Has anyone else noticed a significant frame rate loss with FS9 aircraft ported over into FSX. I also noticed this with some of the FSX freeware A/C available lately.For example, I ported over my Aerosoft Beaver, and I was averaging 9 to 14 FPS. I tried the Premier Aircraft Design FSX DeHavilland DHC2-MK3 Turbo Beaver and pretty well averaged the same 9 to 14 FPS. Then I loaded the FSX stock beaver, and I was getting 24 to 30 FPS. My Frame Rate is locked at 30.I confess to knowing absolutely nothing about making aircraft, but I was wondering if there is something different with the design of the FSX aircraft that make them run better in FSX then the FS9 aircraft. Just guessing here, but I would imagine that the FSX PAD beaver model is probably pretty much the same aircraft design that is was for FS9 hence the reason for the same FR loss as I get with the Aerosoft Beaver which was also designed for FS9. Aerosoft is updating the model of the FS9 Beaver, so it should be interesting to see how much better their FSX version runs.Anyone have any ideas on this, and any way to get FS9 Aircraft to run better?Thanks, Bill

Lots of things can cause the slowdowns you're seeing. The usual suspects are the number of polygons in the VC, addon aircraft for FS9 are usually much more complex than even FSX default ones. Also the size and bit depth of the VC textures, whether they have mips included (which are useless), the number of gauges, and the efficiency of the gauge code can all have an effect. Combine all that with FSX's zero remaining overhead for complex aicraft and things can get ugly.The gauges, especially XML ones, can be particularly nasty.An example: The Iris F-14 Tomcat vs Aerialfoundry F-18/B hornet, two of my absolute favourites.Both aircraft are similarly complex, and both use XML gauges almost exclusively, but the Aerialfoundry Hornet runs like a smooth dream, even with two fully functional cockpit seats, front and back, whereas the F-14 is a single seat stutterfest even in FS9. Its the cleanliness of the gauge code and the size of texture resources each uses that seems to make the difference between those two. I moved the F-18's HUD and several other gauges into the F-14 and it smoothed right out. I believe there are also some pretty big differences in the output of the various aircraft creation programs, but I don't know enough to comment on that really.Cheers.

Hello,My experience is just the opposite. I reinstalled all of my Carenado and PMDG 1900 addons to FSX. They all run fine (some better than the FSX defaults). My Eagesoft addons, both FSX purchased and FS9.1 versions, are awful for FPS. I have gone to no panels in all of my aircraft and am back to my Project Magenta software on my three display network. That works fine in that the FPS on the FSX computer (no panels ) is now over 20.Cheers,Ron Sagel

Yes, my Carenados run great as does my B1900's. Haven't tried any Eaglesoft planes. These work even better than the default planes. My problems have been with 2d panel only planes like the Poskys. It seems at least on my system the 2d panels perform considerably worse than the virtual cockpits plus they are more buggy. Maybe Microsoft wants to wean us off 2D panels or something to totally eliminate them in the next version. I tell you it's a conspiracy,LOL.Carlos

I find the opposite as well, many of the heavy VC aircraft I had in FS9, run better in FSX. I imported the Aerosoft beaver as well and it ran the same as the default.Could be many factors, texture formats, gauges, etc.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD