You said above - "As far as I see it to solve this terrible "mistake" ,the whole FSX engine has to be re-written so it will benefit from multi-core.Unfortunately I don't see this happen."Hmmmm .....Have you seen the post from Adam Szofran -http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ode=full#373798We (Microsoft) are not planning to wait until FS Eleven to improve the multi-core utilization of the Flight Sim engine. As soon as we have some cool multi-core improvements available, we'll share them with you. It may take a few months, but don't lose all hope.Cheers,AdamIt's under this thread -http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...73635&mode=fullJerryG

>>2) Doom and gloom. You folks really are sounding like Chicken>Little in all this raving. Mark my words, efficient CPU>architecture WILL save the day, even if Vista, DX10 and a>performance patch do not... heck, who knows, perhaps the chip>designers will find another way to squeeze out a few more MHz>in some new technology.>>3) The FS community is thriving. Every day I log into FS sites>and find new updates for FSX. Daily I find new payware>programs being released. Are you folks not seeing this? Has>FSX blinded you?>Yes well said. I am having so much fun with FSX and as you I also get +/- 16 FPS in big cities and 25+ everywhere else and this with autogen on, ofcourse! I can't really understand why systems much better than mine can't run FSX satisfactory. It's a mystery to me.They must be doing something wrong.Stelios

Yes, I have seen this thread. What does it have to do with hardware?My statement still stands that without a major patch from ACES, FSX wll not be able to take advantage of any new hardware.Now it appears we will get that patch......This is EXACLTY what needs to be done and should have been done before FSX was even released.

All this talk, and all these comparions! Heck, all MY comparisons! I keep jumping back and forth between FSX and FS9 as so many others do!But this mornings flight takes the cake! First off, I live in a very photogenic city, Salt Lake City, which was the site of the 2002 Winter Olympics, and has the beautiful Rocky Mountain ranges as it's backdrop. We're in a valley at the 4200' level with mountain ranges rising from 12000 to 14000' on both sides.About 8:30 this morning I took off out of KSLC in the default Cessna Caravan, which has an excellent virtual cockpit BTW, and headed out over the valley eastwards towards the foothills of the Rockies, as the sun is rising using real weather which is a various mix of broken clouds.I even threw in a generous mix of AI to populate our Class B airport, and naturally my fps dropped from the standard of 25 to 14-17 but at least stutter free.But what's important, is the look of the climb, the feel, the movements of the aircraft in releation to the airmass, and just the complete suspension of belief, in which virtual reality can seem to replace reality.No, I don't need to hear that ACES supposeably failed, when I'm in total relm of virtual belief as I see the city scape foothills below and snow covered mountains stretching out in the distance for a hundred miles.And yes, I impressed beyond belief! I've used world wide flight simulation since the beginning of desktop PC's, and nothing has recreated reality like this mornings flight just did! Keep in mind, that this is my scenery area, and my particular senario. But it's sure a good looking place to fly!Will I be back to FS9 for some other scenario? Sure, but just not for a while. FSX is just too good, if you know where to look!L.AdamsonAthlon64 3700/2GIG/Geforce7600GS 256MB/ 16500*1200*32

"No, I don't need to hear that ACES supposeably failed, when I'm in total relm of virtual belief as I see the city scape foothills below and snow covered mountains stretching out in the distance for a hundred miles."L. Adamson, We get it I think. There is no need to constantly bombard us with how happy you are. If your happy with 14-17 fps than thats great. I really mean it, but by now I think most of us have heard you. The rest of us don't share that opinion and every time someone posts that, you come in and talk about your flight sim revelation. It's getting kind of old. I see several large problems that need addresing fairly quickly and they dont include updates for dual core or the vaunted DX10 patch. There are some HUGE 3rd party issues and performance must be addressed. The SDK's are broken in several areas, just look at the dearth of add-ons, ever wonder why? Most of the developers of 3rd party stuff have HAD THEM FOR A WHILE. I have shelved FSX for the time being. I can get great frame rates with a crippled sim but choose to rather use FS9 with everything turned on. Its simply a far more satisfying and real experience for most of us. Frame rates are VERY important and I get tired of folks telling me how "smooth" 15 fps is. It's silly. I think we all get that there are folks who can enjoy the sim in it's crippled state and thats fine. We just don't need to be persuaded. Thats what it appears a lot of the "happy" users are doing. It also sounds quite condescending on occasion and I think thats why your seeing more friction than usual. No malice or nastiness meant here at all. I value your opinion as a long time user, just this time I dont share it.Hornit

