>>1. Disappointed over frame rates but enjoying the sim>2. Disappointed over frame rates and not enjoying the sim>I don't really fit these catagories either. My target fps these days is set at 25 fps, and the sim holds to it rather well, even with some generous cloud formations, and using FSGenesis terrain mesh.And yes, I do keep auto-gen off for most flights, but the ground textures, especially city and mountain scapes make up for the lack of auto-gen. In fact, auto-gen actually looks cartoony in some situations such as being placed on sub-division textures.Water effects are also off, unless bush type flying where I throw in auto-gen for trees too. I kept water effects off in FS9 for an fps boost, and I have no problem with doing the same in FSX. Besides, the water effects can look great or overdone. Obviously, I'm not using FSX for a high detail airport area. For that, I still have FS9. My main interest is city/mountain flight in the Rocky Mtn. Area of the U.S.A., such as flying out of KSLC towards Denver. Biz jets work well for this.L.Adamson

>>>> 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.>I don't have a problem with addons as a comparison. For the reasons I like to sim fly, I used FSGenesis terrain mesh for FS9, and am doing the same with FSX. FSX with this mesh addition, just looks better in a lot of places that I sim fly. And, there are still a few places that interest me, where FSX looks awful, and FS9 wasn't all that great either!L.Adamson

Well on that point we must agree. I too have FS Genesis for FSX. Now we're on the same page. Craig

OkI still think there is an unspoken mission in the mind of the severe negativity authors. I think there would be more logic, and less complaints if the mission in mind was clear.Perhaps its too strong to say that everyone is dissapointed. If your expectations were met, you're not dissapointed.Perhaps I'm in a unique situation, my expectations weren't met for performance, and still I dislike the barrage of severity published here non-stop for an entire month. I can only believe that it persists because there is no identified mission, just back and forth endlessly with no end in sight.....my fsx works well, my fsx is a complete rip off....well here's data to proove my fsx sux...show me data to proove that yours doesn't suck....on and on. Lets up with the real missions, and then debate their value instead of pretending that how any other individuals feel about their own sim experience really makes any difference to someone else.

I've added some more screen shots of FSX at 40 fps and the graphics setting I messed around with to get consistant (not exactly 40 fps all the time, but close).http://www.nocomsleft.com/SimulationsFSXLowGraphics.aspxSome things you might notice:No AutoGenNo VehiclesNo Other aircraft in the skies or airportA few deserts for terrain (SF/Bay Area has no desert)Airport is emptyNo weatherIf you compare the various FS9 @ 40 fps, FSX @ 10 fps, FSX @ 40 fps over SFO airport you can get a good idea of the differences between the three. I'm sure everyone's level of good/bad/ugly will differ, but FS9 @ 40 fps appears to be the best looking IMHO.Rob.

Some things you might notice:No AutoGenNo VehiclesNo Other aircraft in the skies or airportA few deserts for terrain (SF/Bay Area has no desert)Airport is emptyNo weatherwhats this MSFS 95?

I tried to read most of these posts and I guess the gist of it is that you are not happy with FSX ?Well hard luck really! I run it on a very low setup compared to yours;P4 3GHZ HT PrescottBFG 6800GS OC 256mb AGP 8x2GB 3200 DDRAnd i'm getting very good fps (around 13 - 30 - average 20 ) - with Autogen on 'normal',Traffic 2005 at 70% and most of the .cfg and autogen tweaks applied that were so kindly shared with us all here.I'm at work so cant go into all my settings but my clouds are on detailed 'low', Lensflare OFF, exterior a/c settings all OFF, AA OFF, Texture & Water sliders not as far right as yours ! How anyone comparing your FSX screens with your FS9 ones can say FS9 looks better than FSX leaves me dumbfounded, perhaps my specs need cleaning ??Seems an awful long post for not a lot of purpose - you either like it or not- i, for one, love it !! (and FSX)Mick

Guys, it would appear that there's a pattern emerging here. Those with standard P4's or Pentium D's (myself included) are experiencing a better overall level of performance than those with the newer Core 2's. This seems crazy of course but it's really quite simple. FSX does not support or work with Core 2's as of this time. They need to address this issue URGENTLY as it's fairly obvious to anyone that most users will at some point have to switch over to Core 2's or Quad's or whatever. Same for AMD users and until the time that they enable multi-core usage with FSX it will never get better. Sure having a 8800GTX or 8900GTX or 9900GTX in time might improve things ever so slightly but nothing near as much as would the true usage of multi-core. FSX like FS9 is almost entirely dependant on CPU and until the time that they open it up for that usage it won't change much.RobThe compromise that youv'e had to make to get near on 40fps at SFO is unacceptable to me at least and it defeats the object of the excercise. Why should you have to lose all of those features to get acceptable framerates? It's not right at all. We may as well all go back to FS98. Those simmers who have posted on this thread and other threads saying that "I don't know what all the whining is about" etc are simply deluding themselves by believing that FSX really is that much better, especially if they've had to turn down the settings to an unacceptably low level. How can it be a flight simulator if you have to lose the autogen, the AI, the detailed ground terrain, the water textures?It's not good enough and I say it again, I sincerely hope that Phil has been reading through this thread and that after Thanksgiving we get some sort of positive response and not a compromise.P.S I've no idea why the formatting on this reply is all over the place, sorry about that.

