Without seeing your graphics settings in FSX and Control Panel and you have no weather, day time vs. dusk, and it's clear your textures are using Bilinear or Trilinear (looking at your lack of any grass texture).Again, apples to oranges and not enough information to be useful.Rob.

Whatever mines flyable yours is not I will take my flyable apple over you non flyable orange any day. If it means I have to use 4AA and 8AF with my water set at 2x so be it. People are just tring to help you Rob Guess you don't need it or want it.

It is interesting to note that your FPS take a VERY big hit ( from 20 down to 10) when you look leftwards to the buildings. This tells me that there is something in those buildings that are causing the problem - I have often found this with addon scenery and is one reason why I never install addon scenry which involve buildings, fences, lightposts, etcBarry

The FSX screen shots are for the scenery that comes with FSX, this is not any add-on scenery. Also, I was getting 13 fps on approach looking straight.But funny you mention add-on scenery, if you look at the FS9 screen shots I just posted, that is SFO add-on airport and add-on scenery (Megacity, and US Airports) and I'm running a rock solid 40 fps in FS9 WITH add-ons.Rob

All we need is MS to re-architecture FSX, and move a lot of code from the CPU to the GPU (see CUDA). We already have the hardware today. However, I doubt MS will invest 10 to 50 mil to rewrite FSX from ground up. One thing is centain, most people will be running a dual core/quad core computer with DX10 cards 3 years from now.

Help is great, but if you really wanna help you need to provide more info -- is there a problem asking you for more info? Sometimes I feel like asking for details in this place is like Taboo. Coming back to me saying "there is something wrong with your system" -- ok, great, what is wrong with it?I appreciate your AI tips and file replacements/removal. Glad that works for you but part of my goal is to retain a good looking sim that is at least as good as FS9.I've provided very detail examples covering just about everything that could affect how FSX performs. I appreciate your screenshots, but they don't tell me your entire story/situation. Sorry you got offended by this, but I'm just being honest.Complete List your Control Panel settingsComplete List your FSX settingsComplete List other mods/hacks you've done to FSXThanks,Rob.

>As you can see, 40 fps in FS9 compared to 11 fps in FSX. And>to be honest, I think my FS9 looks better than FSX. It's just the certain experiences that count sometimes. I setup the default wing view from the stock FSX Airbus, from the roll down the runway at KSFO to a climbing 180 degree turn. With no water effects, and no auto-gen (as I haven't bothered tweaking), the city scape, clouds, and the whole look and feel of it, just seems to come to life. My fps ranged from a low of 18 on takeoff with KSFO buildings in the background, to my target rate of 25 which it holds quite consistantly.The main problem I have with FS9 at the moment, is the lack in clarity of city scapes as compared to the higher resolution of FSX. I simply prefer the photo look of FSX! FSX also runs smoother with no small stutters, even at the lower rate of 25 fps.Still, FSX isn't going to fill the bill across the board, and I'll keep FS9 with addon's on the HD. But...........I just can't get past that improved sensation of flight in FSX. It's really there!L.Adamson

Agree, MS aren't known for doing re-writes, pretty clear based on the house of cards that Windows is based on. Even Vista 32bit doesn't support EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface)-- Vista still relies on the limitations of BIOS. 64 bit Vista and WinXP do support EFI. EFI is Intel future firmware platform.Yes, most folks will be using quad core or eight core CPUs 3 years from now which begs the question why FSX is so brain dead about using more than one core? So the hardware will progress and FSX will remain slow. At some point, they'll have to re-write -- should have been done with FS9 as "hyperthreading" was the writing on the wall, and before that had the old fashion multi-CPU systems so it wasn't like it was a "new" technology -- it's progression was very predictable.Rob.

>Agree, MS aren't known for doing re-writes, pretty clear>based on the house of cards that Windows is based on. Even>Vista 32bit doesn't support EFI (Extensible Firmware>Interface)-- Vista still relies on the limitations of BIOS. >64 bit Vista and WinXP do support EFI. EFI is Intel future>firmware platform.>>Yes, most folks will be using quad core or eight core CPUs 3>years from now which begs the question why FSX is so brain>dead about using more than one core? So the hardware will>progress and FSX will remain slow. At some point, they'll>have to re-write -- should have been done with FS9 as>"hyperthreading" was the writing on the wall, and before that>had the old fashion multi-CPU systems so it wasn't like it was>a "new" technology -- it's progression was very predictable.>>Rob.>>In 3 years FSXI will be a year old and we'll be wondering when Microsoft is going to announce FSXII and speculating on what hardware upgrades that will require. :D

