Mike,When I say "relative" I do not mean perception. FPS is relative because the factors affecting the data element are so complex that you cannot readily extract a particular performance factor from the response you get on your screen. The FSP figure is not absolute in any sense.The problem I have with most responses concerning FSX concerns the tag that many people place on FS (any version) "game." No version of FS is a game. 99% of all entertainment software of this genre are games. These products are single-thread applications with little or no external interruptions to the thread. Flight Simulator is a multi-thread application with a very large amount of external interruptions to the engine. For example, not only must FSX handle graphics and movement, but it also must handle complex weather, scenery display, ATC, user-supplied AI, and a host of other separate processing threads that are not part of the forward progress of the engine.Yes, FPS is used to supply the user with performance indicators for games. In my opinion, it does not provide even a mediocre indication of FS performance. Not only does the software design impact speed, but CPU performance, amount of memory, type/power of a graphics card, quality of memory modules, size/speed of disk drives, and the like. While hardware impacts all software, precise hardware components and setup are far more critical to FS.As for FPS being an indicator of performance - then why is it that there are so many people who have acceptable performance with FSX and many do not. I do not agree with your assessment.As for tolerance for fluidity - I rest my case. If you didn't know what the FPS indicator was, how would it be possible for you to know if the sim was not responding properly. If it worked for you, then you wouldn't need to complain.I can assure you that BETA testing was done as scientifically as possible. However, we did not engage in endless and useless discussions about FPS. We did cover things such as graphics display, aircraft operation, broken elements in the sim, and the like - things that can be observed objectively. Performance is an almost totally subjective element because of the miriad of impacts on it. I would say there that there are no "experts" in this field that know everything there is to know about computer systems. I've been in this field more than 40 years and I learn something new every hour.And to answer the contention that XP cannot handle more than 2Gb of memory - here is a statement from Microsoft:Here's a list of how much RAM the various Windows versions and editions support (as of Nov 2004): Windows NT 4.0: 4 GB Windows 2000 Professional: 4 GB Windows 2000 Standard Server: 4 GB Windows 2000 Advanced Server: 8GB Windows 2000 Datacenter Server: 32GB Windows XP Professional: 4 GB Windows Server 2003 Web Edition: 2 GB Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition: 4 GB Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition: 32 GB Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition: 64 GBHere is the link - http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555223I didn't mean to imply that someone should just ignore their performance. I mean to say that you won't get a proper indication of FS performance from the FPS indicator. You can read post after post in this forum from folks that tried all these "fancy" solutions to increase the performance of FSX. Many of them say they tried this and that and didn't notice anything. Others say they tried something and they had terrific performance afterwards. I'll say this again, performance is relative to the observer. Some changes work on some people's systems - other do not. There are just too many factors impacting performance.fb

>Peter>>Windows XP by default does not recognize more than 2GB of RAM.> And it doesn't recognize more than 3GB of RAM. To anable the>3GB recognition you have to edit the boot.ini file. >>Unless you've done this, you can have 100GB installed on your>MB and Windows will only recognize 2GB of it, 3GB max.MikeHate to be a pest but can you point me to that edit or a url to explain the tweak?. That sounds really interesting,Peter

Somthing is wrong with FSx, thats simple.JohanA LITTLE LESS CONVERSATION, AND A LITTLE MORE ACTION PLEASE.."The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one - but still they come!"Ulla!

Indeed. I've enjoyed reading all the theories as to required tweaking, dual core (non)use, SLI (non)use, etc. But, the bottom line, for me, is the fact is that FSX is simply badly broken. Can ACES pull off a non-DX10-related performance patch? Will the implementation of Vista/DX10 make things any better? Who knows - at this point it's all just idle speculation. But one thing's for sure, you're right when you say something is wrong.Doug

Here ya go my friend:(boot loader) <---Bracketstimeout=30default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)WINNT(operating systems) <---bracketsmulti(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)WINNT="Windows XP Professional" /3GBNow of course, I am "assuming" ;-) that you are using Windows XP Professional. If you are not, then you are stuck with 2GB for your programs :-(

>I can assure you that BETA testing was done as scientifically>as possible. However, we did not engage in endless and>useless discussions about FPS. We did cover things such as>graphics display, aircraft operation, broken elements in the>sim, and the like - things that can be observed objectively. >Performance is an almost totally subjective element because of>the miriad of impacts on it. I would say there that there are>no "experts" in this field that know everything there is to>know about computer systems. I've been in this field more>than 40 years and I learn something new every hour.>>And to answer the contention that XP cannot handle more than>2Gb of memory - here is a statement from Microsoft:Looks to me and most FSX users like you guys missed the essential items whilst beta testing this one! It's rather appropriate that Thanksgiving is approaching as Turkey is usually on the menu, now there's a metaphor for FSX if ever there was one!

