>>>Your PC is high end now, but in 1 yr will be mid range, and>2>>yrs entry level :)>>That's right. Which means in 2 years time no one will be>complaining. And people will see that when run to its full>potential this is a unique game. >>>I bought this PC for

>Glad your enjoying FSX now but I personally would have a hard timejustifying $ 4300 US to use a $70 sim.Its not just for the sim and I only buy a PC every 5 years.

>RE: This is how FS2000 ran!HAHA! I love it! Unfortunatly, depending in your computer and settings, this is true.

>>>Your PC is high end now, but in 1 yr will be mid range, and>2>>yrs entry level :)>>That's right. Which means in 2 years time no one will be>complaining. And people will see that when run to its full>potential this is a unique game. >>>I bought this PC for

>First off, every single screenshot I see of FSX with high FPS>are external shots of the A/C. Who flies like that? Show me a>shot on those same setups of a VC shot coming in to land at an>airport around a major city. Your 60 FPS will be 10-15...>Just calling it like it is.Mine always seems to go the other way and I get better frame rates in the VC

>I also as you can see did not use autogen. This helped tremendously.Wow! Where can I get the panel you have in the attached picture?Daniel

Thanks for the shots Tom but where is the Autogen? Where is the AI and the road traffic? Where is the high quality water? I can not even tell from that picture it is FSX...I am sure that the quality of the pics are diminished by sizing them down but there is nothing in that pic that says wow, look how good FSX looks you better change...What are your settings? If you are getting 25FPS with a default A/C what are you looking at when those add-on aircraft start coming? Add-on A/C with Add-on airport and no one is going to be getting 25 FPS anywhere...Glad to see you are happy though Tom, Cheers,-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0

>Thanks for the shots Tom but where is the Autogen? Where is>the AI and the road traffic? Where is the high quality water?>I can not even tell from that picture it is FSX...>I am sure that the quality of the pics are diminished by>sizing them down but there is nothing in that pic that says>wow, look how good FSX looks you better change...>What are your settings? If you are getting 25FPS with a>default A/C what are you looking at when those add-on aircraft>start coming? Add-on A/C with Add-on airport and no one is>going to be getting 25 FPS anywhere...>Glad to see you are happy though Tom, >Cheers,>-PaulIf your trying to get this performance running full bore sliders to the right, I suggest you reread Phil's blog! There isn't a system built today that can do this, and FSX wasn't designed that way. The higher settings are meant for future hardware like Penryn! Personally I think Aces made a mistake by enabling these features in the GUI, people naturally want to run at max settings and will be dsappointed. What they should have done, is set the Max settings on the GUI to handle today's H/W and use the config file to boost these settings in the future when faster systems are available. As for my shots, there is plenty of Autogen in that shot, just not as many trees, because as has been necessary since FS2002, I have the default.xml file renamed, as it is and has been a performance hog since then. I can live without trees sprouting up everywhere, I do get them in forested areas and other places they should be though! There are plenty of buildings as I fly with Autogen at dense settings. As for AI Road traffic, while post SP1 it doesn't hurt me too much in FPS I normally don't used it. As for AI I fly with Airline traffic at 100%, naturally in the shot I posted they are hard to see but if you look close you'll see 2 737's exiting the runway ahead, and just to give you an idea of the traffic there here's another showing it!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172325.jpgOne more pulling into the terminal at KATL!!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172326.jpg

My system doesnt even come close to that and after what I invested in mine I'm afraid of what it'd cost to get a system like yours, but i CAN say that whatever it is, you CAN get an actual PPL or even IFR license for whatever it cost.I do have Vista. Havent installed it yet. Guess I can try that and see if it helps.

NM I missed the reply that answered this:>>About $4,000 at current exchange rate. I spent only 2800 bucks getting my PPL (this is the average cost) and it'll only cost about another 3000 (again - average cost for anyone) to get my IFR . . . I'll stick with that for real life and FS9 for simming.I have FSX Deluxe, but as stated above, I can't really tell if it's system related or something in FSX. I know on my system I get a total system freeze whenever I try to use anything with a G1000 system in it, so I'll wait patiently and see if it gets better with another patch -- that is IF they do another patch. I honestly doubt another patch is in the works. By now they are planning marketing for another game.

Thanks Tom,Great shots and it definitely shows FSX has potential. It took 3 years for FS9 to reach full maturity but the difference was even an immature FS9 killed a mature FS2k2 because most things could still be used. An immature FSX gets trounced by a mature FS9 because so much of our FS9 investment is now a waste thanks to FSX... I guess until FSX reaches full maturity I will keep chugging along with my FS9 investment. Now had FSX fixed AI spacing and ATC or done something that MAKES you switch it would be different but for now that silver bullet just isn't there. MS just didn't come out with anything to make FSX impossible to ignore...Thanks again Tom,-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0

Agreed, Paul.The problem though is that FSX is not even meant to be a simulation, like FS9 and the prior sims were. ACES even mentions that somewhere in their blogs. Gaming seems to be the thing nowdays, so that's what FSX is aimed at.I'll definately be sticking with FS9 as well until third party developers make enough goodies to make FSX at least seem like a simulation. I use FS as a tool for practicing for my real world flight school. I'm no gamer, so FSX is not practical to me now.<> Corrections in spelling.

Where did you read about FS being a game vs a sim? :)

I can't remember. I remember someone here in the forums linked it and it was one of the ACEs folks commenting about how the demand for a "gaming feel" was more than those for a "sim" feel, so they decided to get these "missions" into the "game" to market FSX as a "more marketable product".I'll search it out as i read this like 3 months ago. If I can find it I'll link it here.

Knikolaes, no one's forcing you to do the missions. The way the aircrafts handle is still as realistic as that in FS9. You can have a 'gaming feel' only if you want to.