I agree, LAdamson. The only thing that I am missing from X-Plane is the level of enthousiasm and support from the community, like Fly!. When Fly! first came out, everyone thought that it was the holy grail of flightsimming. I am missing this with X-Plane. Austin is very good and accurate with flight physics, but ever so often overlooks the little bling of FS (especially traffic and ATC).Pat

Astrodave, you're another one that posts a lot of interesting info, was reading about your new PC which was enlightening. GTR2 runs phenomenal! Just running alone at Imola right now and it's smooth as silk...beautiful. Back to FSX, I'll be picking it up later today or this weekend. Will look for necessary tweaks when I get it. Rhett already pointed me towards a good site to tweak FSX.Thanks, Todd

>It's very interesting the title of this thread and the final>decision made by the poster here. Great advice has been given>concerning FS9 and the 'daunting' nature of the two version>(FSX vs FS9) yet it seems the poster has closed the door to a>major piece of his 'daunting' dilemma.>>>The bottom line is I hate when people come in here asking for>help when they're only willing to hear what they want to hear.Dillon, you missed the whole point of my post. Whether FSX or FS9, that's not the question, and your focus on performance is just wrong from what I originally said. Let me rephrase so you will understand...Flight Simulator is daunting for a new person to get 'involved' with. With all the textures(sky, ground, tarmac,etc.), different scenery programs, planes(and how they operate differently), traffic programs, etc., etc. This what I find daunting! Some add-ons take a frame rate hit, some don't. Then, the expertise to make all this stuff work! Not the difference between FS9 and FSX. You throw out how you hate how people just want to hear what they want to hear...well let me just say that you're the one that comes across as closed minded to me. To you, it sounds like FS9 only. And you may in fact be correct. To me, from what I've gathered so far, FSX has better graphics, and the flight modeling sounds much better, in that the majority of people running FSX have stated over and over again how flying FSX just feels a lot better than FS9. It has a better feeling of flying a plane. Personally, I don't know. And lastly, the way I see FSX being very enjoyable to me is flying around in my area (inland So. Cal) and hitting many of the small airports in my area. I've seen Magascenery and it looks great for my area and elsewhere...not ready for FSX yet, but people say that stock graphics in FSX are very good.

