>>For those of you who think I'm lazy or who claim they only>>spent a couple of hours to tweak and 'graciously' offer to>>help me with those 'trivial' tweaks, I've got news for you.>I>>am in the process of buiding a full Boeing 737 flight deck>>with a full complement of excellent PM software and I have>>also built a fully functional replica of a 737 throttle>>assembly including servos to control the throttles & the>>spoilers deployment. I'm also an IT professional and I spend>a>>lot of time working with buggy applications. Your trivial 2>>hour tweaks would still produce a slide show for me.>>Maurice ->>I agree with the last part of your post (not quoted here). You>hit the nail on the head.>>But the tone of the first part of your post? Is it really>productive? Are we to be impressed by the term IT>professional? Or that you are one of countless numbers of>hobbyists building wanna-be cockpits? You want respect for>these things? The IT professionals I deal with everyday in my>work have no leg up on understanding the FS9 or FSX engine and>what makes it tick, even if they've been flight simming for>years. I suspect that you probably do know what you want and>how to best get it working on your systems, but leave the "pay>heed to what I say because I'm and IT building a cockpit" at>the door. You might find that others here have experience that>would leave yours in the dust.>>ciao!>>Bart Bartholomay>>Deacon>tg272Bart,I really could not care less whether anybody respects me or not. I'm old enough to be way beyond such trivial nonsense. Stating any of my accomplishments was just an FYI to establish some kind of credibility for what I am saying and not a way to boast for my accomplishments which are minute compared to the multitude of far better qualified & knowledgeable people in this world . It's quite obvious in this forum than no one can ever express a simple opinion without being subjected to a flame war. Grow up!

After trying this and that, I found that many tweaks indeed were not as powerful as I thought.What I did was reverting all and then adding one after the other until I had about the performance I had before with all tweaks.My system:Pentium D 8301 GB RAMGeForce 6700 XL 128 MBNote: Low video memory might cause texture reduction tweaks to show more impact in this case.My results are:Tweaks and configuration applied to get a good balance:FSX.cfg tweaks:Fiber frame rate: Tried values from 0.66 to 0.10 - settled to between 0.20 and 0.25 for best results. Good framerates and not too many blurries. This setting seems to have the biggest impact on my system.Texture bandwith multiplier: Tried the standard of 40 up to 375. I'm now using 300 as it seems to speed loading up a bit.Autogen max trees: Had it rather low, but now I'm back to 2400.Autogen max buildings: now at 1800Pool Size: Something between 4000000 and 4500000 worked well for me. 5 million seemed to be to high for my system.Autogen directory tweaks:I had the AutogenDescriptions.spb tweak and the different default.xml file installed, but removing them didn't have a really noticable impact on framerates. So everything reverted to standard now.Texture reduction tweaks:Clouds have an impact on my system as soon as weather get's heavier.I applied the Cloud texture reduction batch conversion and it really helped.Also applied water and runway/taxiway batch files as visual impact is low and it might free some more video memory.FSX configuration:Target Framerate: >25Filtering: TrilinearAnti-Alias: OffGeneral Texture Resolution: Max. Leeds to VC and airplane textures at highest quality which is very noticable concerning the overall look.Light Bloom: Off. Drops my fps by about 10.Lense flare: On.Advanced Animations: On.High quality VC: On.Aircraft shadow on ground: On.Aircraft self-shadow: Off.Landing lights illumination: On.LOD radius: Max.Mesh Resolution: 19 or 38m. Don't know what's the maximum with stock terrain.Mesh Detail: 52 or 56. Sometimes it almost seemed as if values above 50 even improved performance instead of reducing it.Texture Resolution: 1mWater Detail: Low 2.xLand Detail Structure: On.Scenery Complexity: Very Dense (important for displaying of jetways)Autogen Density: NormalGround Scenery Shadows: Off.Special Effects Detail: Medium.Cloud Draw Distance: Minimum.Cloud Detail: Detailed.Cloud Density: One notch from minimum. Don't know the designation.Weather Change Rate: - see Cloud Density -AI airliners: 10%AI general aviations: 5%Airport Vehicle Density: Medium.AI vehicles: 15%AI Ferries/Ships: 15%Leisure boats: 5%System tweaks:After starting FSX, I set the process priority to highest (not real-time).I stopped as many processes as safely possible to get way above 700MB free physical memory.I set Windows style to classic. No wallpaper, no modern style windows.Anti-Alias driver settings: 2x (2xQ blurs textures, 4x costs too much performance)AF: Either off or 2x. (the 6700 XL is rather an overclocked 6600 and doesn't pack too much)These are my settings. There might be one or the other error, as I wrote this without having the opportunity to look at the settings again, but this is how I remember them.I think those setting could be called medium concerning what some people seem to have proposed on this forum. To my own surprise, this runs rather well. Except for some moments when things have to be loaded, it never falls into single digits. Most times it's above 15 fps, even at bigger airports (don't mention KSEA, that's a different story). Bush flying get's me to the framerate limiter, while autogen density looks nice.My conclusion is either some system require custom tailored tweaks, because some tweaks depend on what's the main problem: Machine speed, driver problems or just low memory.If a future patch allows full use of multiple core systems, then my system could make another jump forward, as the Pentium D is not fully used now. So things can only get better... not worse.

