hhhhhhh

Yes, I understood that (maybe my answer was a little confusing). Anyway, I´m very interested in your settings (and of course the rig that runs those settings :lol: ). Are you able to get solid frames (30 fps) over big cities with object settings higher than "default"? I´m suspecting there must be something wrong with my scenery installation. In bigger cities (when I´m even able to get them to load without program crashing) framerate drops from solid 30 to jerky 17 when I raise object density from "default" to "a lot". It could be that OSM scenery (even without OSM autogen) raises the object count too high (I think OSM has a lot more roads too). I even made a little update to my rig today, it now has 16 GB of RAM. Didn´t make any difference :lol:.

Thank you for your opinions. ryanbatcund asked how I can live with "default" objects, well... I can´t :lol: . UrbanMaxx2 makes cities bearable, but smaller towns might have only one 3D building, which is pretty horrible. Texture compression on "high" made no difference on performance and "very high", even with compression, lowered frames which is strange ´cause only 650 MB of VRAM got used. Otherwise, only setting that seems to affect performance is number of objects and that only on big cities. More than "default" buildings on Berlin or Helsinki and FPS plummets. Cars made no difference and even effect of clouds seemed marginal. Also, if I have roads on tons and more than "tons" of objects, big cities won´t even load, program just crashes. Could insufficent VRAM cause this? Damn, I don´t know what to do. Judging by your opinions, it seems that gains from new GPU could be pretty marginal. Mister Nvidia, please convince me! (and my wife...)

Hi all, Just moved from Prepar3D to X-Plane 10 and enjoying the ride immensely. No stuttering, steady 30 fps at any circumstance and location, everything is fine and dandy and then... of course, I want more. Though the simming experience has exceeded my wildest dreams I was wondering if I could get some more objects to my screen through GPU upgrade. My current rig is: Asus z77 Sabretooth i7 3770K @ 4,6 Mhz 8 GB RAM GTX 570 Win 8 64 bit Everthing on SSD My current rendering settings can be seen in the attachment. With these settings and with OSM Europe + OSM Finland (both osm only, no osm autogen) and UrbanMaxx2 installed, I get the aformentioned 30 fps (locked from Nvidia drivers) on any situation (my "stress test" consists of flying at night, in thunderstorm over central Berlin). I know I could tweak settings much higher when flying over rural areas or smaller cities and still stay within my framerate limit, but my goal is to find settings that give me steady performance, no matter the situation. Now I have found those, but I want just a little more objects... maybe just "mega tons" or even "too many". Do you think I could achive this goal by getting a GPU with 4GB VRAM (I´ve been thinking GTX 770), or am I still CPU-limited with objects?

...but I just couldn´t resist. I´m newcomer to Avsim forums and found my way here after searching some forum with discussion of MS Flight. Some sensible discussion that is, ´cause comments about the game on the forums of some other sims (Cliffs of Dover, DCS, X-Plane...) don´t seem very reasonable. Basic story goes like this: "Dodging balloons! W00t! Hated it, uninstalled within 10 minutes!!! Screw you M$!!!". I just can´t understand this childish, narrowminded (on a second thought, scratch that; children are, after all more open minded than us adults) hate that is raging on forums. Why? Because there really seems to be no reason for it. Flight really is a good game. And a sim, even at it´s present state.Comparisons run wild on other forums, so the following shouldn´t upset anybody. I just wanted to list some features that I think Flight does better, or at least on par with some other sims. This might be comparing oranges to apples, but I think Flight hasn´t got fair treatment almost anywhere.1. PerformanceThis is without a doubt the single best thing in Flight at it´s present state. No tweaking required. Even my old rig (core2duo 2,9Mhz, Radeon 4890)is able to run it steady 50 FPS with everything on HIGH and, what is most important, all the time. Regardelss of the amount of objects on the screen. Regardless of the weather conditions. Flight is the most fluid experience of all the sims I´ve played.Sure you can run FSX, or DCS-series (which I love), or X-plane, or Cliffs of Dover @ 60 FPS at some places, but not constantly, at least not with almost maximum graphical settings (on some of those games even on minimum settings there might be performance gaps).Of course those sims mentioned have a lot of other things going on that require CPU-power and tank the performance, but that´s not the point. The point is: Flight doesn´t try to bite more than it is able to chew. It´s supposed to give you the sensation of flying an aeroplane, and it delivers that. This is of course a matter of taste, but I personally prefer good graphical performance over some techincal detalis, especially in the sim that only concentrates on flying (not aerial battle combined to ground war and then some...). And speaking of techincal details:2. Flight modelI´m not a real world pilot so I don´t have a slightest clue how, for example real RV-6 or Stearman handles (or A-10 for that matter), but I really don´t see how Flights flightmodel is inferior when compared to, for example aformentioned sims. On the contrary, I think the flightmodel is in many ways more responsive and dynamic than FSXs. I think that many of the critical voices have just tried ICON in the game and, what is most depressing; with all the flying aids on. No wonder it feels like a slot car.3. Sheer fun and challengeDodging balloons felt like Nintendo Wii, but I´m glad I was able to push myself past that. Challenges, especially those that come with Adventure pack are really what their name suggests, and also serious fun. Finding airport with the navaids in thick fog and storm was one of the greatest experiences ever deliverd to me by a sim. It was so immersive, and good graphical performance played big part on it. I seriously doubt that Flights missions and challenges would be boring piece-of-cake forgettables even to some of the more serious FSX-pilots, if they just would give them a fair try.I´m not saying Flight is perfect. I´m not saying it´s DLC pricing is actually cheap, but I don´t feel cheated or ripped off after buying Hawaii-pack. It has already given me 20€ worth of fun and I´ve just scratched the surface of it. What is most pleasing, is that since I´ve downloaded the game I´ve been able to just fly everytime I start the game. I don´t wan´t to spend countless of days, or months or even years tweaking, and waiting some messiah patch to fix some performance or other issues (Cliffs of Dover, anyone?). I want a functional produt, even if it was somewhat limited and I might have to buy some more content afterwards. As long as it delivers entertainment and reasonable bang for the buck I´m happy.And Flight does that. At least for me. I still enjoy my A-10 though. Just wished it would run as nicely as Flight does.I wish everyone could just give Flight credit & critique it deserves and do the same to their beloved other sims too.