>I can assure you that BETA testing was done as scientifically>as possible. However, we did not engage in endless and>useless discussions about FPS. We did cover things such as>graphics display, aircraft operation, broken elements in the>sim, and the like - things that can be observed objectively. >Performance is an almost totally subjective element because of>the miriad of impacts on it. I would say there that there are>no "experts" in this field that know everything there is to>know about computer systems. I've been in this field more>than 40 years and I learn something new every hour.>>And to answer the contention that XP cannot handle more than>2Gb of memory - here is a statement from Microsoft:Looks to me and most FSX users like you guys missed the essential items whilst beta testing this one! It's rather appropriate that Thanksgiving is approaching as Turkey is usually on the menu, now there's a metaphor for FSX if ever there was one!

So with all of the dissatisfaction , what does everyone think the best response should be to ACES. MSFT should be bombarded by unhappy campers. This is not a newbie product. it has been around in some form for many years and MS knows how dedicated the community is to helping , testing and advising. but are they getting the message and what does everyone think is the best way to get them to hear the musicThis board is a good example of knowledge and information. I hope their listeningPeter

Just to point out your post helped in no way and the Beta testers do not need another round of they did nothing.Seems like the OP was looking for help with FSX not posters personal opinions about it. Just what can be done to help him run his copy of FSX the best he can get it on his computer.Some of you ought to be sentence to 6 months of Beta testing since you think its easy.:)

Peter:Thanks for the kind wishes. BTW, I have family in your neck of the woods, over in Markham and London. ;-)Yes, the chapter is still open and probably will be for some time to come. The good news is that we should get some word sometime next week...even if it is a "stay tuned", Aces knows there's a problem and is working on it.

@FxF3..I did beta test for FS2002.. and I know how the inner system of Aces 'works', so dont try that "Some of you ought to be sentence to 6 months of Beta testing since you think its easy.:)" to me.JohanA LITTLE LESS CONVERSATION, AND A LITTLE MORE ACTION PLEASE.."The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one - but still they come!"Ulla!

Great find Johan, but let's not let this descend any further into a FSX Pro / Con debate. I think that horse is beat to death.At this point, I think that its best to wait and see what Aces has to say after the Thanksgiving break. I've got my fingers crossed that there will be some good news...or at least some light at the end of the tunnel in the not-to-distant future.But, you now, at this point, the cards are already dealt and we're stuck with the hand we're holding for better or for worse. Let's all breeeeeeeaaaaaath until Aces comes back and let's us know where we stand.

Oh yeah, amen to that.. I dont care too much, just accept it as it comes.Just trying to add something, but saying its all okay isnt true to live.Figures speak for them selves. Anyhow, I will buy it soon to see it for myself on my mideval system.JohanA LITTLE LESS CONVERSATION, AND A LITTLE MORE ACTION PLEASE.."The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one - but still they come!"Ulla!

Did not post that at you so no thread jumping Johan needed. That was remark posted for Transcon. Nice that you no ACES inside and out or how their inner system works. Still I don't think the FSX beta testers need another round of Bashing from a poster when this has been gone though and though. Don't you Johan.

Ah, another "ex-pert."The BIOS on my system reports 800MHz - not 200MHz. The DDR2 memory IS running at 800MHz as I said. Yes, the Corsair DDR2 800MHz memory is very expensive - but the results are fantastic. Yes, I have a 6-fan case with liquid cooling so I don't melt the walls in my computer room.And, yes I AM a BETA tester for FSX and since you don't know what I'm running or my system specs, you'll just have to take my word for it - or not as your choice.fbPS It would be very nice if you would leave your veiled personal insults out of the technical discussion. These forums are full of such nonsense so we don't need any more of that.