Well here's my take! Initially I was as critical of FSX performance as others here. When I first installed it on my new E6600 Core 2 Duo, 2Gb system, it was abizmal, if Autogen and traffic was set, even low. Even after applying the tweaks. That was later found to be a hardware problem with my system, (Bus (133Mhz), and CPU core speeds (1.2Ghz) were cut in half) I'm awaiting a replacement now! In the meantime, I got my P4 3.8Ghz 2Gb working again, and installed FSX there. At first I was getting better framerates, but still unflyable at the more dense airports like KATL, KJFK, and Cities like NYC. Since then I applied the tweaks posted by Ryan at PMDG! I now can get FS9 performance in FSX. This biggest improvements I got seemed to stem, from the Autogen tweaks, and Updating my BIOS. (It was 2 years old). I now get 12-17FPS at dence cities, and airports. (That is the same or better than I get with FS9 with max scenery, UTUSA, GEPRO, UT Trafic@100%. Even with clouds at altitude, I get 30+fps everywhere else. This again, is about the same or better than I get in FS9 (With the above sttings) with non complex aircraft, Aircraft like PMDG & LDS is lower in FS9 Ranging 20-30 FPS. This is all with the following environment in FSX.No FSX default TrafficNo FSX ground Traffic100% UT Traffic (With UT Traffic file.)FSG LandclassUT AI aircraft - (No FSX aircraft for Traffic)Fly Overland Airliners, FSX GA aircraft.FSX Settings!Hardware1280X1024X32 res (Max res for my ProjectorBilinear filteringAnti Alias off (Set in Graghics card settings to 2XQ)Global Texture Resolution Very HighLens Flare OffLight Bloom offAdvanced Animations OnAircraft3D VC checkedHigh resolution 3D VC OnAircraft Shadows on Ground OffAircrat Cast Shadows on self OffAircraft Landing Lights Illuminate Ground OnSceneryLevel of Detail Radius LargeMesh Complexity 70Mesh Resolution 19mTexture Resolution 1mWater Effects 2.x LowScenery Complexity Etremely DenseAutogen Density DenseGround Casts Shadows off.Special Effects Detail HighWeatherCloud Draw Distance 70miThermal Visualization NoneSimple Clouds OffDetailed Clouds OnCloud Coverage Density MaximumTrafficAirline Traffic Density 100%GA Traffic Density 0%Airport Vehicle Density 0%Road Vehicles 0%Ships and Ferries 0%Leisure Boats 0%SystemP4 3.8Ghz Prescott2Gb MemGeforce 256MB 7800 GTI think there may be something to the point that mostly the people with dual core processors are having the most problem, with it not utilizing both cores and it's reduced clock speed. People with higher clock speed single core processors seem to reporting better results! When I get my replacement E6600 system (Looks like it will actually be a E6700 system, as they upgraded me according to the order status) I can do comparisons on this, now that I have a baseline single core system.

> The rest of us don't share that opinion and every time>someone posts that, you come in and talk about your flight sim>revelation. It's getting kind of old.Jim, with respect you need to recognize that this cuts both ways...It's become more than tiresome having to read the incessant posts from those folks who are seemingly on a jihad to convert everyone to their belief(s)... from either camp! ;)BTW, just who are "the rest of us" anyway? That specific syntax implyies that everyone except Mr. Adamson shares your opinion...

