Mango

Well, after some effort in optimizing (tweaking) your system and the sim, you are able to run FSX satisfying on todays hardware (maybe not above extremely dense ares like New York or Tokyo, but the world is big...). Here's a sample what is possible with an E6600 and a X1900XT both overclocked.That's my first video attempt and it contains a few micro stutters because i recorded full screen with Fraps. Those don't occur without recording.http://www.fs2004.com/downloads/index.php?dlid=1476If you like slide shows - here are some pics of our multiplayer World Tour:http://www.fs2004.com/downloads/index.php?dlid=1486It's rendered with wmv9 codec. If you get problems to view with an outdated Media Player, download this one:http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.htmlHave fun with FSX :-) !

Yeah, Tokyo is the true benchmark place... With my high visual settings i can fly at any altitude above Seattle with 16 - 25 FPS very fluid. When i came close to Tokyo @ 3.000 ft with the default Grumman Goose, it dropped to 9 - 12 - not flyable anymore. I tried Buffer Pool size 5000000 and 10000000, both failed (FPS drop to 1 -2 and disoriented graphics)@ Tokyo and didn't make a noticeable frame rate difference at all.

For our World Tour flight into a very dense area (Tokyo) i thought it would be a good idea to apply the Buffer Pool tweak. I tried it in Seattle and everything looked well so far. Arriving above Tokyo caused (first time for me) this huge drop to 1-2 FPS with distorted graphics. I disabled this 'tweak', restarted the session and everything was back to work. Buffer Pool size should be handled with care... ;-)

>No offense Mango but your screenshots don't mean nothing. I>have almost the exact same machine as yours and I can barley>pull a steady 15fps in highly dense parts in FSX. Who cares>about 30fps while flying over farms and open land, let's see>the same fps around major airports and cities with ai traffic!>>>Anyone with a half decent machine can pull at least 20fps with>most of the sliders to the right and almost anyone can slew or>pause in FSX and take some pretty screenshots but it doesn't>mean anything if the fps aren't steady. Yes FSX does look>better then FS9 out of the box but with add-on's I think FS9>gives FSX a good run for it's money because at least with FS9>you can pull 30+ no matter what. Down the road FSX will blow>FS9 out of the water but we have to wait so until then think>we can all agree that FSX runs like crap on most machines>(even high end) and FS9 with add-on

>Dang Mango I think you just did 360 backward flip slam dunk>on this thread with those shots.:-hah >>:-wave Well, except the Goose livery it's pure default. Those pics can barely give an idea about the experience how it feels to fly with this visuals.

Cartoonish... Of course it depends on the system and tweaks, but those FSX pics make my eyes bleed. Today FSX demand high end hardware and tweak treatment to get a acceptable result, there is no other way. But it IS possible already. Those are some of the pics i made with an overclocked Conroe E6600 and a X1900XT with smooth 20 - 30 FPS on our multiplayer world tour. It isn't cartoonish, is it...FS9 with the all the greatest addons can be very beautiful indeed, i have it still on my second PC. If your FSX perform lousy and give you visuals like in your pics above you should stay with FS9. No doubt... edit: how do i make those thumbnails show up correct ? Oh well, never mind...

Some Windows XP Myths :http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.htmlScroll down to 'Large System Cache' for further info.

>this is a very irrelevant post, 1% of us can afford the>system you got and you come on here saying that FS can run at>50+ fps on a system most of us can't afford.>>Doesnt make sense.I see nothing wrong with showing the result on high end PCs. Those are the standard of tomorrow.Btw - i get a similar performance:Conroe E6600 @ 3.6 Ghz water cooledFSB 1600P5WDG2 WS ProfessionalF2-8500PHU2-2GBHZ CL 4-4-4-55 x WD 2500 KS 16 MB S-ATA2 (4 x in RAID 10)Enermax Galaxy 1000 WattX1900XT @ 690/1600 Mhz water cooled19" Samsung 970P 6ms LCD Monitor1280x1024x32 resolutionCreative SoundBlaster X-Fi Xtreme MusicSuper Pi 1M - 13.9 sec @ 3.75 GhzI am satisfied with running FSX on default after applying some tweaks, but i hope for an optimized coding for upcoming CPU intensive addons. Of course a more powerful GPU would be necessary to run settings like light bloom, ground shadows and dense traffic. Well, the time will come...

Well, some more nice places i visited lately:Dubaihttp://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92984&hl=Cairohttp://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92966&hl=Stuttgart :-)http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93467&hl=And much more to come. Right now we are off for a multi player flight around the world. It's just awesome and sure anything else than boring.Almost forgot - the missions...http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=94359&hl=

>This guy is right, the scenery is better there than anywhere>else.You may have a look at this multiplayer flight over here :http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=94607Just for example.

>If you want to make FS look like a kiddies gamethat's the way to do it.Thanks for your nice comments. I can assure you, that it wasn't the goal to let FS9 look like a 'kiddies game'. It's a comparison right out of the box without any addons or texture upgrades. Just fair ? I was surprised as well when i saw the post of Jigsaw. Like most of us i run FS9 only with the latest and greatest addons. And i like to add that my first FS9 installation was by far a bigger performance catastrophe than my first FSX installation ;-).

>Hi Heiko,>>Email Jim, skorna@comcast.net, and send your receipt as well.Thanks Chris,e-mail sent.

Dear Sir'sfor 3 days i'm trying now to download the file. I get never more than 3 KB/sec (with a broadband connection). Once i got the complete file, but it was corrupted - all other attempts failed at 22 - 60 MB (that's nice because i don't have a flat rate...).Is it possible to get now a download link at simflight ? I'm asking here because my e-mail remained unanswered.Thanks in advance !HeikoModerator/Contributor FS2004.com

Dear Sir'safter following every single procedure discribed in the FAQ section i'm still getting the main.gau crash. The problem occured already in the v.1.3 update!Will it be possible to create a installer based on v.1.2 which runs perfect on my system? I'm sure this will be a solution.Very best regardsHeiko