Great post...I wonder if it would help (perhaps it's being done already) if a site were set up to allow people to enter in all of their system's parameters/elements, tweak settings, etc., so that over time a consensus could be achieved that really meant something and directed others to find that frame rate nirvana?Bart BartholomayDeacontg272

> Grow up!Isn't this my point?Bart BartholomayDeacontg272

I also found most of the "tweaks" did nothing for me-and most are turning down big improvements in fsx to some level. In an effort to perhaps help though-I think it keeps getting missed that the ultimate tweak imho is the multi config files-setting up various settings for various modes of flight that keep performance and visuals exactly at a level you can live with. This is the only tweak that works for me-and it keeps me flying comfortably, happy, and with a significant wow factor.One should really explore this aspect before giving up-there is lots of fun that may be missed otherwise...http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...9&page=3#372990http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>> Grow up!>>Isn't this my point?>>Bart Bartholomay>>Deacon>tg272Whatever.

Maurice Please post your hardware specs and FSX settings

>>> Maurice>> Please post your hardware specs and FSX settings> If you are asking because you would like to help, thank you very much & I appreciate that. But getting help was never my intent in my first post. Expressing my opinion was & this was obviously a mistake on my part for which I do apologize since it took time away from more valuable inputs from those that are truly interested in bettering this hobby rather than taking cheap shots at those they disagree with.Suffice it to say that my current system is more than capable of running a full 737 flight deck with PM software, CDU, MCP, throttle hardware & Mega Scenery with most sliders maxed under FS9 and fluid enough that I never have to think about or even look at frame rates. This should have been enough to run FSX out of the box with sliders mid-range imho :-) (sorry for another 'opinion' :-)

If you don't want my advice and or help Maurice that's your call. I don't care if you can run the Space Shuttle with your system. I asked because it provides others with an insight and comparison for their own system. If you are interested in bettering the hobby as you state it sure doesn't appear that way to me. So with that said I suggest you refrain from further posts and let FSX gather dust on a shelf. FS9 is the past and FSX is the present. Craig

>>> If you don't want my advice and or help Maurice that's your>call.>> I don't care if you can run the Space Shuttle with your>system.>> I asked because it provides others with an insight and>comparison>> for their own system.>> If you are interested in bettering the hobby as you state it>sure>> doesn't appear that way to me.>> So with that said I suggest you refrain from further posts>and >> let FSX gather dust on a shelf.>> FS9 is the past and FSX is the present.>> CraigVery amusing indeed and very sad at the same time. No wonder the world is in such a mess when even a simple discussion about a hobby elicits such vitriolic responses. And whether I choose to participate further or not is really none of your business. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts and/or reply to me, so take a pill, relax & wait for the coming 'apocalypse' which is just around the corner when MS releases the next patch or new version. Oh, by the way, my last post was not intended to 'better the hobby'; I was just expressing appreciation for those who truly are. I thought you might have been one of those, but my guess now would be you have a different agenda.

Crikey man let him express his opinion its a free world if you disagree fair enough but be polite.

