>Why are you here?>>I happen to like what I do and I do get a sense of>gratification out of using MSFS and I see it as a useful tool,>as do my customers. I'm sorry you don't.>>You and your ilk? >>What, do you think I was implying I was somebody special or>something? I'm me, they are Microsoft. I have my work to do,>they have theirs. All I meant was to thank the person for his>effort to point out something I had not read, and to ask him>why he wanted me to read it. >>Name a better program I should be using and I'll check it>out.>>I would say that Phil joined the team in the last month or so.> I've been pretty busy attending to my own personal business>during that time, and haven't been paying much attention to>the goings on in Seattle.>>Do you think Microsoft should just develop a program and give>it to us free? The whole point of the business is to make>money. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.>>Personally, the reason I chimed into this thread, was that>Rob's got a nice setup, seems to be knowledgeable about using>the software, and I'm very interested in seeing his results>with other sets of settings. And I hope in the process, he>might find a setup that meets his needs.>>Thanks for your wonderful attitude and your ability to make>friends, influence people, and solve problems. I'm sure it>will take you far.>>Thomas>Sorry mate but several thousand people around the world have for the most part paid

I paid $59 for the deluxe version at Circuit City (I didn't want to wait for it in the mail). For the amount of hours I use the software, and the enjoyment I get out of it, that's a very small price to pay. Less than two hours of flying my own plane.What vested interest might I have? I started my business because the kids and people I worked with enjoyed using MSFS and I saw a chance to do something I like to do and make a little money at it. I've invested more than I've made at this point, but business is slowly getting better. Could be even better if I was a better business person :). But I'm learning as I go.I have no "chums" at MS, only people I have spoken to just like I'm speaking to you right now, and face to face at the Avsim conference. I only mentioned it, because, as Rob pointed out, there are a lot of people out here who don't know what they are talking about (including me) and I only wanted to point out that I've gotten a lot of information from the most credible source, the people who developed it.As far as I could tell, except for autogen and bloom, Rob had every other slider all the way to the right for the test he posted, including the water. Something that has been said numerous times will not work. Do you drive your car with the pedal floored all the time? On my machines, I can't even think about turning water up into the 2.x range. I'd like to, but I'm not angry that I can't. I'd like to see some results with sliders in lesser states, starting at the bottom and working up. As I said, I'd love to do it myself, but I've got pretty low end machines. I'd like to see his results. When I get a chance, I will do a similar test on my machines and post the results.I must say I do get amazing (to me) results in the scenery in the Red Bull air race at what are to me flyable frame rates (you sickos wouldn't be happy though :) jk). In fact, the scenery in the Red Bull air race mission looks much better than the area I usually fly in, and I need to figure out why.I don't see myself as pandering to anyone. I am only trying to get the best setup I can. It took me a lot of work and study to get FS9 working well. I expect the same from FSX.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

smarti05, Perhaps you should send your resume to MS and they will hire you to fix any of the problems you know so much about. Craig

Check out X-Plane, it also runs on Mac Universal and makes VERY efficient use of multiple cores (my 4 cores work very well with it and frame rates go thru the roof). The eye candy in X-Plane is not as good, but pretty close -- however the flight model and avionics are far more serious that what is found in FSX. I work with multiple OS platforms as that provides me with the best perspective. I also use more than one flight simulator program because again that provides me with a better perspective. There are always two sides, however, Microsoft's justifications are very much "take it or leave" -- not really a solid justification.This is just not good for anyone and I find it hard that people argue in favor of a poorly coded FSX in which the dev team has admitted they didn't want to re-write even with the performance wall they hit. Turn off details til it works well -- I mean honestly, I don't get how this is a good thing and is something that should be sweeped under the rug and accepted.The community needs to speak and even if Microsoft don't listen, word will get out. Magazine reviews show an OK to poor rating and listing the very same performance issues, so this is not just some isolated problem -- it is a significant problem affecting many people that have FSX, why would you want to sweep this issue under the rug?Rob.

just can't believe a high end system is still slow>with FSX.>Well even your high-end system would be slow (with autogen), but you turned off all the autogen. Most Pc's can get fine performance if you turn off all the autogen, that's what I do, and I don't miss it.I believe no PC on the market today can run FSX maxed out, we already knew that, it was designed that way

>Go at it. I'll be the first in line when you finish coding>your product.>>ThomasVery helpful and well thought out comment.May I just ask, did you by anychance get your FSX copy at at least trade price?I like several thousand people around the world paid full wack on the basis of a load of doctored screenshots. Microsoft must have already received sveral millions of your American Dollars its not charity you know.I also think you'll find that Robs machine comes in at a somewhat higher spec than that recommended on the packaging, but i suspect his screenshots come in somewhat lower than those in the same location.ps if you paid full price why? as you sell it online, did you buy it from yourself?I smell a small minded vested interest at work.

Nick,Did you look at my screenshots on my web site comparing FS9 and FSX. Ignoring the framerates for the moment, do you really think FSX looks better?Like I said, I'll post more pics tonight on how FSX looks at the same frame rates as FS9 -- even a die hard FSX fan will have trouble trying to claim FSX looks better.Rob.

Rob, Re: but I've yet to discover how much I must turn down to reach that mark and still stay at 1920 x 1200. Why don't you get back to us when you reach the 20fps mark. I am quite happy with the way it runs on my system but then again I don't have everything maxed. I'm not sure why you have the mesh settings set to the max when the mesh only goes down to 9 LOD. Craig

well i cant have exact settings as you because you run at a highrer resolution than I can attain....Ever thought of taking a few flying lessons, you could really do a lot for the same price you bought that PC ;)edit: oh, and FS9 does support higher than 4x AA ;). I ran mine at 8xs AA and 16x AF

Smarti, Re: I like several thousand people around the world paid full wack on the basis of a load of doctored screenshots. If you purchased FSX based on the basis of screeshots then it's the old maxim. A fool and his money are soon parted. I'm sure you have proof that the screenshots were "doctored". Please share your proof with the rest of us. I would suggest that there was a demo plus two betas available. Perhaps you should have tried that approach as I'm sure many folks did. You keep proving over and over that you should perhaps think of changing your name. Craig

Excuse me sir, but Amazon does not allow you to purchase products from yourself. 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

Maybe this has been addressed here already. Sorry if it has. But why are you enabling AA and AF on your set up menu? I would think you would want to control these from your card. This is likely a loss of frames. As well, if you're going to run 40% AI is this default? If it is you will get big frame hits. I recommend World of AI http://www.world-of-ai.com/. This will save you several frames. However, the liveries are still in their growing stages.

8XS is the really the same as 4X - 4X is native where 8XS is a deferent pattern/technic used to provide an "equivalent" 8X AA but it is really based on a 4X approach. If you want to do true 8X AA in FS9 you will need to turn off AF and use Bilinear or Trilinear for best image results.I believe ATI call it 8XS and nVidia call it 8XQ but both are really 4X -- they're a compromise between true 8X so you only get 4X performance hit with a potential (not real) for 8X image quality.Flying lessons have set me back much more than my PC's and pretty limited to single prop and there is no way I could afford to fly whenever I feel like it and certainly not a Jet :)But real flying and flight sims are really worlds apart regardless of how much PC hardware one accumulates. But who knows, maybe Microsoft are already coding that future sim ;)Rob

Actually, ground scenery shadows are a feature of FS9 (that I use in fact), so you should be able to leave them on for FSX/FS( equivalence.Gary

>Excuse me sir, but Amazon does not allow you to purchase>products from yourself. >>Thomas>>ok you fooled me!! you're just a bs.. er then