>Lastly on the comment of the speed of the front side bus, Is>it something that is typically user changeable??Yes, it frequently is, as are a host of other variables commonly changed when people overclock their systems. It depends on the particular system bios what settings can be changed. Some information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_side_bus.Answering the question directly, 266Mhz is not particularly slow for a FSB speed. That times the clock multiplier give you your 2.4Ghz cpu speed.

Peter, I get the following with no Autogen: Runway 34R KSEA FR 14-16. Once airborne 21-25. Target FR 25. If I bush fly I can turn Autogen all the way up and still get between 20=25 with target still set at 25. I am running (2) moniters. 1 LCD set at 1280x1024x32 1 CRT set at 1024x768x32 I am running FSUIPC and FS Genesis Terrain Mesh for FSX. I also was able to port the Aeroworx Super King Air and the Eaglesoft Cessna Citation X over to FSX and the both run well with no noticeable impact on FR. Craig

I didn't say that CoreDuo was'nt the fastest out there. I said that people have expectations that aren't met by the CoreDuo. Just because Intel and benchmarks say so it really doesn't matter when it comes to FSX. A great majority of FSX complaints are from folks with a CoreDuo.

fb:I find it stunning (for lack of a better word) that you would say:"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."First, FPS is NOT a "relative data element" it is an ABSOLUTE data element because it is not based on perception, gut instinct, tingles on the back of your neck or what YOU think is fluid. It is THE STANDARD by which most game titles are measured. Why? Because it tells you what your tolerance for visual scalability happens to be. When you know what your FPS is for a given system, then you know what you are working with and 100% of game testing and hardware reveiw labs tend to agree with that.FPS does exectly what you claim it doesn't do which is give a performance indicator. Then you know what your working with, how far your can push your system and what tweaks to apply. This is called a targeted approach v. a shotgun approach where you close your eyes and hope one of the dozens of tweaks work. What IS relative is the tolerance for fluidity whereas some are happy trudging along at 10FPS and others are not satisfied until a steady +25FPS is attained. In the real world, hardware configurations do make a difference but not such a differene where two similar systems side-by-side would have a 15FPS difference for a given configuration. In a situation where benchmarks are erratic then the problem is with the object of the benchmark and not with the equipment if it has been validated in a controlled environment. Even in beta testing across multiple systems, totally uncontrolled, there is a nunequivocal average for each system level that must be established and validated. If this cannot be validated then what you have is a tempest in a teapot, sans FSX.As a beta tester for FSX...how could you tell someone to "consider yourself lucky and turn off the FPS monitor?" That translates to ignorance is bliss, word for word. Was beta testing done objectively or subjectively? Because if the latter is true then much is explained in this release of FSX. The guy came here looking for answers because he seems to be unsatisfied with his peformance in FSX with a pretty high end system. Ignoring the problem seldom makes it go away. And telling him to consider himself "lucky" is absolutely useless in an environment that uses "1"s and "0"s as the basis for everything. It either is, or it isn't...being "lucky" has nothing to do with it unless one has NO CLUE what they're doing in the first place.:-mad

SO, again, my question was, who's to blame for that...Intel?

You might want to look at a matrox multiple monitor add on box (DualHead2Go) if money is no object. Also I would equal resolution on both monitors. Check out 3Dguru-com for best driver info.Ur FSB should be auto detected but u can change it in BIOS (at start up press F12 or some other key to get in but beware! screwing with the MoBo settings are not for the faint of heart)Sometimes graphics card perform better when their settings are maxed out. So go to desktop, right click properties, then advanced, and set everything way up.

In that case, please explain why EVERY OTHER PIECE OF SOFTWARE I OWN (including FS9) runs much faster on my Core 2 Duo than my old A64 3500+ ???It's only FSX that runs like garbage!I wasn't 'sold a bill of goods by Intel' - I purchased based on solid benchamrking from well respected tech sites.Core 2 Duo blows everything else out of the water, period. It doesn't matter that it's a dual core CPU - even if it was a single core processor it would still beat everything upto and including the FX-62.And please, I don't want to hear anymore from people who think that a P4 @ 3Ghz plus is better than Core 2 Duo because of 'lower clock speed'...............

