"I have the Aerosoft SR22 for fsx. It has the glass cockpit, the avidyne, and dual garmin 430's among others. I get about a 8fps hit with this. A hit about what I remember taking in fs9 with the same product."An 8 FPS hit from a baseline of what? 15, 20?Lets be generous and say 20. So now we are down to 12 FPS?I think I must be expecting too much.................

"Hi Glenn, you wouldn't believe how euphoric many of the addon makers are! Averaging 15fps must be a great base to sell addon software!"Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here.15FPS a great base to sell addon software - How so?I would be pretty concerned right now if I was PMDG or Level-DPlease let me know who these 'euphoric' developers are....

>Refund yourself dood!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Please explain how THIS contributes anything useful to the conversation.The tenor of your post is NOT representative of the kinds of posts I've seen here at AVSIM for the last 10 years. Your post is an example of the coursening of the discourse here, and it is case in point about why some people, including Microsoft reps, are shying away from posting at AVSIM. Congratulations on your contribution to the useless negativity.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>"I have the Aerosoft SR22 for fsx. It has the glass cockpit,>the avidyne, and dual garmin 430's among others. I get about a>8fps hit with this. A hit about what I remember taking in fs9>with the same product.">>An 8 FPS hit from a baseline of what? 15, 20?>>Lets be generous and say 20. So now we are down to 12 FPS?>>I think I must be expecting too much.................>More like a baseline of around 30+fps. We do away with cartoon auto-gen for the most part.

Well, thats nice for you photoscenery loving type.....Myself, I prefer the 3D buildings and, more importantly, trees.If you think it's acceptable to dumb it down to pre-FS9 levels but with 1m photo like textures, then that's up to you. Who is 'We' by the way?There seems to be a lot of this 'Forum Royalty' floating around right now......

Geofa wrote". . . I have the Aerosoft SR22 for fsx. It has the glass cockpit, the avidyne, and dual garmin 430's among others. I get about a 8fps hit with this. A hit about what I remember taking in fs9 with the same product.. . . " That is to be expected, but here's the rub: In FS9 one could absorb a drop in FPs of 8 but in FSX there really isn't much room for dropping 8FPs, unless of course, you anothr bush flyer with nothing around to tax the system. As for mesh, it's not these kinds of addons that are going to be problematci but the absorbing, complex aircrat addons made by such develpres as PMDG, LDS, Fly Tampa etc etc. Complex aircraft, complex scenery, custom AI, weather programs are the concern especially when used simultaneously.

You needed to add one more character in your quote, namely the ;-). Jaap was being sarcastic!Gary

I thought I posted what I was getting with the various scenerios above.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>FSX is looking better than Fs9 !Yes, it is. I have UK wide photo scenery at 1m texture resolution and 10m mesh. I can see individual cars on the roads, I can see my own garden and the trees in it.>Why, because the textures look like your having sunglasses on>!>Those colors are not realistic.Look good to me.>Have you ever looked out of the window of a real aircraft ?Yes, I have done 34 hours of the UK pilots license.>If you are happy with lots of sliders set to low settings or>not much more ,keep fooling yourself.No, my sliders are not set to low settings.>Set your water to what you really want , A good AI traffic>package and scenery sliders more to the right and look at your>framerate.I don't want or need AI traffic packages.>Minimal 20 fps ? I bet not !I have my fps set to 20 and I get fluid and smooth flight.>Smooth at 13 fps ? Do you really accept that kinf of fluidness>!>Come on , it has to be 22 + !Occasionally the fps dip but it is still smooth and flyable.>Set up FSX to run smooth and compare what you see with a full>expanded Fs9 .>Your cities will have few buildings compared to Fs9.The 1m textures and the use of shader two mean the textures are far nicer than FS9. I >If you are prepared to sacrafice all features to prove>yourself that you can run FSX with what are you left ?>Like I wrote earlier : a through sunglasses looking empty>Flightsim. No, that is your FSX. Mine is what I want it to be - a fluid sim with much improved flight model and a more lively atmosphere.>Remind me of the good framerates you have when addon airports>come out and you use a good AI traffic package.>>No , the FSX future is not that bright.It is fine here and I can't wait to fly it again.Ray Keattch.

>Well, thats nice for you photoscenery loving type.....>>Myself, I prefer the 3D buildings and, more importantly,>trees.>What would you expect?Geof & I fly real planes and look at real scenery, which is certainly more photo-type than a cartoon painting! :-hah We still get major 3D buildings, less the cartoon like houses placed upon, and somewhat destroying the photo-real textures.Trees? We like them too, but switch to more or less, depending on the type of flight. Once you're a thousand feet above tree's, the photo-type textures do very well.Other than that, IMO, these replies are getting a bit too much on the kiddie side here. Anything wrong with photo-real textures versus blurred 4.8 meters to a pixel? L.Adamson

Me too. I didn't realize how good I had it. :>)

Actually-I got worse with fs9-simply because all those add ins drained it. An average of 25-30 with the above suggested settings can take a 8fps hit in fsx and be fine.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Ahh-but there is the problem-you call it dumbing down-I call a lack non blurry scenery that looks like a photo that I took from my airplane an improvement. I do like the autogen in the coutryside-both trees and buildings-but in the cities it looks to me like lego and not very realistic. The "we" Larry referred to is me I think ,since we are basically running it the same way and getting decent perforance-thanks for calling me royalty but I have never considered myself to be, and have no relations to any as far as I know.By the way-did you run fs9 with everything maxed when it first came out-and do you now? If you are turning anything down to get a balance-is that dumbing down fs9 too? Really-my post was to be helpful, and I am sure some will find it to be so.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Well, thats nice for you photoscenery loving type.....I do have the new photo scenery for the uk and it doesn't require autogen. However, I find the new 1m terrain to be so good, I find the autogen spoils it - looks like cartoon graphics on top of excellent tectures.>Myself, I prefer the 3D buildings and, more importantly,>trees.Fine, then stick with FS9 and be happy with your lot :-)>If you think it's acceptable to dumb it down to pre-FS9 levels>but with 1m photo like textures, then that's up to you. I don't consider it dumbing down as it is what I prefer.Ray Keattch

>Ahh-but there is the problem-you call it dumbing down-I call>a lack non blurry scenery that looks like a photo that I took>from my airplane an improvement. Yes, why would I want cartoon houses scattered about this photo-rich FSX scenery? Can't think of a reason.... :7 http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161258.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161259.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161260.jpg