I'm a brand new FSX user. I came from Fly!II and few flights in FS 2004. I'm trying to configure FSX and have some dificulties.1. I cant see taxi lights. Is there any special configuration?2. Having bildings complexity set to medium-high there is no airport buildings. Setting ti to higher I cant fly it, the performance is too low.I'm running a Pentium IV 2.0GHZ 512MB AGP 128MB. Is the machine the problem? I've purchased FSX based on the box mentioned requirements, that are smaller (processor 1GHZ, 256MB Ram).Thanks for any helpJo

Hi Joa,Welcome to the dissatisfied, dissillusioned and robbed club.It's your Spec. that's the problem. Nobody, if they are honest here, will tell you that FSX run's sweetly with all the sliders to the right.And here's the biggest laugh...............................the hardware to run it to the full, isn't available. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha :-)

Dave's right, Joao; You can run FS9 (FS9 not FSX) on your machine "ok", (but not great). We're all finding that you need - at the very minimum - a 3 gig processor, a 512 MB high-end video card and two gigs of ram, plus do a bunch of "known tweaks" (that you'll find pointers to elsewhere on this site) - to get a flyable FSX. Take FSX back, get FS9 and a bunch of good add-ons and you'll have something approaching FSX - and you will be able to enjoy it.

I would suggest turning autogen,water,and ai traffic completely off.See what performance you get then-then start gradually turning sliders up till you find the right balance between looks and performance you need.If you can't get it to your liking by all means go to fs9. But perhaps try out the things fs9 can't do-shared cockpits, tower- multiplayers ,missions and the such. You may want to use fsx for the things fs9 can't do, and fs9 for the things fsx can't do.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

FSX eats ram like a hungry wolf.

Thanks for all replies. I was prepared to all "bad" news you all gave. Just picking up the last comment, Wolf = Lobo (my last name). Wolf + Lobo will probably eat even more RAM and everything else.I'm really disappointed with what FSX is all about. I was planning to move out of Fly! II. It is out of support and very few add-ons are coming up. But facing this, I'll continue with it for a while more. At worst it runs very smooth on my machine and is also a very good simulator.Best regards to all.Jo

Mine's still on the shelf unused. I've never installed it. Mostly I don't want the hassle of all the tweaks just to get barely flyable.I'm just waiting on a better day, where Vista, Core2, 3 gigs of ram and a heavy hitting DX10 card all come out of the box ready to plug in and go.That will probably be in February, and I'll be $2000 to $3000 dollars lighter. Makes FS9 an attractive option for now.Even then, I'm not expecting miracles based on what I read.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

G'day Joao,>I'm running a Pentium IV 2.0GHZ 512MB AGP 128MB. Is the>machine the problem? I've purchased FSX based on the box>mentioned requirements, that are smaller (processor 1GHZ,>256MB Ram).Whatever were you thinking mate! The minimum requirement for Fly! II is a Pentium III 333 (reccommended Pentium III 500) and you know what a dog that would be. I can't believe that you thought you would get away with running FSX on your setup.Don't get me wrong. I also went out out and bought FSX (deluxe) but haven't installed it as after reading all the posts it is obvious that it would be a slide show on my current system and I'm currently saving as fast as I can for a new computer that will at least give acceptable performance with FSX.(and blitzing performance to Fly! II )Happy simming,Roger

Bob just to make sure you don't waste your money if you plan on upgrading just for FSX, I advise you wait until Feb. 2009.

Good joke. I would upgrade my hardware but not to Vista and DX10, because that will for sure kill your performance. Stay with XP and DX9 as long as possible for best performance. Also, before a DX10 patch for FSX will come out a patch for XP/DX9 will come out and from what i read not before Feb 2007.

Carmine:I would agree. Actually I'll probably wait and see what others are saying right here on this forum, before I take the plunge on that new machine. The options and ways to go could be enormous. It's a slippery slope right now for many reasons.While loaded with wonder, this sim is also a big disaster. I've been watching the local WalMart shelf closely and the program is not moving. I think the word is pretty much out to Joe average user that it won't run. It certaily won't run on anything WalMart sells.I applaud those on the Aces team that created all the true wonder that is packed inside this program. But I think MS will get burned so bad that they are finally going to have to actually address the frame rate issue. It's long overdue.This sim version will most likely do nothing to increase the FS base and it may even fall off a bit. I sure hope they can weather that storm long enought to move the franchise on to bigger and better things. But like it or not, I think they are now clearly butted up against the need to re-write the code to the state of the industry.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

Barring getting the fastest processor you can, Number 1 most important thing is ram. If you really want to fly FSX, I suggest a minimum of 2GB. I've set up FSX to run now on1. Dell D820 laptop 1.86 Pentium M, 2GB, 64MB ATI X300 Mobility graphics- runs ok with a good amount of scenery and some traffic, car traffic kills it2. Compaq VS6000 laptop AMD Sempron 3GHz, 2GB ram, nVidia 6150 256 (128 MB shared). ($750)- runs smoothly with no autogen and scenery turned down3. Toshiba Sattelite P105-S9722 T7200, 2GB ram, nVidia 7900 256 (dedicate) ($2049)- runs quite well 15-25 fps in medium sceneryWith the 1GB of ram, the top machine was agonizingly slow to respond. It ran ok, but you couldn't do anything else, and had to wait forever for it to do OS stuff. Adding another GB made it much more pleasurable to use as a computer. I can pause FSX and start mail and it is very responsive. Of course I kill all processes I can when flying.The second machine came with 512 MB. Well, I got FSX to "work" on it. But it was much better with 2GB.THe third machine came with 2GB and was quite fast out of the box. I'm disappointed with the resolution of the screen, however, only 1440 x 900. Not much better than 1024 x 768. I'm used to running at 1920 x 1200 on the Dell.For me (many would disagree), 15 fps steady (not pausing) is good smooth flight, enough to impress the people I have shown it to and to get them to use it.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

I wouldn't get you wrong, Roger. I have just based my decision in the FSX box, instead of visiting this forum.. My mistake.I love Fly! II and it runs very smooth on my machine. I

Hi Jo

Hold on a second freinds. Maybe i can surprice you here.Running:Asus a7n8Atlon xp 3000+His 9800 pro iceq (128)1 gb ddrI get 10-20 fps at big airport with medium settings, also autogen. 30% traffic, 50% land and water veh. (no airport veh). In air 20-50 fps.Of course i've done some tweaks, but the main issue is, shut down running programs, shut down services you dont need and shut windows advanced tabs (fancy settings)to a minimum, and finally, start the sim with empty rams.Certainly, at the first simstart it'll take some time to read the graphics in views, but after that it runs very good.