Thank you for listing -- do you mean Cloud Draw 0? Or was this just a typo?Rob.

Hi Rob, I only glanced briefly at the screen grabs on your site. They were pretty dark (dusk scene), and I couldn't see much detail.But yes, I do think that FSX looks better than FS9 at equivalent settings (save for the barren textures). The differences are very subtle, not striking at all. Mainly, I think the lighting in FSX is much improved. So all other settings being equal, I still see a slight improvement over FS9. In my opinion, the differences between FS9 and FSX become striking once the scenery resolution, self shadowing, and water effects are increased.I think the reality of the situation is two-fold. First, I think there is some component of your system that is not playing nicely with the others. I have nowhere near the kind of rig you're running, but I seem to get equivalent performance (or better), with the same (or similar) settings.Second, I think there is no way around the fact that the game simply will not run well with sliders maxed, even on bleeding edge hardware. The devs themselves have openly stated that this is the case. They intended the game run well with "medium" settings on high-end hardware. Whether that design choice is popular or not (and it obviously isn't), that's the reality of the situation.I say this in the most humble, and polite way possible:Stop trying to make the software do something the developers have said its not designed to do (yet). Seriously, I'm not being condescending in the slightest. I would love to max the settings too, but its just not doable at this point.Nick

>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/FS9>equivalence.Hi Gary,I agree that ground scenery shadows were a part of FS9. But the ones in FSX use a more sophisticated "volume-shadow" and/or "self-shadowing" technique. Therefore, I think that FSX's shadows have a greater detrimental impact on fps than FS9 shadows.I reserve the right to be wrong though.Nick

Sorry Rob, Typo. Cloud Draw Distance=60mi.

>I'm glad your enjoying FSX as much as you are. really! Yet not>to be rude you fail to take into consideration that someone>who went out and spent mega $$$ for such a meg machine may>having higher expectations than yourself! Maybe you have lower>standards than such a person? Maybe you still enjoy playing>"Donky Kong" I dont know?Donky Kong.... Not hardly. In fact, flight sims are the only computer generated "games" that I use. I've also used flight sims since the invention of desktop PC's. I'm not new to this.My "standards" are based on real flights over the same areas, I use for my FSX/FS9 flying. I do, do a lot of real life mountainous area flying, from both a municipal and Class B airport, and I don't "personally" fly commercial jets into large airports. Therfor my standards don't require frame rate robbing 3rd party commercial airports with lot's of AI, as some other MSFS users prefer.What I'm seeing in FSX is a truer represenation of a lot of places that I like to fly over. I say lot's, because that does not include all areas. I have this habit of aviation photography while flying. I'm picky when it comes to the difference of the animated/painted look & photography look. More than not, FSX comes closer to photo-real. I have numerous screenshots to prove it.>There isnt much that has been done in FSX outside of the>rounded world and larger higher resolution textures that could>not have been done in FS9.>Sure there is. The whole feel of flight has been increased with moving airmasses. It's a tremendous improvement over FS9. But then perhaps, only pilots, and FSX "users" would recognize this... :7 L.Adamson

MS not only had to write code that would work with future hardwarebut also for the folks with machine specs even lower than mine.Hence the sliders.I would respectfully suggest to you that you don't have any credibility when commenting on software that you are not currentlyrunning.CraigCredibility? I respectfully say this this. You obviously own a copy FSX and say that it was written for future hardware? What kinda credible statement is that that? No Dual core support! Heck hardly any Hyper threading support for that matter! So please , please tell me what future hardware, and please explain to me about this buy now , play later concept?Your are right that I dont own a copy FSX , and probably not as much credibility as yourself , but what I do have is common sense! So when someone with a machine as the OP's says a software program isnt' running well on it. Common sense tells me its the software program not the machine! Enuff Said!CyberSimmer

L.Adamson, You are feeling the same frustrations I am with some of the folks that post here. When CyberSimmer graduates from middle school perhaps he will be able to make an intelligent comment about a sim he owns or hopes to own when he is able to save enough allowance. No aruging with a fool. Keep the faith. Craig

And I have some great property in Florida...interested in buying?

Pretty interesting read.The OP has the best computer I've ever heard of. Yes, I can understand his disappointment. Your data is very well presented..you must be an engineer.I'm also disappointed regarding performance of this sim.I also am enjoying flying it.I struggle with the point of this thread. Based on the reaction to fsx-positive posts, it seems to be basically about reaching concensus to condemn MS for the decision to release this product. The people not supporting a unified condemnation have been called a really excited user, an insider, not paying full price...etc. Also I've seen bashing on peoples names, what they do for a living...some pretty bad stuff. And at the end of the day, having a universal condemnation of the product does not change the desired performance. MS has heard the concern over performance, I think that's about the best we can do. I have both sims (9 and X)on my machine (as well as fs2002). There is no pressure to start one over the other. I've only been flying fsx. I make no bones about my disappointment in performance. Especially when so well presented by the OP. But especially on my machine (a generation less capable than the OP), E6600 oc to 3ghz...ati x1900xt...2gb ram...Its dissapointing.Does the OP or any reader find it offensive that I naturally prefer fsx for flying? I'm not joking...its simply my choice, I'm not completely sure why even...perhaps still seeing the new stuff. Perhaps the flying is really more fun..I'm not even sure.But for people to be so mean to each other, with such a non-stated, hard to understand basic intent behind the entire thread, I just shake my head.Can't we all be disappointed over performance in peace?Best,Bob Bernstein

