In FS9, the effect of 'Global Texture Size' slider was quite obvious. Anything other than the setting of 'Massive' resulted in some blurry mess on the screen.In FSX, this does not seem to be the case. I cannot see any difference between 'High' and 'Massive'.Maybe I am looking in the wrong place? It does seem to help performance for me though by leaving the setting at 'high'Also, the scenry density slider seems to be acceptable when set at 'Dense', where in FS9, anything less than 'Very Dense' looked awful.What settings is everyone else using for these?Glenn

Glenn,If you spend a lot of time 'low n' slow' like I do, I think you will notice some things are crisper at maximum settings on Global texture size... For me it's the roads/highways that have an obvious difference in sharpness. At 28000', I doubt that it would matter. Certainly not every object/texture has that "max" texture. Like in FS9 - if the best texture available is 512 x 512, then setting it to show 1024 x 1024 wouldn't change anything. I see the difference in the roads. Others may have noticed it in other features. I leave mine maxed out(the only acceptable quality for me on this). Scenery at dense-to-max. A/G at sparse or normal. Usually weather clear, AI traffic vol low. Road traffic 10-15%; boats and A/P traffic are usually ignored. FPS usually holds 20 fairly well. I stay away from busy airports. Flying at 6 fps is NOT fun. Quad core in another year more - the current system was 2 yrs old this month. Not great but "adequate". When the new hardware rush settles down and we know who the real performers are - then I'll return to the normal GA circuit with new hardware. I've a lot of local airports that want traffic but the horsepower just isn't quite there yet.Loyd

Thanks for that.I was doing my testing using the LDS767.....but when I switched to the C172, the aircraft textures and VC were noticably worse without having the texture size maxed out.Have to wait for Penryn or Nehalem to overclock to ~5Ghz I guess!