The only situation that drops my frame rate in fs9 less than 30 is addon scenery in dense cities like mega city new york, san fran, etc. They still don't make a pc that can run mega city new york maxed out at 30fps. Even with the spectacular portland scenery most of the time i am > 30fps. The only time it drops to mid 20's is while looking at portland intl. after taking off from pearson field. This is also at 3840x1024 with my triplehead setup. The frame rates are even somewhat better than this at 1280x1024. The game runs like glass in its default state though on my 3.6 with all sliders at max. It chews through seattle with no problem. In fsx seattle is a slideshow. Even on my dad's beast machine 22fps with all tweeks is still nothing to write home about for a top of the line machine. Its smooth and playable, but >30fps is the ideal.

>>I will say it again and again FSX was not made for the>above>>average user, it was made to apease all kind of wish they>>could or wanna be pilots.>>>snipped>>>We hardcore simmers are angry because we thought it would be>the >next best upgrade , because we keep our equiptment in top>shape to >be able to get good results in all our great addon>planes and other >software.>>It's a very incorrect thought, but you're entitled to it...>>In more ways than not, FSX creates a new inviroment that>"real" pilots will recognize. The best example is modeling the>air itself, which far surpasses the lifeless stagnet, riding>on the rails, air of FS9. Yet, many armchair pilots don't even>notice this significant addition.>>However, for wanna be pilots, at least the defaults do fly>better, trim beter, and have much improved VC's. You won't>need to immediately jump to a 3rd party aircraft, as in the>past.>>BTW-- Since I never bothered with Active Sky in the past, it's>great that FSX's weather doesn't have a large negative impact>on frame rates like FS9 did. I use real weather much of the>time with 15 minute updates.>>Of course, I'm not a "hard core simmer", or a wannabe. Just a>pilot & plane owner, who likes FSX.>>L.Adamson'If you never tried FS9 with ActiveSky 6's 'vertical air simulation' (VAS), then you have never truly expereinced what FS9 had to offer.Whilst I will admit that FSX does a better job of it, FS9 with AS6 is pretty close. I certainly do not suffer from 'riding on rails' whilst using this combination.You know L.Adamson, we keep going round in circles on this whole FSX issue, so I am going to try and lay it to rest with one comment:I really, really like what FSX has to offer in many areas. In no doubts it is a vast improvment over FS9. However, until I can get said improved features operating at 20-24FPS min in all areas (let's not even talk about addons), then FSX will get, at the very most, 20% of my simming time. The current level of performance (especially when you look at current and near future hardware trends) is unacceptable. If, by some miracle, ACES pulls off the performance patch to end all performance patches, then I will be more than happy to use FSX. However, it had better have some headroom for some addons or I will be sticking with FS9 until 8Ghz PC's are the norm.On another note, I think many of us here on this forum have spent considerable time in aircraft, be it commercial or GA. I have spent many a Saturday and Sunday afternoon buzzing around above Kingston, ON and am well aware of the 'feeling of flight', but IMHO a fluid, fast FPS is ESSENTIAL to have any kind of true feeling and awareness of flight as well. To dismiss people with differing views than your own as 'armchair pilots' is just rude, elitist and not required.At the end of the day, you could ship FSX to me with a full motion platform in the box, and if I cant get decent FPS, I STILL wouldn't be happy!

Sorry that does not change my opinion, glad you injoy FSX with your real plane...............Robert

Ron: These shots were shown by Aces at WinHec and THEY said that they were "artist renderings" of the original DX9 screenshot. They are not software emulations. The shots were first mistaken for actual DX10 shots and then rumors morphed into "software emulation of DX10 functions (whats that?)", in any account I can assure you that all they are are artist renderings.

Neil:Aren't you being overly dramatic now? If you are going to assert that complaints for FSX are equal to FS9, et al then that statement must be quantified, no? This is not about glass empty or glass full, or whether you love FSX or not. This is about the FACT that Aces agrees that there are performance issues and they are working on it. I say KUDOS to them for listening to the community and going to bat with an expedient patch.I'm happy that Aces is not as happy as you are with 10-15fps at JFK and are working on improving that. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being happy with that type of perfomance at all. In the same token there is nothing wrong with being disgusted with that type of perfomance also.So, Neil, no one is going to hang Aces from any trees AFAIK. I was merely making the point that if you are pleased with your current perfomance and there is really just a repeat of FS9 doom and gloom then why is Aces bothering to make a Service Pack? Surely, there was some initial negative reaction to FS9 and no SP1 was forthcoming so soon after release. At the end of the day, Aces thinks there is a problem, I have a FSX problem therefore I agree and applaud Aces for working on it so that the rest of us can be as happy as you are with your FSX.

