Well, after months of testing, fiddling and too much non-flying time once again taking all the advice of others here on this forum etc.. my simple conclusion on running FSX smoooooothhhhllllyyy is to get rid of default.xml period! No modified versions etc, will do the trick of achieving 24fps locked, which is what I need to realistically fly the jets, into and out of any airports. My system is a dell xps gen 2 laptop, Centrino 2.0 gz mobile processor (similar to an old P4 3.5 I understand in perf), GEforce 6800 ultra. A big 17" screen in 1920x1600 native res, 32bit. It looks great, and I have all vid card sliders maxxed , except AA is on 4 and Ansio is on 8.Sure, the autogen is sparser, trees mostly, yet in most areas looks good. I can even run with 20% car traffic on highways. This is a must for added realism. I have most fsx sliders for terrain on 100% mesh, and resolution for mesh on 38. Global texture is on max. Max scenery display distance radius as well. Scenery complexity is on normal, autogen on sparce. Any variance, will yeild slightly more jumply FPS. I am sure otehrs have found this too. And, I am still not sure if aircraft shadows do damage or not, but I have them off as it seems everyone else does. I just had to share this with you all. Months of testing, now I am getting ready to fly!! And that's it! I have just deleted FS9 off my drive forever... it had to happen, there was no going back.Peter James

>Well, after months of testing, fiddling and too much>non-flying time once again taking all the advice of others>here on this forum etc.. my simple conclusion on running FSX>smoooooothhhhllllyyy is to get rid of default.xml period! No>modified versions etc, will do the trick of achieving 24fps>locked, which is what I need to realistically fly the jets,>into and out of any airports. My system is a dell xps gen 2>laptop, Centrino 2.0 gz mobile processor (similar to an old P4>3.5 I understand in perf), GEforce 6800 ultra. A big 17">screen in 1920x1600 native res, 32bit. It looks great, and I>have all vid card sliders maxxed , except AA is on 4 and Ansio>is on 8.Thanks for the hint! How are your framerates around big airports (KSEA etc.)? I still get abysmal FPS around them.Marco

>.... Centrino 2.0 gz mobile processor (similar to an old P4>3.5 I understand in perf), >>>Peter James>I find it hard to rate a Centrino 2G to a P4 3,5G ??I also found it impossible to rid myself of default.xml without rendering the sim unpalatably simplistic.What is a "big(?) 17 inch" screen?al

Take a lesson from this original post: "Don't just try anything you read here.....you'll be mighty sorry."This is NOT the solution. Stan

Well at least tell us why it isn't the solution Stan. Craig

My solution is getting rid of all AutoGen and using 1m sattelite textures only. If I stay above 2000 feet, everything looks georgeous. ;)Christian

In real life flight, I always found any flying done "above" 2000 feet boring and too slow. (although "gorgeous" scenery...)So landing/takeoff, and low flying are much more dynamic and fun.

Boring.....?? How could any flight be boring. Also, 2000 feet isnt that high, so I am just curious how you manage to fly around in real life - sub 2000 feet on a regular basis. But if you do..more power to you. Each time I fly out of Hobby or Bush here in Houston, I can see the trees, for about 30 seconds - after that, it resembles photo realistic, which is what is provided in this sim at 2m and 1m. I stil do not understand the obsession with the trees in this sim. They look like garbage. As do the autogen buildings, they look absolutely pathetic compared to any other software "game" on the market, outdated to say the least, yet they still manage to bring systems to their knees. Maybe one day a fix, maybe....but even if they fix it, I will NOT run autogen. blah....danon - -

I get 19 at BFI, clear weather, virtual cockpit looking north on 31- Peter

>Boring.....?? How could any flight be boring. Also, 2000>feet isnt that high, so I am just curious how you manage to>fly around in real life - sub 2000 feet on a regular basis. >But if you do..more power to you. Each time I fly out of>Hobby or Bush here in Houston, I can see the trees, for about>30 seconds - after that, it resembles photo realistic, which>is what is provided in this sim at 2m and 1m. I stil do not>understand the obsession with the trees in this sim. They look>like garbage. As do the autogen buildings, they look>absolutely pathetic compared to any other software "game" on>the market, outdated to say the least, yet they still manage>to bring systems to their knees. Maybe one day a fix,>maybe....but even if they fix it, I will NOT run autogen. >blah....>I agree & then some! Well, some trees might look great in a mountainous outback setting for a dirt strip; but other than that, do away with the auto-gen! FS9 did not have the crisper photo like textures of FSX, and required auto-gen to help cover up it's mixture of blurry ground textures. Auto-gen in FSX just covers up some great looking scenery, and especially around city subdivisions. The majority of auto-gen buildings do look very cartoony from close to ground level, and rob a good 10 fps. As an example, with other settings on the high side, you still get the "Strip" in Las Vegas, and the airport with all it's gates and architecture, including the new and better, photo type city areas on the descent.L.Adamson