I'm back.Thought I start flying again. Used to fly various PMDG aircraft and others on FS 9, Haven't flown for a year or so. Was thinking of upgrading to FS X. Is it worth it? My computer's got Vista on it now so maybe I don't even have a choice.Nicke

Hey Nicke, Without PC specs it's hard to help. I have a very powerfull multi computer setup (4ghz duel core on air + ATI 512 4870) but still choose to stay with with FS9 due to all the time and effort spent creating a liquid smooth sim under the most stressful scenario.I've heard good things about FSX and if you are starting from scratch then maybe thats the best thing for you. It's all about personal choice :) Check out the hardware forum, you will get a feel of what to expect from various setups.Rob

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_trijet.jpgYou will want a quad core processor, 2 preferably 4 gigs of ram and a good graphics card as FX is demanding bring fast machines to their knees.Michael P.

Welcome back, I also recently got back into but although I had FS9 I hadn't sim'd since FS 2002. FSX can be run fine if your system was running FS9 with PMDG add-ons. But you may need to tweak some settings lower than others and in some cases disable a couple such as water detail, light bloom etc...This system isn't best but I keep up rather well running FSX, PMDG 747, Walk and Follow, Fraps etc... with only 2 gig of ram, a dual core AMD and single 8600GTS. Can't wait til the kids stop eating so much so I can upgrade and turn everything to max :)Welcome back,Dan

I had FS 9 running pretty smooth with lots of addons, PMDG, weather, traffic, airports on my other computer. I bought a new one this spring, quad-core, 3gigs of ram, geforce 8600gs. The concern is that the machine came with Windows Vista, and am I able to run FS 9 with all my addons I bought or do I have to upgrade to FSX?Nicke

IMHO you don't need to move to FSX, but the decision is really based on your own preference. I run both. FSX is better for eyecandy, microslop failed to make any improvements to the air container or wx engine but they did make an application interface to improve communications between it and add-ons so there are many more options for designers (but improvements are needed). I am running a new rig with a Q9650 quad 3GHz 4Gb DDR2 memory and ATI4870 512Mb. The FSX performance is okay, the FS9 performance is blazing. The only reason I have FS9 is for the 737NG.. but, eyecandy means very little to me as long as the aircraft looks good.. and FSX can really make the panels look good!Asking which is better will result in very strong opinions on both sides (personally, I hope FS11 has a new wx engine). The bottom line is you chose based on your budget and preferences.

>The FSX performance is okay,>the FS9 performance is blazing. Yes, finally I have updated to a E8500 Dual core processor with 8600 GT slightly overcloked (waiting for something better). Installed all add-ons (ASX, Active Graphic X, Fly Tampa Hong Kong, and Heathrow X) and all sliders to max. After a complete defrag with "O&O" I must say I'm astonished of how I have gained with FSX, even in the worst scenario I don't drop below 20 fps which is enough to play. FS9 is unbelievable. If I think that I have waited 4 years to have the right rig to manage FS2004, I believe that by year 2010 I will get the system that run FSX as smoothly, (unfortunately by that time we will have FS11 with new problems).Cheers

"microslop" - had a good chuckle at that!:-hahKonrad

>"microslop" - had a good chuckle at that!>>:-hah>yes me too:) I have never read a typo which made me so laugh.Cheers

How about 'Microshaft' then? ;)