>Peter:>>In what resolution are you tying to run FSX? Have you updated>to the latest ATI drivers? What are your X1950XTX core and>mem speeds? Thanks for the replyI am running fsx at 1600x1200x32 on one monitor the extended monitor is 1280x1024x32vpu /gpu current graphic processor status requested 506 mhz - 648 mhzgraphic mem statusrequested 594 mhz- 999mhz( no overclocking )

I may be wrong but was under the impression that sli/crossfire does not work with multiple monitors.... Anyway, did you defrag your hard drive after FSX installation?Was this a custom made PC? or did you build it yourself? or buy it from a store?Have you tried just running FSX on ONE monitor?

>I may be wrong but was under the impression that>sli/crossfire does not work with multiple monitors.... >>Anyway, did you defrag your hard drive after FSX>installation?>>Was this a custom made PC? or did you build it yourself? or>buy it from a store?>>Have you tried just running FSX on ONE monitor?it was custom buit,,Hard to get all of that stuff in a premanufactured pcI have defragedCrossfire mode only works on one monitor but I do use two monitors is extended mode.. thankspeter

Peter,the machine you have is up to date for all the new games that are on the market now and will be up to date for all games that will be released in the next time.It isn´t your fault that FSX runs slow on your machine, it´s ACES/MS fault. They didn´t understand how to support up to date hardware which is absoltely necessary nowadays. And i hope they will get punished for this.I for myself gave up on FSX and went back to FS9 which isn´t that bad compared to FSX. Be happy that your FS9 is running smooth on your machine ! As mentioned above, you can´t do anything against the slow performance of FSX (i sometimes wonder which machines the ACES Dev´s have used for testing and programming).Ron

Do a test for me. Remove the second X1950XTX from your machine and run FSX with one monitor. Performance increase huh?Think about what you are trying to do. You are running two to sets of visuals on two different graphics cards with ONE CPU (FSX does not do dual) to process the textures for both... Me thinks that this is a case where the mind is willing but the flesh is too weak.In SLI mode (if you have a PCIe 32 MoBo...if you have just a PCIe 16 mobo, then cut the values in half), you are running the same visuals down a 16x2 PCIe pipe to be combined on the Crossfire card and shared with the non-Crossfire card, emulating 1 faster PCIe 32 card with dual GPUs. If you are splitting the cards for two monitors then you are sending one set up graphics down one PCIe 16 (or 8) pipe and another down the other PCIe 16 (or 8) pipe. The visuals on the first card are different than the visuals on the second card...something has to do the processing for both sets of visuals right?Hence the need for WideView so you can split the processing for multiple views on multiple CPUs.EDITED: Spelling / Content

Buck:One of the cards has to be a special CrossFire card, which is always the primary, and the second a regular card. People who don't do this and try to simply drop two regular cards end up with a mess.

Most people that complain about performance with fsx use ati cards. I think that there is a serious problem with ati and fsx.

>Peter,>>the machine you have is up to date for all the new games that>are on the market now and will be up to date for all games>that will be released in the next time.>It isn

Ron, How can you make a blanket statement that it's ACES/MS fault that FSX runs slow on his machine? From everything I've read if the forum the folks that have the most problems with FSX are running CoreDuo or ATI or both. I guess I can make the same blanket statement that CoreDuo and ATI are at fault then. Runs just fine on my machine. CraigASUS A8N- nForce SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCIe MOBOAMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HT Tech 512 Cache VeniceLG GWA-4161 DVD/CD200GB Maxtor SATA 150 8MB Cache80GB Maxtor Ultra ATA 133EVGA 7900 GT KO PCIe nvodngov19147-[Guru3D.com] drivers SB Audigy 22G Corsair PC 3200 400MHZ Dual Channel DDR Super Alien 500W P/SRunway 34R KSEA FR 14-16. Once airborne 21-251280 X 1024 X 32Target Frame Rate - 25Global Texture Resolution - Very HighAdvanced Animation - checkedFilter - TrilinearAA - checkedAircraft: Default 7373-D Virtual CockpitHigh Resolution 3-D checkedaircraft casts shadows on ground -checkedScenery:LOD-LargeMesh Complexity: 100Mesh Resolution - 10mTexture Resolution - 1 mWater Effects - high 1.xland detail - checkedScenery complexity

>Craig,, what fsx frame rates do you experience and under what settings..Do you run one monitor or two and are you running fsuipc or other addons?thanks in advance peter> Ron,>> How can you make a blanket statement that it's ACES/MS fault>that > FSX runs slow on his machine?>> From everything I've read if the forum the folks that have>the most> problems with FSX are running CoreDuo or ATI or both.>> I guess I can make the same blanket statement that CoreDuo>and ATI> are at fault then.>> Runs just fine on my machine.>> Craig>>ASUS A8N- nForce SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCIe MOBO>AMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HT Tech 512 Cache Venice>LG GWA-4161 DVD/CD>200GB Maxtor SATA 150 8MB Cache>80GB Maxtor Ultra ATA 133>EVGA 7900 GT KO PCIe nvodngov19147-[Guru3D.com] drivers >SB Audigy 2>2G Corsair PC 3200 400MHZ Dual Channel DDR >Super Alien 500W P/S>>Runway 34R KSEA FR 14-16. Once airborne 21-25>>1280 X 1024 X 32>Target Frame Rate - 25>Global Texture Resolution - Very High>Advanced Animation - checked>Filter - Trilinear>AA - checked>Aircraft: Default 737>3-D Virtual Cockpit>High Resolution 3-D checked>aircraft casts shadows on ground -checked>Scenery:>LOD-Large>Mesh Complexity: 100>Mesh Resolution - 10m>Texture Resolution - 1 m>Water Effects - high 1.x>land detail - checked>Scenery complexity