At that site (Matt Fox - aka forkboy), the thing to do is read Ryan Maziarz's FSX tweaking guide, which maybe you have already done.And then I will say, for your system, I doubt the texture re-sizing tweaks will do anything for you. I probably wouldn't bother doing those. For me, the replacement Autogendescriptions.spb file did wonders. And I use one of the modified Default.xml files. Keeping road traffic at 20% helps a lot with minimal loss of realism. The default airplane traffic is a frame killer too...you can have add-on AI aircraft that will do much better.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>Never said FSX is perfect and I don't want to go into an>FS9/FSX discussion. Both can bring a Dual-Core rig down in a>heartbeat and that's mainly, yep, because of shoddy>programming and fundamental flaws.>>I am not an FSX fanboi, on the contrary: I still cannot>understand why both sims take about a minute to even get me to>the start screen. I have more computing power than the space>shuttle and I can even play the most complex game with>trillions of polygons without a hitch. Why? Because>multi-million dollar funded Aces "overlooked" to add support>for the latest technologies (Multi Core, SLI/CF) and>developers still seems to like a payware API (FSUIPC) more>than the incomplete FS SDKs. Even X-Plane that takes 60GB out>of the box with stunning scenery that even FSX can dream of>gets me up to 50fps.>>Not convinced?>>http://youtube.com/watch?v=BXcCAsu9Odk>>Visually, FSX is/can be stunning. Unfortunately it cannot>really be enjoyed by a serious simmer with 10-20fps and it>probably won't be ready for prime time for a long time,>because single-core CPUs are pretty much history and>technology hovers over to dual/quad cores.>>However, in my opinion, there is little difference technically>between FS9 and FSX, because both run like s*it and both have>broken, buggy autogen, and a config file that needs a degree>in aviation and graphics presentation to make it "work". Right>now, I am happy with my default FSX, but I don't even want to>think about loading up a Level-D or PMDG. FSX to me is FS9>with integrated UT, FSG and GE Pro, plus some updated models>and minor improvements.>>When it comes to FPS, yea, I can have 70+FPS in the default>C172 in FS9, but once I load a PMDG and 80% traffic, I am on>exactly the same fps count (~15) than stock FSX with 40%>traffic. Where do the remaining CPU cycles in FSX go? One part>of my CPU cycles are not even used, because my CPU runs on>both cores with half speed. ####, I can even run a full game>of StarCraft on my second monitor with FSX open, because my>CPU is daydreaming while casually bycyling down the FSX road.>The second part? Only Aces knows. Probably eaten up by the>incredibly complex task to move a low-polygon jetway towards>the plane or moving another set of low-polygon cars, boats and>airport traffic along pre-defined routes.>>If technology is not ready yet to accomplish what Aces is/were>hoping for then don't incorporate it in the sim, but publish a>$20 add-on when our CPUs are ready for it. I'd much rather>have a simple SID/STAR approach then the other bling, but>that's just me.>>Backward compatibility? Where? Apparently no new engine has>been developed, because of backwards compatibility. So, why>can't I use my FS9 PMDG in FSX? Why can't I use almost ANY FS9>addon with FSX? If that is supposed to be compatible, then>screw it and rewrite.>>What game/simulation requires from me to dig into the depths>of anti-aliasing or aa filtering of my graphic card? None,>except the FS series. Mysterious and invisible cfg corruption>that requires me a search for a (by default) hidden file,>delete it and re-create it? Microstutters and blurry textures?>Never had one - except in FS9/FSX. Did I ever have to tweak>anything in my system for other games? Nope. Never tweaked a>thing to run Fly!, Flight Unlimited or SimPilot, so I assume>that either everything got too complex or that the>programming/engine is just bad.>>Ok, I have drifted way off topic, but I needed to get that off>my chest.>>Am I happy with FSX? Not at all. I knew when I loaded the demo>shivering from excitement (ok, not really) and was greeted by>a slideshow. FPS is not everything, but the ability to>*play/sim* is.>>Yes, yes, yes, FSX is not perfect, but neither is FS9.>>The last sim that really, really wow'ed me was Fly!2k.>Nowadays X-Plane (although visually there, is not ready,>because i need ATC and traffic).>>X-Plane has some great potential, but it seems to be mostly>used by Mac folks who are traditionally great graphic artists,>but relatively poor programmers and bad, bad at marketing>(hence no PMDG-like addon for X-Plane, very clumsy interface>and little to none commercial add-ons). I bet that not even 5%>of the FSX owners even heard of X-Plane. Same as GTR2 owners>who never heard of rFactor, which absolutely blows away GTR2.>Not to offend anyone.>>We need more people like Richard Harvey and Austin Meyers to>get flightsimming back to an enjoyable level.>>PatI agree :)

Um... interesting thread :DDillon - Hate to break this to you but your system specs could never have been considered 'top of the line'(unless you are being sarcastic.) The X1600 you've got is a middle of the road gfx card, period (not to mention you bought a Dell.) Glad you enjoy FS9 so much, but you come off as a little bitter. Don't know if that's because you feel you are being left behind due to your specs or what, but seriously to each his own right? With the machine specs the OP mentioned, he'll have a very enjoyable experience with FSX.Is FSX perfect? Nope. Can I fly over NYC with all settings maxed out? Nope, but then again I don't want to... and as I recall, I couldn't do it with FS9 at release either. I upgraded my machine to run FS9 when it came out just like I did with FSX. It's all part of the deal as far as I'm concerned.Anyhow, just think how much more you'll enjoy FSX once the hardware catches up and you upgrade. I'm guessing you'll be right back here griping when FSXI is released and you can't run it as well as FSX... big wheel keep on turnin'.

