SF 260 is smooth as silk on my system - very favourable comparison to default. The Dornier is good too, also the Twotter. And for airliners, the Super 80 is terrifically framerate friendly. And the ES Cit II is very smooth.The only "hogs" in my hangar are the LDS 767, the C-130 and the PMDG 747 - none of which is showstopping, imho. But my system's not too far out of date, so any of these may drag more significantly on an older PC.To complicate matters, I think personal tolerance is a big issue. I can handle low teens on approach in busy areas, even dipping into single figures, and some people will say that's no good, not flyable. So what you expect is part of the equation, too.

Use FS9. You'll have much more choice.

I can only use the default aircraft if I don't want FSX to completely crash!

>I haven't found a single plane that didn't bog down the game,>forcing me to cut back the scenery to keep a decent frame>rate. This is pretty much the only reason I don't use custom>planes much. It keeps me from getting any payware planes>because I'm afraid I won't be able to enjoy them.>>What is the reason that most user created planes give such a>performance hit (while simultaneously looking worse than the>default planes)?>>Anyway know of any good planes (free or pay) that don't give>any drop in FPS?>>I really want to expand my stable of aircraft, but can't find>many that look good inside and out, let alone a single one>that doesn't take 25% of my FPS away.>>Thanks guys. Also, I'm a sucker for the VC, I probably won't>fly without one.>As far as I can tell the Navajo and Saratoga from FSD-International don't affect my frame rate negatively. Same goes for EagleSoft's Premier1 and Flight1's Cessna 441.

>SF 260 is smooth as silk on my system - very favourable>comparison to default. >>The Dornier is good too, also the Twotter. And for airliners,>the Super 80 is terrifically framerate friendly. And the ES>Cit II is very smooth.>>The only "hogs" in my hangar are the LDS 767, the C-130 and>the PMDG 747 - none of which is showstopping, imho. But my>system's not too far out of date, so any of these may drag>more significantly on an older PC.>>To complicate matters, I think personal tolerance is a big>issue. I can handle low teens on approach in busy areas, even>dipping into single figures, and some people will say that's>no good, not flyable. So what you expect is part of the>equation, too.Is that Super-80 the Coolsky/Flight 1 Pro by any chance ? or is it the steam-gauge older version ?I'll be surprised if the new glass-cockpit'd Pro version is that good - I certainly hope it is as it's on my wish list !

Either Super 80, Classic or Pro, basically have the same frame rates, although it's hard to tell as I get about 6 FPS with the default 172 in the middle atlantic with all sliders left.

And then your stuck with hideous ground textures, less features, and a product that has reached end of line with most reputable addon manufacturers.As for a plane, I, as above, recommend the Coolsky Super 80 (might as well go with the pro version now but the steam is great also). Those planes were built for FSX and they have little to no impact on frames. I can fly the steam Super 80 out of KORD with 20 fps with 100% ai traffic (and I have all WAOI installed with UT filling in the regional carriers). My processor is better then yours though (e6600 overclocked to 3.3 ghz). The LvLD isn't quite as friendly, but after the Super 80 it's probably the best on frames. I'm sure there new 757 built for FSX only will be much better. They definently make a great plane.Those to stay away from? Anything made by captainsim. FPS hogs and they do not support their products well (check out the thread on flightsimworld.com right now aobut what they are doing). The ATR is also a hog as it is simply an FS9 port. Still a good plane though.

I think the reason that FS9 planes in FSX kill the framerate is probably because FS9 planes use mostly polygons to look good, but FSX-only planes can use normal mapping and other videocard-heavy tricks to keep the polys low and the quality high. Just a guess, but it makes sense to me. I have since ponied-up for a payware plane: the Alphasim Rutan Long-EZ, and I am in love with it. Easy on the frames. Looks great. Huge visibility out of the VC. Good performance with the O-320 variant, and it is easy to fly and trims wonderfully for hands off over longer distances. Also it has just enough quirks to be unique (besides it's looks which are totally out there), but not so many that it's confusing. One more thing: it's great to have a speed brake on a small plane when you find youself coming in to fast or in need of a quick decelleration when you get cruising too quick and stress the airframe (which this plane is capable of even at level flight). I recommend it to anyone. Now if I could find some nice paintjobs for it... Lots of FS9 ones, and ones for the 253 variant, but none for the faster 320 variant.

>Is that Super-80 the Coolsky/Flight 1 Pro by any chance ? or>is it the steam-gauge older version ?>>I'll be surprised if the new glass-cockpit'd Pro version is>that good - I certainly hope it is as it's on my wish list !Sorry - I only have the steam version - very smooth and fast - though I hear good things about the new Pro, and am likewise tempted. Difficult to believe a glass cockpit version can be as good, but then there is a good amount of free overhead in the older model, so who knows.

Single core or dual core?3.6 GHz should be plenty fast enough for most if not all planes.What are your framerates with normal planes?What are your framerates with addon planes where you see a drop?What is your processor activity % when you have no programs running on your PC? It should normally be at 1-7% with perhaps some occasional jumps to 11% or so. I've got a friend with a Vista Gateway laptop that sits at 52% CPU usage with nothing else running. I was unable to find any cause for this in the limited time I spent checking his machine out. FSX (or any other program for that matter) could not run well in this environment. And this was for a fairly high level laptop. He had another two PC's of the same configuration that had much lower CPU idle usage (not the idle usage parameter, just the CPU usage when "nothing" was running).Are you getting lots of stuttering?I've overclocked my 2.4 GHz Dual core to 3.3 GHz and I think it runs great, doesn't bog unless I totally overload it.What are your FSX settings? Have you pushed all the sliders up to max? FSX won't run well like that. Try turning off Bloom if that is on.Overall, I don't notice any difference for most addon planes on my system.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Indeed I second the RealAir planes. All of them from the scout to the Spitfire have no impact and look absoulutely stunning in sim.

>The new Super 80 Pro available at Flight 1 is a GREAT>aircraft, with no adverse impact on frame rates that I can>see. It has a beautiful VC as well as a great 2D cockpit with>multiple views and extra panels. This thing is a winner in my>book.Got any screenies mate ? VC would be nice - full size!Cheers

HelloHere you gohttp://www.coolsky.no/super80pro/screenshots/screenshots.htm

>Single core or dual core?Wasn't the P4 a single core only?FaxCap