squeeze much more performance out of FSX with very little effort. In my opinion, the default AI should be the first thing to go if you enjoy flying anywhere near major airports.BTW - Whoever was asking about using Ultimate Traffic, yes you certainly can import that into FSX and use it instead. Dutton wrote up an easy step-by-step tutorial right here:http://dutton.fsblogger.com/GG

Len -I posted this in another thread on this forum. Did you make thechanges to the fsx.cfg I mentioned? Does it help some?JerryGhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=367645&page=Hi Len,I noticed you stated -Added the following to fsx.cfg file:TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=2000TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1500Added to fsxcfg:FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=.33-----I don't recall my actual values (not near my FSX PC at the moment), butyou might try these:TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=600TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=300Also, the FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=.33 is the default value. I think ACES indicated you should reduce this to a lower level (you will get higher FPS values, but possibly blurries in the far distance). I've tried a few different values, but you could try this:FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=.20Some have posted reducing this all the way toFIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=.001While that can work, in my case, the 7cm textures were a bit blurry directly below my plane, but the FPS shot up - WAY up!Jerry G.

Its over tingoose out of the box FSX is great.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160396.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160397.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160398.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160400.jpgI could of never had FPS like this when FS9 first came out. I doubt if anybody could have. So for me your post answered.

GG Thank you for your response. Craig

People with decent frame rates are running well-above-average PCs ....

>People with decent frame rates are running well-above-average>PCs ....That's quite untrue. I've seen posts by many people who have respectable frame rates, and after I look at their specs, I'm shocked.Me personally, my CPU is decent (P4 3.6 single core), but I have what is widely considered to be an older video card by today's standards - a Geforce6600 256 mb, and only 1 GB of RAM. Your entire system will bottleneck with a mediocre video card, so my system is definitely mid-range.Hardly "well-above-average".

GG, Nobody will believe that. You're chasin windmills. I've tried to tell folks that as well. I'm on your side. Craig

> Nobody will believe that. You're chasin windmills. I've>tried > to tell folks that as well. I'm on your side.Yeah, I'm starting to realize the futility of it myself.

Give up!! It's a noble but futile task. Until someone comes up with a benchmark you will never be comparing apples to apples. I suggested one a month before it came out but nothing came of it. So quit trying to make yourself crazy and either tweak it and enjoy it or keep using FS9. I think it's come to the point where you have to realize that if someone is happy with the way their FSX performs then you just have to accept it. There is nothing to be gained by some folks saying it's "impossible on your system" really doesn;t matter. Keep the blue sky up and just fly and enjoy. That's what I'm gonna do. Craig