My system is not really bad. I have a Quadcore (2,33GHZ, 4 MB Cache) with a 512MB Radeon. It handles fs very good with 60fps. I cant believe that is the problem.
I have already show how the scenery looks like. So, if you are not seeing this, either you have missed a suggested setting or, something else is wrong with your system settings.
As we said, many times already, fps doesn't mean anything: FS9 is forever limited in the amount of TIME he'll devote to texture loading and, 4 cores in FS9 are entirely wasted, because it will never use more than one and, of that one, it will never use more than an hard-code (little) amount of time to handle texture loading. So, having good fps it's even worse, because the system is devoting all the limited resources FS9 will use anyway, to generate many fps, leaving a lot of the machine power unused.
In FSX, instead, the texture loading is handled by unused cores so, even if you might not have high fps, the image will be FAR LESS BLURRED, becasue there is TIME to load the higher res textures, time that FS9 doesn't even *think* to use.
As I've said already, if you are used our texture resizer, of course you are running half of the resolution already. But, the texture resizer is usefuly in FS9 for the above reasons, otherwise you'll get stutters, because FS9 can't simply handle too much data without stalling.
The real problem is FS9 here: it's simply not made to handle sceneries with such amount of textures, because its texture handling method is obsolete and can't use modern hardware (anything from dual core up) so, either you'll get blurred textures or you'll get stutters on load. FSX can deal with this kind of scenery much better.
