I didn't know ziltch about overclocking either-tried it(took about 1 minute to set it up) and running about 10-15 fps faster for free.Worth it if your system can take it-no problems here.On mine went for 2.66 to 3.3-probably conservative (could probably go more) but smooth sailing all the way-total stability and fps very good for almost anything-maybe even pmdg or whatever that beast is!http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

If that is what makes you happy that is what you should do. But....I would give 100 bucks to know why some computers....with same specs handle FSX so different. I do not fly the heavies at all so I have no idea to speak of comparison to that. My machine is ancient compared to yours. Now I am not flying at all as spring is here and I am too busy with golf and catching small mouth bass...plus my 7600GT card is fried and I am on motherboard graphics....but I keep up with the forums. I never could get rid of stutters in FS9. I love setting up an IFR flight in bad weather and flying the slope and landing. With FSX it is smooth as silk. FS9 would always stutter......and with FSX I have FEX....XGraphics.....GEX. I do use only GA aircraft, but some good ones from Flight1. Having had every version of this program I will also get the next if there is one...and that is when I will buy my new machine. I am very curious if the next version of FSX performance will be as varied on the same hardware as previous versions have been. It is a mystery to me and I am always amazed reading posts from folks with the same machine specs and one has outstanding FSX performance and the other person is saying it hardly runs at all. I was in the air defense missile field for almost 30 years and we would have radars and associated processors that worked to operational specs and then the same model of the same equipment located at another location could not meet those specs. The army would just change the specs in the manual and call it an "idiosyncrasy". I think the same thing exist in FSX. Go figure. Regards

I just finished a nice short (350nm) flight in the Overland - SimmerSky 767-300, modified with the iSG gauge suite (working FMC, flightplan on the MFD, TCAS in multiplayer) and only recently updated for FSX, from Adelaide, Australia to Melbourne, Australia as depicted by the FTX/Orbyx "Blue" scenery add-on. I held 30fps enroute, 15-20 fps on takeoff and landing. My system is a 3 year-old Dell XPS Gen5 3.2 GHz Dual-Core OC'd to 3.4GH, 4 Gig of Crucial Ballistix memory and running through an nVidia 8800GTS video card, and the flight was really enjoyable. Sure I have a lote of things to port over to FSX, but it seems to be working. The Overland planes are my current favorites. Much easier on FPS than the PMDG Queen.http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

Totally agree about FS9 performance on the current machines. However when FS9 was 18 months old it was a hugh struggle to run on the machine available at that time.FS 11 should be released with maximum performance on the machines available at the begining of its life and not at the end.

I'm back in the FS9 camp too. Performance is half the reason, with FSX running pretty good for the most part, but there are a few scenarios where I drop into sub-10 FPSville, even with modest settings, and that just switches me right off! I just cannot be bothered with tweaking this and that anymore to find the elusive cause of these performance black holes.The other reason is the ongoing lack of addons that I want. Yes, I know there are lots of FSX addons out there, but the collective lot has still not been able to tip me over to FSX primality. I am mourning the loss of FSNav and am still waiting for FSPassengers, the SSTSIM update to their Concorde, and some semblence of smooth winds. I know these are being worked on (except FSNav - RIP!), but for them to not be ready 18 months after FSX release, when this FS version was supposed to have been made in concert with developers, just leaves me wondering how helpful this cooperative development environment has really been for us all.The bottom line for me is that, as much as I want to love FSX, it still hasn't passed the 'cute, but call me when it's mature enough for me to move on from FS9' stage yet IMO.Gary

OMG - where'd you get the bug? I wondered what on earth had gotten behind the plastic screen in front of my LCD, until I closed the thread and realised that it was somne sort of animated image! LOL!

If I'm honest with myself I'd say I've uninstalled/reinstalled FSX and FS2004 quite a few times over the last year and a half. Of course the frame rates are much better in FS2004; I can put all the sliders over to the right on FS2004 and still get silky smooth frame rates.These days though the latter even with Flight Environment, Ground Environment, Ultimate Terrain and all the rest, is pretty much overshadowed by FSX for looks. I think for me the water has a lot to do with it, but now that Ultimate Terrain is out for FSX there's really no going back for me.All I need now is UTX for Europe, Radar Contact 5, and I'll be in heaven (oh yes and that 22" widescreen monitor). :)

It's extremely entertaining reading posts about how FS9 is sooo much better than FSX, because you can put all the sliders to the max and still have high frame rates...I can run the first Halflife game on full settings and still get really high frame rates. But with Crysis, I can't. Does that make Halflife a better game than Crysis? No. Does it make Halflife's graphics engine better than Crysis' graphics engine? No.Why? Because you're comparing apples and pears.I don't know all the details, I guess you have to go to Phil Taylor for those... But I do know that FSX draws so much more on the screen than FS9 could ever do, even on highest settings. The textures are higher resolution, the terrain is more detailed, and there are several times more autogen drawn, if you compare both sims on highest settings.If you wanted to compare the sims on equal terms, you would probably have to run FSX on low settings. But hey, then you aren't running the sim on max settings, so the FSX graphics engine must suck, right???Do you start to see ACES' dilemma?Also, frame rates aren't everything, either. Actually, above 25 or so, they mean nothing, because you probably wouldn't be able to notice the difference...

