Dave, traffic was just for illustration, however ur post intrigued me. Did a touch of research, and I must admit, you've got us beat, but at least according to this data, we're right there with you. How bout at least some empathetic comiseration...we're only 2 minutes per person less delayed. BTraffic Congestion in U.S. Cities, 2002Rank Urban area Annual delay per personin hours 1. Los Angeles, Calif. 136 2. San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. 92 3. Washington, DC-Md.-Va. 84 4. Seattle-Everett, Wash. 82 5. Houston, Tex. 75 6. San Jose, Calif. 74 6. Dallas-Fort Worth, Tex. 74 8. New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J. 73 9. Atlanta, Ga. 70 10. Miami-Hialeah, Fla. 69 11. Chicago, Ill.-Northwestern Ind. 67 11. Boston, Mass. 67 11. Denver, Colo. 67 14. Orlando, Fla. 66 15. San Bernardino-Riverside, Calif. 64 16. Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano Beach, Fla. 61 16. Austin, Tex. 61 18. Phoenix, Ariz. 59 19. Detroit, Mich. 55 20. Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. 54 21. San Diego, Calif. 51 22. Baltimore, Md. 50 23. Portland-Vancouver, Ore.-Wash. 47 23. Charlotte, N.C. 47 25. Louisville, Ky.-Ind. 46 26. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Fla. 45 26. Albuquerque, N.M. 45 28. Nashville, Tenn. 44 29. Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky. 43 29. W. Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach, Fla. 43 29. Indianapolis, Ind. 43 29. San Antonio, Tex. 43 29. St. Louis, Mo.-Ill. 43 34. Sacramento, Calif. 42 34. Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J. 42 36. Providence-Pawtucket, R.I.-Mass. 41 37. Las Vegas, Nev. 38 38. Columbus, Ohio 36 39. Tacoma, Wash. 34 39. Memphis, Tenn.-Ark.-Miss. 34 41. Milwaukee, Wis. 32 41. Jacksonville, Fla. 32 43. Birmingham, Ala. 31 44. Colorado Springs, Colo. 27 45. Charleston, S.C. 26 46. Tucson, Ariz. 25 46. Norfolk-Newport News-Virginia Beach, Va. 25 46. Omaha, Neb.-Iowa 25 49. Fresno, Calif. 24 49. Honolulu, Hawaii 24 49. Pensacola, Fla.

I have lived in both places. Traffic is worse in LA, but you have lots of alternate ways (paralleling grid system)to drive to a place and bypass the congestion. Not so in DC. You'd be stuck with no escape routes.

You are proving my point. Most people have problems, but few throw in these 30+ FPS claims. It really makes upgragding my system difficult.

what are your other system specs? what frame rates are you getting? your settings? please.

perhaps I touched a nerve? Only part of my post folks want to attend to is a silly traffic mention.

Glad to hear that SP1 patch. FSX has ran pretty well for me. Still a patch will be good. Still I see some people are unhappy even before we get it.:-lol

>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 27>Based 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 me>>I think its important to other flight sim fans maybe thinking>about upgrading to not make blanket statements about what>works or not based on hersay>>I 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?.>>>Cheers>John>>I don't know why some people 'claim' FPS so others have a false sense of reality. I have C2D 6600 and the FPS in FSX are crap. Who cares if you can get 30+fps in some rural part of the world, let's see those FPS in major cities and airports. I still don't understand why some owners love to hype the facts up by claiming they're getting 50fps or something when in reality even a 6600 can't handle FSX on mid to high settings. My guess is around this time next year we'll see hardware that'll be able to handle FSX but for now I

If it means anything to you, frankly I concur with your statements. I have been following AVSIM forum topics (including this one) for quite some time. I just don't visit this forum hardly anymore because I enjoy FSX and I feel like I should be guilty when I come here.>perhaps I touched a nerve? Only part of my post folks want>to attend to is a silly traffic mention.

>I think the real difference is the level of mean spirited>conversation this time around. >>Perhaps its a sign of the times. Here in Seattle traffic is>so much worse than it was 3 years ago that you see many more>instances of road rage. We've had all kinds of new levels of>tensions in the world recently....they said on the news now>that young kids are acting more agressively on average than in>prior periods...perhaps that's showing here too.>>There is really no point in vilifying anyone on a public>forum. >>Communicating kindly is logical and called for whether we're>discussing topics amongst fellow simmers, or ACES, and whether>we are happy or dissapointed.>>Somebody wrote a bit ago, that they feel every right to be>"fightin' mad" because they had invested $2000 in a new>computer expecting fsx to run well, and it doesn't. Let's>elevate the discussion to look at the root problem? Whenever>we get "fightin' mad" over anything, we are really upset with>ourselves. If you doubt this, look at it this way, do you>agree that someone else is in control of you? If you answered>no, then please review my premise. Getting "fightin mad" is a>choice we make for ourselves. >>If you have a solid justifcation for spending $2000. on a>computer, then you are not angry based on any one software>purchase you might make. Major spending for me is rarely>justifiable for one purpose, especially an entertainment>product. I guess if you're rich you might do this, but then>you're not upset if the purchase was not satisfying. If your>justification was really based on your expectations for a>single software title, and spending that much is not trivial>for you, then turn your energy onto improving your spending>dicisions, not vilifying ACEs or fellow enthusiasts on public>forums. >>The entertainment provided by flight simulation can't be>allowed to become important enough to justify spending more>money than we are comfortable with, and certainly not>important enough to become abusive. >>Remember fsx is not the real problem. The fact that you can>experience it (for better or for worse) means you don't have>the real problems. The real problems are famine, war,>disease, and poverty.>>Lets have fun with our toys, spend only what you are>comfortable with, and be nice to each other. >>Bob Should be made a sticky!:-beerchug http://www.americanpatrol.com/_icons/BS_No.gif