>>>> 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.>> CraigPerhaps you people misunderstood me? Nuances are hard to convey via text i agree. I much prefer FSX to FS9 but think that the Portland scenery is far better than anything FSX has to offer. I also understand the difficulty of creating scenery like this on a world wide scale and certainly hope you don't think i meant to say that MS should have done it all that way with FSX because that is absurd. That's why i said i hope that guy releases some addons for FSX...Anyhow, I also agree that there is too much negative bashing and 'fanboyism' going on. I also count those who disqualify others' opinions on FSX as moot because they don't own the sim as negative posts. LAdamson is a HUGE offender of this one. Just because someone doesn't own the sim does not mean that they are not very familiar with it and its capabilities. We do live in the internet age and can see the game in stores and at friends' houses for example as well as reading about it. It is not required that one own this game to have an informed opinion on it. I was a fileplanet beta tester and was very familiar with the game before i purchased it. Does this mean that before i bought the game my opinion on its problems was worthless? Let's think before we post please, thanks.Overall the game is pretty decent. I'd give it a solid 7 out of 10 with the possibility of a 9 or 10 'if' MS fixes the performance related issues. By fixing, I don't mean releasing a patch that takes away visual quality to increase performance...We are a community, so let's start acting like one!Dave

Arun, You said it yourself. It's a flight simulator. It runs just fine for me. See my post above. I really don't need to see cartoon houses...in either FS9 or FSX. Craig

> I also count those who disqualify>others' opinions on FSX as moot because they don't own the sim>as negative posts. LAdamson is a HUGE offender of this one.>Just because someone doesn't own the sim does not mean that>they are not very familiar with it and its capabilities. >Yea right! :-hah Think about it.....A non-FSX owner is constantly telling me why I'm settling for less, when in many ways I'm getting more, than is capable with FS9. And then I'm suppose to keep my mouth shut? As a long time owner & beta tester of FS9, along with many add-ons to enhance terrain, roads, rivers, etc..........I'm certainly aware of what's possible with FS9, and now FSX. I don't need someone telling me that that I'm a flight sim user who is willing to settle for less. I'm very aware, that in some ways, FSX has less of some, and at the same time "more" of the other. It's the "more" part that has my attention at the moment.L.Adamson

Well, I'd be happy with the ones they had in FS9 if that's the case. Ground scenery without shadows, especially early morning or late aftenoon, looks so fake to me! Maybe MS could offer FS9 style ground scenery shadowing in ... THE PATCH ... ;-)Gary

I think the mission, however distoreded through anger, is quite clear for the most part. The angry mob wants a patch ASAP to address a variety of performance issues and bring this new sim at least the same level of performance as FS9 with visually equivalent settings. Some want FS9 performance at full FSX settings, which we know isn't going to happen if they want all the new FSX features and eye candy to go with it, but I believe this group to be in the minority. Well, at least that's how I read the tea leaves.Gary

Mick,Take a look at the SFO approach Airport screenshots between the three variants, do you really think FSX @ 40 fps is the best looking? Is it possible you were looking at my FS9 screen shot thinking it was FSX?FSX does do some things well such as AF and the relationship between altitude and buildings and water reflections. But look at how much I've had to turn OFF -- FSX isn't matching FS9 it's worse -- that's where my point is. Microsoft have released a product that frame for frame is worse looking than FS9 frame for frame -- this is not good.Many folks are not happy with FSX, I'm just one in a long line.If you still think FSX looks better at the same frame rates, then good for you and I guess we just have different standards of quality.Like FSX or not doesn't mean I can't point out what seem to be some serious flaws/problems in FSX. These problems would appear to be rushed code to meet the holiday season deadline. Microsoft admit they were aware of the poor frame rates (both in the demo and the release) yet rather than wait for Vista and spend more time on better coding/optimization and utilizing DX10, they didn't. As has been pointed out in various magazines/reviews, they released FSX a year too soon. Phil also admitted that Vista did impact some of their resources.Phil is betting the bank of DX10 Vista version saving the day -- is it going to be a 64bit version? Is everyone going to need Vista 64bit? 4GB RAM minium? If you don't plan to upgrade to Vista, then you're really screwed for FSX -- perhaps this was the idea all along?I certainly didn't feel compelled to demonstrate this when moving from FS8 to FS9. I understood the relationship between FS9 clouds and other added features that would cause fps hits, however, I'm not understanding the huge (4X in magnitude) fps hit in FSX at all and I'm very in tuned with graphics coding, DX9, and the various hardware.Some of the things that have come to light:1. There are GPU specific features that are still being perform by the CPU exclusively.2. They're having difficulty with threading and managing multi-core threads (stability issues? hmmm...).3. They could not figure out how to effectively use SLI/Crossfire technologyDon't these 3 items pretty much say to you, we NEED MORE TIME to figure this out BEFORE releasing a product?I'm going to put money down there will be NO DX9 patch of FSX, there will be only a free Vista DX10 version upgrade. There are obvious marketing reasons for this -- this is how Microsoft "leverage".Rob.

Craig,I think what we can agree on is, we all have different levels of "acceptable". Some folks are happy with 20 fps and the visuals that provides them in FSX. But an equal number (or more) are not happy with the performance to visual quality ratio.We can't say "we agree to disagree on performance" because performance really is either there or not. In the case of FSX, the code is just not good enough (see my other post) and I've demonstrated this by showing you what FSX @ 40 fps looks like compared to FS9 @ 40 fps. Clearly, there is a performance problem with FSX.Rob.