I am begining to believe people who say FSX does better on AMD. A lot of people with core 2 Duo are complaining a lot more than people with AMD. hmmm

Loving FSX over here - each to their own I guess. It will be interesting to see how when more and more people get FSX in their christmas stocking the more positive things will get.Don't give up on us ACES team or 3rd party developers, we're not all a moany bunch!!

Do you actually think the majority of people here that are 'moaning' enjoy it?I would love nothing more than to set the sliders HALFWAY, jump in one of the default aircraft and fly around at a solid 20-25FPS, but it just ain't happening in FSX.This is before I even think of adding (when available) Ultimate Terrain, Ground Environment, Flight Environment, FSGenesis Mesh, Level-D 767, Dreamfleet A36, F1 ATR-72 etc, etc, - The list could go on.I haven't even mentioned the terrible geographical data that harks back to FS98 days in anywhere but the USA and some parts of Western Europe it seems.And please don't try and tell me that all will be good in 12-24 months when new hardware arrives, as anyone who even remotley follows hardware is well aware of the trend towards multi-core CPU's and only marginal gains in core clock speed. FSX code in it's current state of course, makes little to no use of multi-core CPU's.So all in all, a few things need to happen to make FSX better:1) The SP1 Patch2) The DX10 / Vista Patch3) Addon devs to make products with next to zero FPS hit, assuming that neither 1) or 2) make that much difference to performance in the grand scheme of things.I appreciate everything that FSX is bringing to the table from an improved feature set point of view, but it's not much good to me unless I can actually use it. FS2000 was the same in this regard. It made big jumps over FS98 in terms of features and improvments, but who could really call FS2000 a success? It performed like a dog no matter how much hardware you threw at it! I know I was VERY happy when FS2002 was released and FS2000 was gone from my HD faster than you could imagine. FS2002 to FS2004 was also pretty painless once the autogen.xml bug was sorted and the clouds replaced with some more FPS freindly versions.By all means go ahead and call me (and others like me) moaners, but unless somone voices continued dissatisfaction with this version of the series, then we probably wouldn't even be hearing about an 'SP1' like we are right now.I would like nothing more than to turn on FSX and be delighted, as I have with every other version of FS (except FS2000), but I'm afraid I cannot do it. As FS means a lot to me (it's my only real hobby these days), I don't feel I can settle for something 'unpolished' like FSX feels to me.If that classes me as a 'moaner' then I am quite happy to be one.Glenn

What percisely are your FSX settings. With most of my sliders set at 1/2 to 3/4 of the way full right, and including real weather, 20% road and AI traffic in the default 737 I'm getting 24fps (locked at 24) at cruise, 14-20 fps during climb out, and 12-15fps during taxi. In FS9 terms this is equal to 29, 19-25, and 17-20fps as far as perceived smoothness (some would argue even more). And I'm doing this on a three year old system (P4 @ 3.5ghz, 1G 400DDR RAM, GS7800 AGP 256M video card)You should be getting even better results? Have you applied any of the suggested tweeks? FSX just looks and feels so much better than FS9 I can't ever see myself going back :) Good luck with your system.Regards,Mark>Do you actually think the majority of people here that are>'moaning' enjoy it?>>I would love nothing more than to set the sliders HALFWAY,>jump in one of the default aircraft and fly around at a solid>20-25FPS, but it just ain't happening in FSX.>>This is before I even think of adding (when available)>Ultimate Terrain, Ground Environment, Flight Environment,>FSGenesis Mesh, Level-D 767, Dreamfleet A36, F1 ATR-72 etc,>etc, - The list could go on.>>I haven't even mentioned the terrible geographical data that>harks back to FS98 days in anywhere but the USA and some parts>of Western Europe it seems.>>And please don't try and tell me that all will be good in>12-24 months when new hardware arrives, as anyone who even>remotley follows hardware is well aware of the trend towards>multi-core CPU's and only marginal gains in core clock speed.>FSX code in it's current state of course, makes little to no>use of multi-core CPU's.>>So all in all, a few things need to happen to make FSX>better:>>1) The SP1 Patch>2) The DX10 / Vista Patch>3) Addon devs to make products with next to zero FPS hit,>assuming that neither 1) or 2) make that much difference to>performance in the grand scheme of things.>>I appreciate everything that FSX is bringing to the table from>an improved feature set point of view, but it's not much good>to me unless I can actually use it. FS2000 was the same in>this regard. It made big jumps over FS98 in terms of features>and improvments, but who could really call FS2000 a success?>It performed like a dog no matter how much hardware you threw>at it! I know I was VERY happy when FS2002 was released and>FS2000 was gone from my HD faster than you could imagine.>FS2002 to FS2004 was also pretty painless once the autogen.xml>bug was sorted and the clouds replaced with some more FPS>freindly versions.>>By all means go ahead and call me (and others like me)>moaners, but unless somone voices continued dissatisfaction>with this version of the series, then we probably wouldn't>even be hearing about an 'SP1' like we are right now.>>I would like nothing more than to turn on FSX and be>delighted, as I have with every other version of FS (except>FS2000), but I'm afraid I cannot do it. As FS means a lot to>me (it's my only real hobby these days), I don't feel I can>settle for something 'unpolished' like FSX feels to me.>>If that classes me as a 'moaner' then I am quite happy to be>one.>>Glenn>>>>