Bob: That's old data. I've lived in the DC area most of my life and i can tell you that in the past 5 years since that study was done traffic in this area has tripled. Those numbers are probably farrrrr off. I spent a week in LA recently and like i said, they were a bit worse, but only because they have more major highways than us. The volume was the same though. This area is out of control. I do empathize with you though and did not realize Seattle was even in the running. :)As far as the guy with the e6600 is concerned, I just don't see how you can't get 20+fps in the cities with that rig. I have that processor and other parts on order from the egg and i expect at least mid 20's in the cities after tweaks. My dad's fx-62 system chews up fsx as long as the water is somewhat low. He gets 22fps on the runway in Seattle with most sliders to high or 3/4 (other than water). On the takeoff roll at National airport he was getting 25fps solid with complex scenery so i just don't see how you aren't getting this level of performance and more with your system unless there really IS a problem with fsx and core2 processors. If this is the case then i have just wasted a lot of money!!!

>Glad to hear that SP1 patch. FSX has ran pretty well for me.>Still a patch will be good. Still I see some people are>unhappy even before we get it.:-lol As we can see not only in this thread, some people need to be unhappy very much. I never posted in this forum, but reading all this FSX bashing stuff - sometimes very unreasonable and showing very unrealistic expectations - is quite annoying. It's the same with every new Version of Flight Simulator (I fly since FS3) but the reason is not only to find in FS but in the complainers too. I know a guy from my job who litterally every day complains about the weather. If it is sunny it is too warm or too much light or too dry. If it is rainy the next day, well it is NOT better light, temperature and humidity but worse, of course...I have only a Sempron 3000+ with a Nvidia 7600GS (512MB), so it is very slow in several parts of the world, but I find FSX much better than FS9 and when I tried a new scenery addon last week on FS9 I was very surprised how ugly FS9 looked to me. And how much better the aerodynamics in FSX are modelled.Someone may answer "that helps - not", but he or she should learn, that his or her views are as good or bad as others and are not nessesarily (spelling?) representing the one and only truth. So there may be no answer or suggestion that is helpful for THEM.SP1 - and more the DX10 upgrade - will help to enjoy FSX much more I hope. And of course I have to upgrade my system :-)crimplene

>I know a guy from my job who litterally>every day complains about the weather. If it is sunny it is>too warm or too much light or too dry. If it is rainy the next>day, well it is NOT better light, temperature and humidity but>worse, of course...>Maybe that's me! I always complain about the weather in this area because i'm an astronomer and can never do any viewing because it's always raining or cloudy or the light pollution is bad! :)

>>I know a guy from my job who litterally>>every day complains about the weather. If it is sunny it is>>too warm or too much light or too dry. If it is rainy the>next>>day, well it is NOT better light, temperature and humidity>but>>worse, of course...>>>>Maybe that's me! I always complain about the weather in this>area because i'm an astronomer and can never do any viewing>because it's always raining or cloudy or the light pollution>is bad! :)>I have to drive out to Culpeper to see anything good at nights around here, otherwise I get the "DC Glow" over everything.

Well, that statement doesn't say written SPECIFICALLY for Vista (which might imply your assumption above), just that it was written with Vista in mind. Basically this means that we followed the rules required to get the Games for Windows / Games for Vista logo thingy - work within the Least User Access constraints, use the new rich saved game file format to integrate with the new game launcher UI in Vista, actually run under Vista :->, etc. And until the DX10 Update for FSX comes out, the only possible benefit you might get from Vista and DX10 is some slight performance improvement from the new graphics driver model (more of the driver runs in user-mode, requiring fewer user-mode to protected-mode and back context switches).

Hey Astrodave,<>Most of the problems in Seattle are caused by the big giant lake between Seattle and the EastSide (the lake is what they are east of :-> ). There are only 2 routes over this lake (I-90 and SR520) and while the I-90 span has been upgraded to many more lanes (including some reversible lanes in the middle), the SR520 is 2-lanes each way and I doubt it will ever be upgraded (political hot potato issues, not technical :-< ). There's also a smaller lake on the Eastside that causes a lot of congestion on I-90 (at the south end of the lake) and Redmond (north end) - there are no mid lake crossings on this one. Add in no decent North/South roads (except for I405) and even the surface roads get nasty at certain times of day.This is further complicated by the apparent fact that everyone who works on the eastside wants to live in seattle and everyone who works in seattle wants to live on the eastside (or at least it seems that way) - personally, when I lived out there I was within a mile or so of work.I agree that the DC traffic sucks these days though (I live in Fredericksburg VA now), I avoid having to drive through DC when traveling whenever possible (to the extent of dropping a little south and coming back up north through Maryland on US301 a few times :-> ). Traffic in the DC area (especially the belt way itself) sucks even at midnight or 3AM, which you won't generally see in the seattle area.Tim