Maurice, I really can't figure out why your posting anything at all. I have responded to numerous posts in the forum seeking the the holy grail for FSX. While I certainly don't have all the answers regarding the matter in all instances I have pointed the person to a site or sites that provided tweaks to improve FSX performance. When asked I have willingly posted hardware specs as well as FSX settings. I have yet to receive a thank you. I believe I have enough experience with MSFS since I have been a user since 1984 and have used more hardware during that time than most of the "casual" FS users so I would think that qualifies me to offer guidance and help with all versions of FS. You don't need a Phd in computer science to make FS work better but you certainly must have a desire to do so. So again; I am more than happy to offer you any assistance you need in order to get FSX to a point where it would be enjoyable for you. The forums used to be a place where folks went to ask for or offer assistance. Until the release of FSX I have never seen so many folks make statemests about how FSX is unusable. I find it interesting that most of them are the ones that have what many would be considered state of the art hardware. So again; if you want to get your moneys worth out of FSX I offer you the chance to ask questions of anyone in the forums that might help you do that myself included. Sincerely, Craig

I guess to many poster in here that have FSX running well on their computer its just getting old. The I can't be bothered with at least trying to make FSX run either with a few tweaks or heaven forbid moving the sliders.I have seen poster after poster try to help some and all that happens isthey are vented at over someones angry with Microsoft or Aces in some cases both.So if you find the answer to why FSX is not running on some computers while it does on others thats great. All we are asking if the users who can't be bothered with help and then rants all day long, to find something better to do for a while is calling people names so be it.

Craig,I never set out to judge anyone (MS excluded), criticize any individual or put down anyone who has a different opinion than mine. Unless I am severely mistaken, I don't think there are any rules on this forum that discourage anyone from expressing an opinion. Everyone has the right to agree, disagree or ignore such opinions.What stunned me is not that people disagreed with me, which I certainly expected, but that they took the opportunity to make wild disparaging comments about my character &/or intentions when they know absolutely nothing about me. If you knew me, you would know that I have been extremely helpful in other forums where my skills are more appropriate than in this particular forum. I am not an FS expert by any means, and that is why I feel frustrated by the fact that I have to relearn & re-apply everything once more even though my simulator is fairly static and represents just one type of airplane (which is not the norm for most people in this forum).I would happily remain with FS9 except that I know that it will soon be very difficult to use various desirable add-ons because they will likely be made specifically for FSX and not FS9. I do realize you can't stop progress & that is why I jumped on the bandwagon & bought FSX. My expectations were not that dramatic I thought. I knew there were issues with frame rates, but I really believed that this could just be taken care of by lowering the various quality sliders. I have never been shy about asking for help when I need it; it's just that at this time, I am too deep in my flight deck building to bother with figuring out how to make FSX work for me now. Again, I was just expressing an opinion (valid or not) about the product with never the slightest intent to offend anyone or imply that their claims about frame rates are exagerated or altogether wrong. All I know is that in my flight deck, FSX is currently unusable, period. I never said it would not or could never work and I know that with time, I will likely become a fan of FSX as well (until FS11 comes out of course).So, to conclude, I wasn't questioning your willingness or ability to help others. Without meaningful discussions and/or disagreements, flight simulation would probably never have reached the level it has reached now. But discussions often involve or are triggered by conflicting opinions. Are you really saying I should stay out of this forum and never post anything because opinions are never welcomed here. If that is the case, then you are quite right, I should stay out of here. I would certainly hope though that you are more enlightened than that & that you do not always dismiss anybody who does not agree with you.Regards,

>What stunned me is not that people disagreed with me, which I>certainly expected, but that they took the opportunity to make>wild disparaging comments about my character &/or intentions>>when they know absolutely nothing about me. If you knew me,>you would know that I have been extremely helpful in other>forums where my skills are more appropriate than in this>particular forum. I am not an FS expert by any means, and that>is why I feel frustrated by the fact that I have to relearn &>re-apply everything once more even though my simulator is>fairly static and represents just one type of airplane (which>is not the norm for most people in this forum).>For those of you who think I'm lazy or who claim they only>spent a couple of hours to tweak and 'graciously' offer to>help me with those 'trivial' tweaks, I've got news for you. I>am in the process of buiding a full Boeing 737 flight deck>with a full complement of excellent PM software and I have>also built a fully functional replica of a 737 throttle>assembly including servos to control the throttles & the>spoilers deployment. I'm also an IT professional and I spend a>lot of time working with buggy applications. Your trivial 2>hour tweaks would still produce a slide show for me.Where the confusion crept in, for me at least, can be implied from these two quotes from Maurice. The first was from his last post, and really does indicate a willingness to participate in a positive and professional manner. And the second, from an earlier post, indicates just the opposite -- almost antagonistic -- perhaps in his use of terms such as "trivial."Bart BartholomayDeacontg272