I just viewed the FSX Acceleration Trailer. Very nice, smooth...FAST...and so STUTTER FREE.Ok, that being so...it would have been a really good move to have the FPS bar in the top left fully legible throughout the action to let EVERYONE know exactly what kind of FPS need be generated to produce the movement and fluidity in the action.I notice that sorely unavailable.Also, it would have been helpful and most informative to have released with the trailer, exactly what system configuration PRODUCED the visuals.I think that Acceleration will be another fiasco, simply because people will become excited by the competitive nature of the race scenes between the pylon course, and will NOT see that near-MOVIE fluidity of action when in fact they install it upon their own system.Another bait and tease, perhaps.We'll see if I'm wrong. I hope that I am ABSOLUTELY wrong. But in hindsight of other trailers, and media hyperbole...probably not. :(It would be SO pleasant to be proved wrong.....I now invite ACES to supply that information, the mean-average FPS of the trailer, and what system with noted sub-systems produced the video action. Their response, or lack thereof to this simple request of information will be a strong affirmation of this product, or a warning-to-the-wise to potential early-adopters. My personal opinion.Mitch

Well, here's a link to a 24MB WMV file I just threw together, so feel free to take a look at that to see how it's performing.Of course, realize that recording this cuts my frames in half.www.notasenator.com/NAS_Accel.wmv

>I just viewed the FSX Acceleration Trailer. Very nice,>smooth...FAST...and so STUTTER FREE.>>Ok, that being so...it would have been a really good move to>have the FPS bar in the top left fully legible throughout the>action to let EVERYONE know exactly what kind of FPS need be>generated to produce the movement and fluidity in the action.>>I notice that sorely unavailable.>>Also, it would have been helpful and most informative to have>released with the trailer, exactly what system configuration>PRODUCED the visuals.>>I think that Acceleration will be another fiasco, simply>because people will become excited by the competitive nature>of the race scenes between the pylon course, and will NOT see>that near-MOVIE fluidity of action when in fact they install>it upon their own system.>>Another bait and tease, perhaps.>>We'll see if I'm wrong. I hope that I am ABSOLUTELY wrong. >But in hindsight of other trailers, and media>hyperbole...probably not. :(>>It would be SO pleasant to be proved wrong.....>>I now invite ACES to supply that information, the mean-average>FPS of the trailer, and what system with noted sub-systems>produced the video action. Their response, or lack thereof to>this simple request of information will be a strong>affirmation of this product, or a warning-to-the-wise to>potential early-adopters. My personal opinion.>>MitchFirst of all I personally don't like the technique you have used to assume we are hiding something if we don't respond to your post.Do you really think we spend all day reading forums waiting to answer questions? There are times when I am too busy to look at any forum much less this one for several days and miss multiple threads in the process. Phil is better at tracking the forums than most here.I was one of the pilots in that trailer and we had frame rates varying from 12-18 in the Tempelhoff race. I don't remember what the machine specs were but they were on the high end but not by any means the highest available. We filmed the material before most (if not all) of the main perf work for Acceleration was ready to be used.And yes it was difficult to fly the course in close proximity to each other at frame rates of 15 or less. Of course an end user can choose to turn down scenery settings, but we couldn't do that for the trailer.

Brian, that looked pretty good, with no stutter. I see that you got a mean average of around 18 FPS. That's not bad considering that most will achieve that.This looks encouraging.Even though my two questions were not answered by ACES as of this evening, I do thank you for taking the time and trouble to respond with your video. BTW, what's with that near-miss, huh? :) (large smile). I guess that you were too busy holding that video camera for us!!! Thanks again!Mitch

That's a pretty cool video. Why were you so far behind at the beginning of the race... ;)

>That's a pretty cool video. Why were you so far behind at the>beginning of the race... ;)I was fiddling with fraps settings, pausing and recording more, then I realized I was cruising along at like 90 inches, so I cranked that up.(I cut that part out because I looked stupid)

Thank you for your response. Much appreciated. I saw by Brian's video that that was what FPS were generated.Very encouraging, and looks to be quite a fabulous product, as well as flyable.Again, thanks for your response. I'm sure that many reading this thread appreciated the FPS you posted. High End though for equipment meant at the 80 percent of the equipment food chain? If that is so, I guess everybody will have to fill in their blanks as to what that might represent.Mitch

>Thank you for your response. Much appreciated. I saw by>Brian's video that that was what FPS were generated.>>Very encouraging, and looks to be quite a fabulous product, as>well as flyable.>>Again, thanks for your response. I'm sure that many reading>this thread appreciated the FPS you posted. High End though>for equipment meant at the 80 percent of the equipment food>chain? If that is so, I guess everybody will have to fill in>their blanks as to what that might represent.>>>MitchBy the way, I've got a ASUS P5B (not the deluxe) with a Core 2 Duo E6600 overclocked to about 3ghz, 2GB of DDR2 800 RAM and a shiny new $140 ATI Radeon X2600XT. Lucky me, all having crappy DX10 crash issues with that card, but the ATI rep assures me that it should be fixed in the 7.10 drivers out this month.