I used to be one of those guys griping about fsx performance on my old box until i got off my a$$ and tweaked the fsx.cfg, downloaded the modified autogen files and set them to my desire, and purchased the cloud9 landclass. On my old p4 3.6 it took me from 12 fps in seattle to 16 which is a 33% increase in frame rate. Sure 16 still sucks, but the machine was almost 3 years old so what do you expect?The new machine is a beast and i took the time to test and tweak it so that it is overclocked by 33%. There is still a ton more left in this rig and I am 100% confident that i could hit 3.4 to 3.6ghz easily with the cpu temps I am seeing right now but at this point anything else is overkill. I am a solid 30fps+ in 99% of the world except for maybe tokyo or new york city and even then im in the low 20's. All scenery sliders are from 3/4 to full except for water which is 1 full and autogen which is normal. I could push them up even but frankly have no desire as it already looks plenty real to me. In fact my current windows background is a 105 degree FOV shot of seattle in full complexity about 5 miles in the distance with me flying in the bell at a steady 35fps clip.I also run at an insane rez of 3840x1024 for my triplehead setup and still get these frame rates. I spent a total of 6 minutes tweaking it to get this performance. Should this have been done by Aces so that i didnt have to? Sure. Was it easy to fix once i got off my high horse? Yes. I will be the first to say the game suffers from the same issues that fs9 does like crappy atc, bad traffic, poor performance out of the box and on anything less than a core2 or high end amd system but overall if you spend the time then it has much potential. Coming online and griping that a 4 year old p4 2.6 wont run a modern game will not get you taken seriously by anyone. Dillon i can only give you a single piece of advice: time to upgrade. If after 4 years of scraping along on that dinosaur you still feel you should be able to play fsx or any other modern game at 30fps then maybe its time that you reevaluated your goals. Youd be lucky to run quake3 on that machine yet alone any game newer than 3 years old.My point: This game flies very fast IF you spend the money for a new rig AND you properly tweak it. If you dont want to do either of these then maybe you need to rethink your desire to flight sim. I await patiently for the dx10 patch and nvidia to finally release their vista 8800 drivers...Dave

Astrodave:(and anyone else)Please dont get upset but I have done all the tweaking I can find including reduced textures, autogen .. you name it I've done it and it really didnt make a lot of difference on my machine, I wish I could say the same as you but I cant and my machine is pretty high end (4800+, 1900xt and 2gig ram). I dont want to start an arguement I'm just trying to add balance.Oh and its not my machine as it benches well and all other games run smooth as silk.Plus I dont think you can expect most people to overclock a cpu.regards

I feel you. I have worked in the computer field for 10 years so there isn't much i don't know when it comes to tweaking them. I admit that many others probably don't have the skills or are too afraid to tweak their machines. Even running at its default 2.4ghz speed my new pc got a steady 24-26fps in cities which is still very smooth. Your pc is nowhere near as fast as mine even at its default speed so realistically you shouldn't expect to see more than high teens to low 20's in the cities if you did the same tweaks as me. Even my dad's fx-62 which is overclocked by 10% only gets 24fps in the cities with the same settings that i have mine set to and his rig is quite a bit faster than yours. Overclocked core2 machines are really the only machines capable of running this sim at a good clip I'm afraid.

>Astrodave:>>(and anyone else)>>Please dont get upset but I have done all the tweaking I can>find including reduced textures, autogen .. you name it I've>done it and it really didnt make a lot of difference on my>machine, I wish I could say the same as you but I cant and my>machine is pretty high end (4800+, 1900xt and 2gig ram). I>dont want to start an arguement I'm just trying to add>balance.>>Oh and its not my machine as it benches well and all other>games run smooth as silk.>>Plus I dont think you can expect most people to overclock a>cpu.>>regards>>Have you try the TnL=2 tweak in the Display.cfg yet, See my "Check This Out..." post in the Hardware forum above. It seems to help some, especially with ATI Cards, but not others. To give you an idea look at the video I linked to in my reply above or in the Video forum. Since then I was able to get even more performance out of FSX by not using ATI's Catalyst Control module, and switching to ATI Tray Tools! Also Fraps, also eats a few FPS, so the actual frame rate is about 23 average, now I get closer to 27 FPS average around New York, and if I switch to 1.4 shaders, I average in the 30's. The argument about not having to tweak FSX is a non starter IMHO, since every version of this sim has always required some tweaking to get the most out of it!! Sure in a perfect world it would be nice if this was done up front by the developer, but not everybody's Hardware is the same. Atleast FS has always had the capability of adjusting to each type of system, whether that is just a variable setting, or compromising on detail.