>If you wanted to compare the sims on equal terms, you would>probably have to run FSX on low settings. But hey, then you>aren't running the sim on max settings, so the FSX graphics>engine must suck, right???>>Do you start to see ACES' dilemma?>>Also, frame rates aren't everything, either. Actually, above>25 or so, they mean nothing, because you probably wouldn't be>able to notice the difference...I agree with you. You can't expect to run crysis on a computer that is 5 years old, nor should you expect to run FSX on a 5 year old machine. I'd rather see MS put out the best product they can, than tone it down to work on old computers. People are going to have to move on eventually. FS11 won't work on FS9 computers either. I swear if even ONE FS9 user complains FS11 won't run on their old machine, I will literally explode in their face. Flight simulator is no different than other games in this respect. New games require new hardware. Period.I disagree with your statement about frame rates though... you can DEFINITELY see a difference between 25 and 35. A HUGE difference.

But it

>>If you wanted to compare the sims on equal terms, you would>>probably have to run FSX on low settings. But hey, then you>>aren't running the sim on max settings, so the FSX graphics>>engine must suck, right???>>>>Do you start to see ACES' dilemma?>>>>Also, frame rates aren't everything, either. Actually, above>>25 or so, they mean nothing, because you probably wouldn't>be>>able to notice the difference...>>I agree with you. You can't expect to run crysis on a>computer that is 5 years old, nor should you expect to run FSX>on a 5 year old machine. I'd rather see MS put out the best>product they can, than tone it down to work on old computers. >People are going to have to move on eventually. FS11 won't>work on FS9 computers either. I swear if even ONE FS9 user>complains FS11 won't run on their old machine, I will>literally explode in their face. Flight simulator is no>different than other games in this respect. New games require>new hardware. Period.>>I disagree with your statement about frame rates though... you>can DEFINITELY see a difference between 25 and 35. A HUGE>difference.>If you notice it, it's often because of stutters (which helps lower the average FPS, of course). FSX is unusually smooth even at those low frames.

no it

Hi,I justed wanted to comment on your statement about the PMDG 747 running better in FS9 than it does in FSX , and I get the sense that is one of your reasons for returning to FS9. There are alot of great addons for FSX out there now.(some better than others) That being said, I fail to see why the PMDG's 747 performance issues within FSX is Microsoft's fault? For one the PMDG 747 wasnt designed from the ground up for FSX! It was more or less patched to work with FSX. A patch that you have to shell out 59.00-euros for! It was one of the first commercial airliners (if not the first) to be released for FSX, and in my opinion was most likely rushed. I think maybe that your focus on the PMDG's performance issues with FSX should be directed more towards PMDG rather than Microsoft and FSX.Just as most of us, as consumers want to hold Microsoft, FSX, and any other future releases of Flight Simulator to higher standards. We should apply the same concept to addon developers as well!In my opinion, the aces team pulled through BIG TIME with 2 major service packs, and I for one am appreciative of their hard work. Now its time for me to fly my LEVEL D 767,and whole host of other addons in FSX!ThanksChris,

well i just had a great flight in FS9 KLAX to KSFO in external view i was getting sometimes over 100 fps, gosh, never saw that before, this flying PMDG747, very smooth got between 30-50 fps, also bc i have maxed out the sliders i now see buildings at the airports ive never seen before!just imagine if i go and load up an add on airport, sure the frames will go down slightly but the details of those airports and still being smoooothcant give up on that!!

I get up to 150 fps when running Gottfrieds scenery on fsx and while it is kinda cool to see those numbers, I actually never turn the fps counter on unless I have a problem with performance, or am going to post a screen shot for those that are obsessed by this.Since I don't ever have a problem with performance and sliders pretty well to the right (even in 3d where twice the images are being drawn) the fps counter stays off. If I ever feel non smooth flight I'll be the first to turn it on and investigate.As far as buildings at the airport-that is in your scenery complexity slider.I also have my scenery complexity slider all the way to the right to see all the airport buildings/cities etc.-they are cool. I have the autogen buildings which look to me like simcity 2000 turned off-and autogen trees all the way to the right. With gex I find this gives the most realistic view available today and with good performance as the airport buildings give the ambiance while on the ground-the photo textures (buildings) look more real from about 300 ft. and the trees look somewhat real.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/