I think people just don't like the fact that half of the dual core machine they recently acquired is wasted.

>I wondered what it would look like with traffic set to 100% It>was completely amazing. One could only describe this setting>as 'insane' (a setting that does appear in some games!) This>was one case where turning up the sttings made it look>unrealistic, because there was simply too much traffic. 15% is>more realistic, as well as frame-rate friendly. Even with this>setting the traffic can be very dense. This really helps to>bring the world to life.I feel you havn't been on the M25 around London - Insane may be somewhere near realistic }( Ray Keattch

L:And THAT'S the point! What will your high density airport add-ons and fps eating aircraft do to FSX if frame rates are marginal now???No one is disputing the value-add that is FSX. It has Activesky, Activecamera, FSIPC, Ground Environment, FSGenesis Mesh built RIGHT INTO the sim! This is a GOOD thing because those were must haves for FS9 and now we can concentrate on airport and aircraft add-ons and with Flight Environment clouds already compatible with FSX, we could be in hog heaven.But what happens in FSX's current state when you can drag FS9's 70 FPS to its knees and you only have 10-25fps in FSX? Anyway, its all a moot point. Aces is working on SP1 and the argument of bad frame rates and scenery compromises is all academic until SP1 is released. And even then, there is the future DX10 update. I think that FSX can't be judged one way or another for quite some time to come.

Well I can't blame them. I don't expect any machine to run FSX at full sliders. But if the best machine that money can buy chokes with sliders in the middle, I'd be upset too. Once again, can we find out if there is an issue with the core duos and FSX?

Well I can't blame them. I don't expect any machine to run FSX at full sliders. But if the best machine that money can buy chokes with sliders in the middle, I'd be upset too.I'm way beyond middle settings, not even a gag:) and I'm still getting my locked 30FPS 99% of the time in FSX , lowest I've seen was 22FPS earlier at a cloudy and rainy Heathrow airport with very few empty gates sitting on RW 27Based on my other Addiction to Racing Sim's:)the second core is doing something in the FPS department in FSX, more would be very welcome though, but the second core is doing SOME work.In Live for Speed racing sim I got close to 100% increase in FPS going from a p4 @ 3.2 to an E6600 at 2.4, In FSX I was getting closer to 120% at stock speed and now its running 3X faster after overclocking to 3.2.Reading many post saying that these new Intel chips have problems with FSX ...far from it, its tranformed FSX for meI think its important to other flight sim fans maybe thinking about upgrading to not make blanket statements about what works or not based on hersayI would like to confirm the second core's Input in FSX, So anyone know how I can disable one of the cores to to benchmark any changes...very curious?.CheersJohn

>>>You are blowing hot air. The only frame killer initially in>FS9 compared to FS8 was the volumetruc clouds. My posts when>FS9 was first released state that. Shortly after, lighter bit>clouds were released to help. In addition existing>hardware could handle a fully pumped up FS9 with addons. This>version CANNOT with the latest duo core systems. That's the>difference. This persistent analogy that is drawn re >"whining" with previous versions is completely false and>wrong.>That's your opinion, not fact, so it might help to make that clear. I stated my opinion, and I provided some limited evidence as to why I formed that opinion. I made a simple observation that I believe is absolutely true. If you look back at posts from 3 years ago, there were people bemoaning the bad state of FS9 and how patches are needed to make it usable. I never stated that the problems in the release of FS9 were EXACTLY the same as FSX or that EVERY comment made by EVERY poster was the same in the forum. That was my point....nothing more. Please have a little perspective. Not every post is a a really excited user or bashing post. Some of us realize that it is what it is, and we make the best of it. On the weekends, I fire up a real engine in a real plane, and I have my fun, without worrying about a computer program.