I remember the heyday of FLY too! Luckily, Microsoft's FS2002 & FS9 have had the benefit of Rob Young's excellent flight models after leaving the FLY series (RealAir Simulations). Some of the modeling aspects have even been better than FLY, such as aerobatic capabilities and spins. Rob now says, that spins will even be better in FSX with some new programming.I can say without doubt, that much of RealAir's flight modeling, exceeds that of X-Plane's. But regardless, I do enjoy X-Plane to a quite a degree, but not as much as FSX; and X-Planes global scenery has some excellent topography mesh.On the subject of X-Plane demo video's, I remember posting a link to an FS9 video on an X-Plane forum (X-Plane org. general sim forum) that had the RealAir Simulations SF260 virtual cockpit as the center attraction, doing some nice manuvering over a heavily populated airport with lots of AI, moving ground vehicles, etc. The airport was a very scaled 3rd party production. Needless to say, the X-Plane crowd was in awe! But like anything else, some exciting X-Plane videos can also be produced to show it's good sides too! :)L.Adamson

>Astrodave:>>(and anyone else)>>Please dont get upset but I have done all the tweaking I can>find including reduced textures, autogen .. you name it I've>done it and it really didnt make a lot of difference on my>machine, I wish I could say the same as you but I cant and my>machine is pretty high end (4800+, 1900xt and 2gig ram). I>dont want to start an arguement I'm just trying to add>balance.>>Oh and its not my machine as it benches well and all other>games run smooth as silk.>>Plus I dont think you can expect most people to overclock a>cpu.>I do run FSX at a near steady 25 fps with auto-gen and water OFF. Those two items make a big difference in fps. I also ran FS9 with water detail off, just for the fps increase on my previous machine.Happily, cities and mountain terrain from a few thousand feet up, look great with auto-gen "off" in FSX.Should I prefer higher frame rates at high density airports, and frame rate hogging add-on airplanes, I'll simply switch to FS9. However, I much prefer the higher resolution look of FSX. It's more of a glossy photo-look, than an animated cartoon look, that exist's within FS9 and all previous versions. I do feel that it's important to keep fps at least close to 25 fps. At this speed, movement is fluid and stutter free. Actually looks smoother than 25 fps in FS9.L.AdamsonAthlon 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600 256meg/ 1600*1200*32 res.

Yep, I just did a short flight in X-Plane and I was in awe again. 60fps, the sim runs as smooth as butter, ultra realistic flight dynamics and looks just stunning and very, very realistic.Now give me some ATC, traffic, seasonal textures and an organized user community and my preference would definitely shift to X-Plane.I agree, Rob Young has designed some of the finest models. I can't wait to see something for FSX.Pat

>ultra>realistic flight dynamics And that's one area where I definately have a different opinion. I've never found X-Plane's flight dynamics to be all that great. IMO, it's always been hype for about the last 15 years! :-hah Well, at least since Microsoft's CFS2..........anyway!For the best in rudder control, I go with RealAir. RealAir's rudder authority for aerobatics, spins, and slips hasn't been beat by anyone.As to other specific parts of the flight envelope, it's hit and miss between X-Plane and MSFS, as to what performs better.Of course, Austin does have this big incompatibility problem with constant beta updates. What works in beta version X, might not work a month later in beta verson X.1, and so on. And that's a major problem with 3rd party vendors getting on board!At the moment, I'm using X-Plane 8.50 with global scenery.L.Adamson

It really depends on what plane you fly in XP. The stock models are good, but not that excellent. I emailed Austin about this and he even agreed. I usually fly the commercial C172 from 3p. I also needed some tweaking to tame my flight controls, because they were way too responsive by default. It's really hard to tell with FS9/FSX, because 40fps make a world of difference when it comes to responsiveness and accuracy. XP right now "feels" more real, but other might disagree.Pat