From my old days in USAF Flight Sim, 30 FPS is as slow as you can go and not
see the flicker or effect, some can even pick it up here.

I installed it on a system for a local CAP unit, my first impression is that
it is an absolute system hog, and I will stick with FS2004, even though I
now have a to end duel core AMD with a near to end graphic card. I can't
imagine it will be enough to run it the way I would like to see it.

Since it was designed for the new Vista I wonder if that might help? I am
not going to waste the money to see, MS has burned to meny people with there
poorly designed programs....

Ron Gardner

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
It was many reports like yours that gave me significant pause in
purchasing
FSX, but it turns out my trepidation was unwarranted. I've turned all
display settings to High with a target frame rate of 20 and the worse
volatility I've noticed was a very momentary drop to 16 fps (press
"shift-Z"
a few times to display your fps). That's not enough for me to have
noticed
any "stutter".

On the Kiwi, with its 104" screen, 20 FPS is absolutely awful. Sadly,
I've seen FSX drop below that for a moment or two, so it's really not
usable in every flight regime.

I've found that 30 FPS is the minimum for realistic landings, and 50
FPS is the minimum for realistic formation flying. In FS9 I've got
the Kiwi "locked" at 55 FPS, which results in an absolutely perfect
rendition of flight, with instantaneous control input/reaction.

If I set the realism a bit lower in FSX, it is acceptable. This allows
us to fly the cool new aircraft and "missions", which are quite fun.
However, for realism, we'll be sticking to FS9 until Microsoft figures
out a way to make FSX run faster.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"