>fb:>>I find it stunning (for lack of a better word) that you would>say:>>"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.">>First, FPS is NOT a "relative data element" it is an ABSOLUTE>data element because it is not based on perception, gut>instinct, tingles on the back of your neck or what YOU think>is fluid. It is THE STANDARD by which most game titles are>measured. Why? Because it tells you what your tolerance for>visual scalability happens to be. When you know what your FPS>is for a given system, then you know what you are working with>and 100% of game testing and hardware reveiw labs tend to>agree with that.>>FPS does exectly what you claim it doesn't do which is give a>performance indicator. Then you know what your working with,>how far your can push your system and what tweaks to apply. >This is called a targeted approach v. a shotgun approach where>you close your eyes and hope one of the dozens of tweaks work.> >>What IS relative is the tolerance for fluidity whereas some>are happy trudging along at 10FPS and others are not satisfied>until a steady +25FPS is attained. >>In the real world, hardware configurations do make a>difference but not such a differene where two similar systems>side-by-side would have a 15FPS difference for a given>configuration. In a situation where benchmarks are erratic>then the problem is with the object of the benchmark and not>with the equipment if it has been validated in a controlled>environment. Even in beta testing across multiple systems,>totally uncontrolled, there is a nunequivocal average for each>system level that must be established and validated. If this>cannot be validated then what you have is a tempest in a>teapot, sans FSX.>>As a beta tester for FSX...how could you tell someone to>"consider yourself lucky and turn off the FPS monitor?" That>translates to ignorance is bliss, word for word. Was beta>testing done objectively or subjectively? Because if the>latter is true then much is explained in this release of FSX. >>>The guy came here looking for answers because he seems to be>unsatisfied with his peformance in FSX with a pretty high end>system. Ignoring the problem seldom makes it go away. And>telling him to consider himself "lucky" is absolutely useless>in an environment that uses "1"s and "0"s as the basis for>everything. It either is, or it isn't...being "lucky" has>nothing to do with it unless one has NO CLUE what they're>doing in the first place.>>:-madOk so I am going to ask one more time,, and point out a fact. it is not my system, it is not fs9.1 and it is not for lack of trying but FSX has some significant hangup. hardware, software ???I am a real world pilot, I am also a Prof engineer. This is a game but uses complex technology to achieve a goal. I fly fs9.1 or fsx( someday) to emulate the real deal. Not to play but for as close to a real life IFR simulation as possible.I can only deduce that FSX is flawed.. I have stated previously that when I run 9.1 with about 6 addons, fsuipc , widefs and 3-4 programs running in the background I still get anywhere from 50-75 fps when the slider is on unlimited.On fsx it is 6-15..fps , same machine, no addons. !!! Why Why Why?I think that tells the whole storyPeter>>>

The bus speed is quad pumped, so that 266mhz becomes 1066mhz.Your 800mhz is also quad pumped, so divide that by 4 and you get 200mhz, which is what the BIOS will actually report.There is absoloutley nothing wrong with the FSB speed.Your memory advice is also baloney, as in fact your 800mhz memory is not even being pushed close to it's rated speed.You have DDR2 memory. So, your 800mhz memory actually runs at 400mhz max (without overclocking)As your FSB is 200mhz (800mhz effective) your memory, unlesss you change the dividers, is also running at 200mhz in a 1:1 ratio, giving an effective memory speed of only 400mhz, or, half of it's rated speed.To max out the memory which you have purchased at a 1:1 ratio (and 800mhz rated DDR2 is not cheap for this reason) you would have to run your FSB at 400mhz which when quad pumped is effectivley 1600mhz FSB.Man....and you were an FSX Beta tester????

Peter:Sorry that we could not be of much help. Even with my system (specs below) I too am stumpted. Aces said they will have more info after the Thanksgiving Holiday so I think its fair to give them the benefit of the doubt and see what they come up with in the next week or two. They seem to be pretty optimistic so if something can come out of Redmond that at least raises the FPS bottom floor figures we'd at least have a good starting point.At the end of the day Peter, take heart that you are not alone. Many of us with the highest end systems, myself included are crying into our beer. None of the tweaks offered provide much of a relief to make them worth it on my system. You may want to give them a try. Take heart...tt can only get better from here, so that's something to look forward to because right now there really is not much chance of it getting worse. :-)

>Now I did try fsx with the added line in the cfg file of;>>Fiber_Frame_Time_fraction=.33 and fps jumped for the smae>config to 25>>That is the default setting anyway. Even if that line is not in your fsx.cfg file, it is STILL automatically 0.33. So adding that line does not change the sim.It's only when you start adjusting it from 0.33 to other values, that it changes things.The fps change you noted was not related to fiber_frame.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

Monday I went to pick up my mom to the airport... and there was this nice stand selling all kinds of merchandize, nice scale model planes and all that stuff. But my attention was on the triple head setup, with rudder peddels, yoke and all... there was a nice 172 parked at some airport. All around there was FSX Deluxe Boxes grounded on the shelves. I asked the lady in the store for the price... 74EUR. I finnaly asked which version was on display I couldn't notice the difference between it and FS9: she told me it was FS ACOF.There was a big sign over the yoke. "Do not touch!" funny how things are... the sign should be over FSX Deluxe instead."Keep this one grounded"

>> 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

>> 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

hi peter....sorry to hear your probs with fsx...and a pity at times this thread has lost the plot and ppl arnt helping or advising,,,but i had an athlon 4000 with 1 gig ram and an nvidia 6600...i got an awful performance from fsx i thought i had a decent system before that...and i was told on these forums that the processor was 1 of the better 1`s available...anyway i have just gone and bought a core2duo 6600.....2 gig ram...nvidia 7950...running on the asus p5w delux board....the chip runs at 2.4ghz...have you looked in the bios to overclock the chip there are preset value in the bios ranging from 5% to 30% overclocking....i have mine running at 3 gig so overclocked at 25%...very stable temps in the mid 50`s.try overclcoking in stages try 10%...if runs ok try 15%...i think icould go more but i am happy with the sim i get 22fps locked...on the settings the sim gave me after install (medium high)1st have u tried this...i reckon these core2duos were built for it.2nd have you tried removing a graphics card and runnig with only 1 in the system.3rd the same with the ram...try using just 2 gig.i have a post simialar to this in the hardware section...no way am i trying to brag but help ppl and hopefully show a defaulted fsx can look and fly ok....god help me when the addon aircraft come out LOL prob wont get 22 fps then hehe welll i`ll cross that bridge when time comes.Andrew