> We get it I think. There is no need to constantly bombard us>with how happy you are. If your happy with 14-17 fps than>thats great. I really mean it, but by now I think most of us>have heard you.>> The rest of us don't share that opinion and every time>someone posts that, you come in and talk about your flight sim>revelation. It's getting kind of old.>So...........In other words, as a pilot who actually fly's aircraft over this city and landscape.........Which gives me some excellent authority on which to base my opinions..I'm am not allowed to post my "positive FSX thoughts" on an FSX forum!!!And that's because the rest of you anti FSX sim pilots don't share my opinion!And after a month FSX "positives" are getting OLD???Besides, who are the rest of you, as though you're all but me? I can name numerous pilots on this board who share my enthusiam!And get off the low FPS bull concerning me. I run close to 25 for the flight I described. Smooth and stutter free. I wouldn't be content with less either.Maybe we can have an Avsim armchair forum to put replies like this in. What a disappointment to the flight sim enthusiast's when postives regarding a sim are shunned by those who have their eyes and ears shut, have axed the sim and don't want to hear or see anymore. A sad day indeed! But what the ****, in the world scheme of things, flight simming means little anyway...L.Adamson

Of course the FSX `experience has positives. But it also has many negatives. No-one can be blind to those faults, surely?But why is it that our American brothers so often persist in seeing issues in Black or White? What we have here is not angels v. villains, but a widespread and heartfelt feeling that FSX is a Bridge too Far, AND an acceptance from the developers that they did make a mistake, and assurances they are endeavouring to fix it. Some are happy enough with the compromise. Well good luck to them, but it doean't defeat the argument - and the acceptance - that FSX IS flawed. I know it, YOU know it. ACES know it. Good. Now the issue is not whether its `good` or `bad`, not even HOW good or HOW bad, just what they are going to do to fix it, and how long we are going to have to wait to use the product we bought and paid for on the basis of assurances that it would work better than it does?After that, who cares what anyone here thinks? Personally, if I want ultra-smooth frame rates and fantastic realism, I go climb in a real plane and go real flying. And guess what>? Even that experience is never `perfect`. Get a grip on reality gentlemen. Allcott

>Of course the FSX `experience has positives. But it also has>many negatives. No-one can be blind to those faults, surely?I believe that very few around here, are blind to faults. All versions of MSFS, FLY, Pro-Pilot, and X-Plane have had them.>>Some are happy enough with the compromise. Well good luck to>them, but it doean't defeat the argument - and the acceptance>- that FSX IS flawed. I know it, YOU know it. >Again, all simulations are compromised in one way or another. The particular experiences I make reference to, are far from a compromise, but vastly superior. And I've stated that these scenarios do not apply across the board.>Even that experience is never `perfect`. >Perhaps you need a change of location! :)L.Adamson

Some times when I read post in here it makes me wonder if some of the people who trash FSX have even tried it. When I load up FSX I see a stunning visual Sim with pretty good FPS in most areas.I have no ideal what some of this posters are going on about because either I'm just one of the lucky few that can run FSX or there is a lot of 2nd hand BS making the rounds. Here is a fact that out of the box FSX blows away FS9. FS9 takes a whole lot of tweaking and addons to make it look even close to FSX. Yet the same people who claim the can't be bothered with tweaking or doing this or that for FSX are reallying not giving you the full story about what they have to do with switching and other tricks to make FS9 shine also.

Pain

Well as I see it fellas, you've spent some $50-70 on the game and lord knows how many hundreds or thousands of dollars on Dual Core, 3GB doohickey machines with bells buzzers and whistles.You are happy with FSX or FSX peforms great or FSX is awesome.WHen one looks into some of these posts however, one also sees autogen slider all the way left AI Aircraft set low, water textures switched off, ground traffic switch off or set low.It's not rocket science, nor does it need a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out that FSX is flawed.What is the point of including all these nice features within the game, knowing #### well that no-one, but no-one has a system that will take advantage of these features?Still you guys just keep telling yourself that FSX is great (and make sure you tell the wife the same) After all you really need to justify spending all those mega bucks on something you cannot run properly.BC

I'm happy and have not spent anything on FSX. So painless here. No point in you guys going on about FSX to many photos and Videos of it running just fine on a lot of computers.

>>WHen one looks into some of these posts however, one also sees>autogen slider all the way left AI Aircraft set low, water>textures switched off, ground traffic switch off or set low.Have you every really looked at FSX's built in photo-city textures, versus FS9's less than pleasing muddy textures with cartoon auto-gen?Doesn't appear so...