>Whoa there! Now your spreading misinformation, At the sparsest>settings in FSX, it's more detailed than a maxed out FS9. On>my "Super Computer" (Specs below) I get mid 20's FPS with>every aircraft except the more complex aircraft like LDS,>PMDG and Captain Sim, and those I could get around 18-20>around JFK, New York City, and much higher everywhere else I>fly. This is with most sliders to the right, except Autogen>set to dense Water at 2xLow, aircraft shadows, No Ground>shadows though or bloom or lens flare, weather settings maxed>with ASX weather. and 100% Airline traffic with a large mix of>WOAI and UT traffic. I also now use UTUSAX and GEX. I also got>similar results with just slightly lower frames obviously on>my previous system which I lost in a lightning strike. That>was a E6700 stock, 2GB mem and ATI X1950XTX crossfires. So if>your system is lagging with your specs, which are higher than>mine, I suggest you look more towards your configuration>rather than blaming FSX. That being said, people who do have>lesser performing systems then we're lucky to have may have>trouble with FSX at these settings, but they should be able to>get a reasonable performance just by reducing some settings>which will still be more detailed than FS9, except maybe with>photo real scenery. You can see examples of the performance I>get on my youtube videos below. >>http://youtube.com/profile?user=tf51d>>(No music videos)>>EDIT: Only the last 3 757 videos was done on my current>system, the rest was on the E6700 at 2.66Ghz!>Like I said if FSX did it for you, well I am happy your money was well spent. 20fps is not enough for me when I am used to 35-60 on FS9 maxed to the gods. Now I can pull 20+ fps in a heart beat in my "super computer," however I am not satisfied. And you very well said it, the NICE add-ons and autogen decrease your frame-rates and that you don't have autogen (which to me is a VERY important key to realism) all the way. Now if that tickles you in the right way, then awesome! :-) but it just doesn't do it for me. I also think you missed the point, my purpose was not to inform you about my system and how FSX ran on it, it was to express my opinion on how FSX is not what I expected it to be. Besides, based on the money I've spent on FS9 and the way it runs on my system I feel happy an joyous. The places I fly to have superior sceneries that are far better than FSX. Once again point is, FSX is not what most expected. I wasn't misinforming anyone because from the beginning I said "I think" meaning it was my opinion. By the way nice videos.