Dear all,I have been following the threads here for a while in frustration. Especially Mr. Adamson's posts upset me, although I must give in that he might not have been so far off the point he continuously advocated.Why did they upset me: they consistently bragged about FSX being so absolutely excellent, while I couldn't manage a decent turn with it: one frame would be ok, the next, ten seconds later, I would have crashed, a hole in the ground.I since then have experienced FSX with Tileproxy, a swell piece of software, the Graal of FSX. It cuts all the overhead and allows the sim to disclose itself as the germ of a gem with stupendous REAL LIFE scenery, decent frame rate of 18/20 fps on a decent computer, and excellent planes. FSX's aircrafts are gnarly, and there are no words for RealAir's FSX SF260.My reply to Mr. Adamson's posts, and my plea to Microsoft: Yes to FSX! but do what it takes to get us decent frame rates (wasn't that the main single community's request resulting from the poll Microsoft posted some time ago on these channels?).tagadaP IV 3.2 Mhz; NVidia 6600; 1Gb ram.

I believe that is the main goal of sp1 as stated by Aces. Hopefully it will be out soon.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

One mans great is another's average or even poor.Evaluating FSX performance is objective at best, and even more random when you consider all the hardware configurations out there. Someone expressing how well FSX runs (for them) or how great it looks (in their opinion) would never begin to annoy me. If I cannot get it to run well, but someone else loves what they have..I focus on making it run well on my end, and allow them to enjoy what they have.I think we all realize that you must have at least an average build to run FSX at its current state with. With the patch, perhaps we will have more room to move on a below average machine. I will not speculate on anything as that is a waste of energy.Aces have been working hard to make it better, and that is better than the alternative (no patch, no FSX to complain about).I know that I am building a new machine up in late June, with FSX in mind and nothing else. Heck, if it can run FSX smooth - it can run anything!Danon -

Mine flies along at 18-50fps with every scenery slider at maximum with the exception of autogen at dense and water at Low 2.x, and I don't even have a real fast CPU.

I find FSX absolutely excellent too. But I never have autogen or traffic turned on. So i get high (30fps) and fluid frame rates, always!I guess by using TileProxy you have inadvertently discovered the same thing since you now turn off autogen and traffic.

Hey Tagada; I know it must be tough to read the (many) posts from Larry; it suits his desired flying environment - but there are also many more whose systems are the equal and better of Larry's - mine being one: I get better performance than he, as I can run full autogen. I don't think he was bragging, so much as showing how good it could be, but he is also right on in his thoughts, though; you HAVE to have a pretty warm system, so don't feel bad. It will happen for you when you upgrade at some point down the road. Meanwhile just relax and enjoy what you can: turn off the water; turn off the traffic; crank down the detail; It won't be long before the patch gets here, and then things will improve. Don't forget, too - you can always tweak, as I describe below. I'm up here with SolarEagle; I lock 'er at 25fps and get 24.8 constantly: autogen is also dense, bloom is off; lens flare is off, water at 1high, 15% airline, 10% road and 2% ship traffic. To get that I used Matt Fox's 50% texture size reduction, plus a couple of the fsx.cfg mods recommended here. Those modifications made all the difference in the world. You DON'T notice any reduction in visual quality going from 1024 x 1024 down to 512 x 512. Not one little bit. I will believe that's one of the SP1 changes.I've rebuilt the system back to stock three weeks ago in anticipation of SP1; I now get 18 - 20 with the same settings.Also like Larry, I use FS9 because of the add-ons I have - there's nothing in FSX like Flight Scenery's Portland; no airports like those of FlyTampa or Cloud9; I use FSX for very, very good low-level VMC, I have X-Plane, Pro-Pilot, Fly and Fly II, and enjoy all of them. But FS10 - has SO much potential, that I'm also very confident that, when SP1 is past, the hullaballoo is over -- FS10 will far exceed everything that has ever come out of the older sims. We simply don't have the hardware yet, I don't; SolarEagle doesn't; Larry doesn't - and the software is still (yes - still) under development, and the dev companies are still getting their feet wet. We simply can't expect better at this moment.It WILL get there. :-)All the Best,

>>My reply to Mr. Adamson's posts, and my plea to Microsoft: Yes>to FSX! but do what it takes to get us decent frame rates>(wasn't that the main single community's request resulting>from the poll Microsoft posted some time ago on these>channels?).I'll take extra frame rates too! :D As to auto-gen, don't know if I'd use it or not, since those cartoony houses still have a horrible adverse effect on good looking photo-real scenery. Still haven't used tile proxy yet; which is surprising since I like mountainous areas! In the meantime, it's autogen off, water effects sometimes, and frame rates in the 20's-30 area. For those fancy airports and autogen, I use FS9! :-hah Good to see, that you feel somewhat better about FSX! ;) L.Adamson