Hey Bob, If you can change your statement to "Can't we all disagree over performance in peace" then I'm in. Craig

>> L.Adamson,>> You are feeling the same frustrations I am with some of the>folks> that post here.Considering that FSX has increased ground resolution to 1 meter per pixel, verus 4.8 meters in FS9, I must question anyone, who figures I'm settling for less!Anyone who has seen the difference, which usually means owning and using the product, would see immediately what we're talking about.There are quite a few mountain/city scape pics posted in various forums, that easily show the improvements in FSX. But then some "non-owners" seem to ignore these, or just plain haven't seen them, while pushing their anti FSX agenda.I'm looking at photo-like ground textures with great clarity, and still maintaining close to or at, my target rate of 25 fps. In the end, that's what counts! I'm certainly not settling for less, with the type of simulated flight I prefer.L.Adamson

I'm fairly happy with the performance of FSX on my 3.6 P4 with 8800gts and 2 gb ram. I'm a GA burb flyer and it works great for me as long as water is at the 1 level. I'd love to be able to fly with water maxed but it aint happening. I don't do too much big city flying and i never do heavy iron so for me it's just not a loss. How anyone can say the default FSX isn't FAR superior to FS9 is just outlandish. I have tons of addon scenery for FS9 and the only one that is any good is the Portland flight scenery. That package is amazing and without it I probably wouldn't touch FS9 any more. I actually prefer flying in FS9 BECAUSE of that scenery addon. That guy did an amazing job and with this new video card and high levels of AA and AF it is near photo real. The attention to detail of Portland Intl. is just astounding. It beats anything that FSX has by far. I just hope he does an addon for FSX soon!I, like the rest of you, would like to double my fps in FSX with a magical patch, but there were some grievous management choices made early on which do not coincide with the present and future hardware cpu paths and this is what we are stuck with. It could be better, but it could be a lot worse too.

Sounds like you don't have any scenery add-ons for FS9. Well that's certainly not apples to apples. Try FS9 out of the box if you want to compare. Craig

Dave, your post is one more I can easily read as dissapointed but not so much to overwhelm the pleasure.Is it fair to say we all fit one of these categories:1. Disappointed over frame rates but enjoying the sim2. Disappointed over frame rates and not enjoying the simWhat would justify someone becoming mean spirited over which category a person happens to find themselves?????????????Perhaps you feel ripped off if your in category 2....ok...what would you expect anyone here to do about it?I put several games on the shelf because I couldn't get into them. Tomb raider latest release is a case...I read great reviews, heck they even made a movie about Laura Croft...so the game must be good right? Well, maybe its just me...I didn't enjoy it. Spent good money on it. I never imagined going out on the web and being mean to someone who is enjoying the game. I just won't be a customer in the future.Isn't it time to realize when being mean is over the top, and illogical to boot.I would make a simple request to those that appear to be on a vendetta...the OP is one, the mean spirited folks that responded rudely in this thread are others (note I appreciate the OP not being one of the mean ones), if the guy that demanded "proof" of people having fun with fsx is reading, please count urself in to this....the request is to identify with an "end goal" for your negativism. Sincerely, I'd be interested if you could find a logical reason to continue posting so severely.I assume it must have to do with influencing MS...and perhaps the meanness comes from a lack of universal support for your mission, but believe me...you'll never (and that's a long time) find universal support for anything in this life. Trust me. If this is your first attempt, I hope you stop trying before too long. And you'll do much better gaining support for any mission if you identify your goal clearly. Perhaps we readers could focus on your goal if you finish these statements, like...."If you can get as angry as I am, we can get microsoft to_________." or the converse "If you remain less angry than I am then microsoft won't do ______________."THen people could choose whether to bother with the threads based on the belief they feel for your intended mission. It will feel less like reading constant complaints that way. Does anyone believe MS is Unaware of the performance critque?Is it powerlessness to influence MS that is driving the deal? If so, to what end is trying to influence MS? See the illogic? If you believe you do have power, then you must believe you've been heard. RIght? Bob

Dave, How can you even interject the Portland Scenery in this thread? You can't talk about FS9 with an addon of a very small area that costs about 1/2 of FSX. It's just not reasonable. Multiply Portland (and I'm being generous) by 12000. Near as i can figure that type of scenery would set us back by about $ 240,000 (being generous again) for the whole sim. What a deal. You yourself said Portland is the only one that is any good. When your ready to compare FSX and FS9 both out of the box then feel free to compare. Craig