Core Duo is the most standard today. Haven´t seen any computer that doesn´t have Core Duo, Core2Duo. This is standard today. And it is ACES/MS fault not supporting that technology.Bought some days ago Medieval 2 Total War and i´m able to play that game on my 2 years old Dell Inspiron XPS (Geforce Go 6800 Ultra) with just the Bloom and reflections disabled. Not any additional tweak applied like for FSX.You are also using trilinear texture filtering instead of any anisotropic mode, for sure just for performance. Anisotropic is a fps killer in FSX (only in FSX). Bilinear or Trilinear gives better performance but not so good image quality.Same with Water details on High 1.x. Your water looks only a bit better than in FS9. Of course i can also adjust my sliders to get good performance at the cost of quality.And i´m not the only one that thinks ACES/MS didn´t made their home work good.Ron

Peter,I too have 4Gb of RAM but I'm running an Intel 955 Extreme MOBO with a 3.8Ghz CPU. The thing that caught my interest was your bus clock speed. Have you checked out the specs on your MOBO to see what the designed bus speed spec is. On my system the bus clock is 800MHz and I use Corsair 1Gb memory modules capabile of running 800MHz. Naturally I run my system's bus at 800MHz (more than 3 times what you're running). Note: Match your memory specs to the type of MOBO you have - this is critical.I will step out on a limb and tell you that having the right kind of memory is critical to maximizing the performance of your computer. It took me three tries at getting quality memory that supported my particular mother board (I'm talking quality here - not technical operation). And, in my opinion, having 2Gb sticks as opposed to 1Gb modules does not increase system performance (max memory being equal). Bottom line - buyer beware - not all memory is created equal - no matter what anyone says.One more thing - stop looking at FPS. This is a relative data element and it does not provide the performance indicator people seem to think it does. You could put one person's system next to another person's system and get completely different FSP indications - even if their FS settings were the exact same. There are far too many factors that influence that number to make ANY type of comparison useful. If your system runs without stutters and the graphics look OK, consider yourself lucky and turn off the FPS monitor. I guarantee you'll be much happier. :-)fbFSX BETA Tester

>Peter,>>I too have 4Gb of RAM but I'm running an Intel 955 Extreme>MOBO with a 3.8Ghz CPU. The thing that caught my interest was>your bus clock speed. Have you checked out the specs on your>MOBO to see what the designed bus speed spec is. On my system>the bus clock is 800MHz and I use Corsair 1Gb memory modules>capabile of running 800MHz. Naturally I run my system's bus>at 800MHz (more than 3 times what you're running). Note: >Match your memory specs to the type of MOBO you have - this is>critical.>>I will step out on a limb and tell you that having the right>kind of memory is critical to maximizing the performance of>your computer. It took me three tries at getting quality>memory that supported my particular mother board (I'm talking>quality here - not technical operation). And, in my opinion,>having 2Gb sticks as opposed to 1Gb modules does not increase>system performance (max memory being equal). Bottom line ->buyer beware - not all memory is created equal - no matter>what anyone says.>>One more thing - stop looking at FPS. This is a relative data>element and it does not provide the performance indicator>people seem to think it does. You could put one person's>system next to another person's system and get completely>different FSP indications - even if their FS settings were the>exact same. There are far too many factors that influence>that number to make ANY type of comparison useful. If your>system runs without stutters and the graphics look OK,>consider yourself lucky and turn off the FPS monitor. I>guarantee you'll be much happier. :-)>>fb>FSX BETA TesterGreat advice,, it just makes one a little crazy after a while. It's too bad I ever learned that little shiftZ command,, regards...Peter

With all due respect comparing Medieval 2 to FSX isn't comparing apples to apples. You haven't seen any computer that doesn't have Core2Duo? Then you haven't seen to many machines apparently. As far as not using AA I'm doing it because of appearance and not performance. Even with the settings I'm using FSX is far superior to FS9 as far as appearance. My contention is that Intel sold folks a bill of goods when it comes to their CoreDuo and that the folks that have them had expectations that exceeded the capability of the processor. Craig

Let's not run rampant here. This is the most insane argument I've seen yet pro / con FSX performance.The CoreDue, while not a "standard", is the fastest processor group available for the PC at this time...period. Every single review on the CoreDuo has been exemplarary and performance has push the vast majority of titles to stratospheric performance figures. The CoreDuo blows the pants off of ANYTHING that AMD has, figures don't lie, and the world is waiting to see what AMDs answer is going to be because even AMD's (FX) flagship processors get a kick in the pants from the CoreDuo.Secondly, your logic is the equivolent of blaming the sun for being in your eyes while you are sitting in your living room. The problem is not with the sun, the problem is with the fact that someone was stupid enough to build the house facing that direction and hoping the sun will correct itself to suit your needs.Software developers develop to take advantage of the CPU, not the other way around which is why Aces ended up in this pickle with FSX. If 99% of the other software screams on a CoreDuo, but not FSX, do you want to reconsider this statement? "My contention is that Intel sold folks a bill of goods when it comesto their CoreDuo and that the folks that have them had expectationsthat exceeded the capability of the processor."Now, who was it who sold whom something that exceeded the capapbility of the processor? Hint: It wasn't Intel (OR AMD).