MrMooseAZ

Ok...I dropped the ansiotropic filtering down to 2x and the resolution to 1920x1200 (which is 75% of my native resolution). At this setting, the visuals look noticeably less crisp and all the scenery looks considerably more blurry at oblique angles but, the FPS is averaging about 20-25. Seems like this is the best I'm going to get without better equipment so I'll shut up and let everyone get on with their flying. :-) Thanks all.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to noodle with the resolution a bit and see what happens. I might try a few other combinations with the anisotropic filtering as well. I've always been a snob when it comes to using the monitor's native resolution so it's not my first choice :-).I'll report back the results.

Hey all,I'm wondering if there are any other mac users out there that have XP configured in a way that provides steady decent performance- which to me is anything over 25fps. When I purchased XP, I assumed I had enough of a rig to squeeze all a lot of juice out of the sim but I'm finding a very delicate and unsavory balance between performance and acceptable visuals. Here is my situation:I'm running an early 2009 Mac Pro with 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Xeons, 32GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 5870 (1024mb cram), and Apple 30" cinema display. I also have XP installed on a striped (raid 0) array of SSDs. I attempted to make use of the "set all rendering options for maximum speed" option and begin building up rendering settings from scratch. While I never exceeded 60fps, I noticed that about the time I started tooling with the number of objects, clouds and world detail distance, the performance began to degrade. There are also zero AI aircraft. I could not find a sensible balance that maintained anything between 25-30fps. It seemed like I could get either an average of 40fps with crap visuals, or the following, upon which I finally settled:With this, I get about 13-18fps with visibility set to about 10 miles and no cockpit showing which, to me, kind of sucks - especially since it degrades as time progresses. At this setting, I am pleased with the visuals though.I guess I'm just not sure what the bottleneck is-- and while FSX is not my primary choice of sim, I am dumbfounded that I get better performance out of that running in my Parallels Windows XP virtual machine. I'd be willing to submit that this machine just isn't up to the challenge - to which I'll put XP on the shelf and wait until I get a new one...but I just wanted to see what anyone else thought.Thanks,Mike