Rob, I think his problem is with the way that you asked for more information. I understand that you are frustrated, but your post came across rather confrontationally and condescendingly. Perhaps next time you might just ask for more information instead of basically saying, "you idiot, your help is useless because you didn't give me enough information".My condescending addition - conversation is a process, it is a rare instance that you get enough information on the first pass. With even all the information you gave, and it was copious, I have lots of questions for you. But I don't think you're an idiot for not knowing what I need/would like to know up front.For instance, you didn't say what is important to you, nor did you say what you are willing to compromise on and what you are not willing to compromise on. That information is appearing across the many posts you have given, but it is still not clear to me.For instance, my first suggestion would be to turn off lens flare. I think (I forget exactly which things are and which aren't) that might be another two pass graphic thing, effectively halving your framerate, but perhaps that feature is important to you. Moving all your Scenery sliders all the way to the right like that will KILLLL your framerate. I know that 2.x water requires 2 or more passes for every frame. Unless it is super important to your flying, I'd go back to the 1.x and I bet your framerate will increase fairly significantly. But then again, maybe the scenery detail is more important to you than smooth flying. I don't know. You didn't give me enough information.And again, Ground shadows also requires two passes for each frame. I know that to be true.The ACES team has clearly said many times that the software was designed with full knowledge that no computer is capable of running smoothly with the sliders all the way to the right. Adam Szofran told me that it is fully possible, even on a computer with its maximum RAM capacity, to set the system up so that it will run out of memory. There is just too much information to feed, and a 32 bit system cannot support it. 64 bit will be better, but that won't be till FS11 or later. And it's not just a matter of changing compiler settings.What I am hearing many people basically saying is that ACES should limit the sliders so that they can be moved all the way to the right on an average computer, so that we don't have to worry about optimizing the computer to run best on an individual basis.I must say that your settings on the Scenery graphics page are unrealistic, and you will never get good performance with those settings on any computer available now and for at least a year out, maybe more.It's kind of like complaining that a Viper can't make a sudden 90 degree left turn at 200 mph. It's just not physically possible. But you can still drive the Viper at 200 mph. Should you be mad Chrysler for that?The features added to FSX were designed as framework for future releases. I laugh every time I hear somebody say that the FS code base needs to be thrown out and a completely new one written. If that were possible, don't you think somebody would have done it by now and would have buried MS? And, in fact, in reality, that is exactly what IS going on. But it ain't gonna be done tomorrow.To me, I appreciate the fact that ACES respects me enough to allow me to figure out how to "use the software responsibly", to be able to push it to its limit and then pull it back to a reasonable level.So, I'm sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention. But I do sympathize with the reaction of the previous poster. And I sympathize with you that given all the variables, depending on how much we time we really want to spend working on it, it's not easy to figure out the right combination of settings.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

Another point - Let's be realistic in what we expect from this software. How much did you pay for this software? I am working with people who spend millions investing in purchasing motion flight simulators. And I am working with some people who believe that MSFS can compete on various levels with these systems. I've got to say that there's a lot of power packed in this software for very little cost, that it is in fact disruptive technology. I just installed FSX on a $700 laptop and it is running acceptably for what the user wants it to do. It's your choice to decide what to expect. If you want to focus on your frustration rather than finding something that works and being happy with that, that's your choice.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

I totally agree! I'm still using FS9 for my business as I know it pretty much inside and out, at least for what I need it to do, and from a first pass view, I have it set up better than FSX. But I am somehow drawn to using FSX even on my rather tawdry systems, because of the same experiences that you mentioned. And I believe I will get it to a better level than FS9 eventually. It's too bad it takes so much work, but I believe it will be better in the future.It took 20 years for Solid modeling systems that originally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single installation to come down into the now hundreds of dollars/seat. FS has stayed at pretty much the same price of tens of dollars and look at the improvements we've gotten. I for one am appreciative for the work that has been done and am happy with the result. I agree it needs work, but I am happy. You can call me a rah-rah cheerleader, but, is it better to be happy or cranky?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

I think that you're missing the point. It's NOT that he doesn't want help, its the fact that he doesn't want MSFS to look that THAT just to say he's "enjoying" FSX.These are MY sentiments exactly.No heavy pilot wants to give up the glorious eye candy at major airports to come to what you are showing above! It just doesn't look good and kills the reason for FSX in the first place since those shots look no better than FS2000!This is NOT a slam! This is just an echo of the sentiments that those of us who don't bush fly are making. Bush flying in FSX can be a mindblowing experience....heavy flying is simply mindnumbing.

>No heavy pilot wants to give up the glorious eye candy at>major airports to come to what you are showing above! It just>doesn't look good and kills the reason for FSX in the first>place since those shots look no better than FS2000!>>This is NOT a slam! This is just an echo of the sentiments>that those of us who don't bush fly are making. Bush flying>in FSX can be a mindblowing experience....heavy flying is>simply mindnumbing.IMO, it's the "heavies" or biz jet pilot/passenger window view in FSX that get's my attention, while I would easily conceed that major airport eye candy is still the domain of FS9.Personally, I think the jet speed climbout, lookwise in FSX, makes FS9 appear more as a "smudged cartoon"! :-hah I'll take the crisper photo type city textures of FSX anyday! And this isn't bush flying! L.Adamson

Oh, I should have added: If you are really looking for help, you will have to quantify exactly what you are expecting, what you are willing to compromise on, and what you aren't. Telling us what FPS you are looking for is not enough information. Could you please elaborate?Thanks,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