Dear all,I was going to wait for Vista and FSX but that will take several months probably with service packs, tech issues etc, etc. so now I will be wishing to upgrade for FS9.I bought FSX and it seems good but..... Like everybody else I have spent a fortune on airports, aeroplanes, scenery and mesh. I recon it will take a year to get FSX up to the standard I am already using with FS9 with all my addons (which do not seem to be compatible now) so why change?In line with the advice given to me on a previous post I will order some extra RAM / 2x 1GB PC2100 DDR Memory RAM DDR266 1GB DIMM SDRAM manufactured by AUM. A cool

I'm still stuck with an AGP slot on the MB so I had limited selection of video cards for now.. didn't want to spend much money and take away from the new system fund in progress.I bought the BFG GeForce 7600 GS OC 512mb to replace my ATI 9800 and it's done wonders for my graphics and FPS. $150 USDI also overclocked my Intel 3.0 by 5% and these two should keep things running smooth until the complete system build within a couple of years. Then we'll see what's on the market and at what price :-)

If you plan to use FSX in the future, and enjoy most of its state of the art graphics, then you should wait for:1. Vista2. Direct X graphics card3. computer than will handle more than 2GB of RAM. At present, anything over 2GB or RAM is wasted on Windows XP.4. computer whose processor and motherboard are compatible with VISTA.Be patient. Do not rush in and try to upgrade your Windows XP platform. Remeber that if you upgrade to VISTA you will not receivethe Deluxe version. Also a patch will have to be issued so that VISTA can handle Direct X graphic card.Wait until all this has been sorted out. It may take at least six months. But is it not better to sink your money into a set-up that has been built for VISTA etc., than to try to tweek what you have?Stanner

Hi Stanner,Thanks for your advice but really, I will not be upgrading for VISTA now until late 2007. I have gone with Staggerwings thoughts on the matter and splashed out on a new card - BFG GEFORCE 7600 GS OC 512MB DDR2and a stick of RAM - DDR400 PC3200 1GB DIMM MEMORY MODULE 1 GB 1024 MB. Cost

RESULTSOk chaps if you are interested here are the results.FS 912 mid daysummerSETTINGSMesh - 50Texture - MediumDetail- land onlyWater - lowdawn - tickedExtended terrain - tickedSpec - HighSceneryComp - HighAuto gen - DenseDynamic scenery - denseGround Shadows - tickedSun glare - tickedLense flare - tickedWeather - clear skies however in settings -Sight - 60 MiCloud draw - 40 Mi3d clouds - 100%HardwareTarget Frame rate - 201024x768x16render to tex - tickedtransform and light - tickedanti aliasing - offfiltering - bilinearmip quality - 4hardware rendering lights - 6Global max size - HighFlight as follows.No scenery - all stock as it comes out of the boxCessna 172 2D panel- Seattle Tacoma 34L dep. Autopilot at 1,000ft agl Hdg 335 deg at 2300 rpm straight out over the city. Straight over the City. On passing abeam (to port side) tall pointy type monument and brightly coloured building steep turn 180 deg and fly back over city.Original set -up with 512 Ram and 5300 card - (average Fps overall)11 fps outbound, 180 deg turn and back over city at 5 FpsModified with 1 GB Ram -15 Fps outbound and 6 Fps inboundMuch smootherModified with Ram and 7600 card13 Fps outbound and 19.9 Fps inbound !! Weird, but once over the city and heading to the airport Fps drop to 8. Traffic perhaps? Much MUCH smoother and much more stable. The outbound leg never went below 12 or above 14. Original setup had the occasional drop to 4 - 5 Fps

FSXSame flight as above exactlySetting set out bekow are what I would have thought to make it a similar simming experience to the FS9 above.SETTINGStarget framerate ' 201024x768x16Bilinear filteringAnti aliasing - offGlobal Textures - MedLens flare - onLight Bloom - offAdvanced animations - offCOCKPITVirtual cockpitGlobal set - ultra highNo flying tipsHigh res 3d - on2d transp - 0Shadows and lights - onSCENERYterrain and waterLevel or terrain radius - medmesh complexity - 50mesh resolution - 19mtexture resolution - 1mwater - high 1.xland detail - onScenery objectsscenery complexity - normalauto gen - normalspec effects - mediumWeather - clear skiescloud draw - full leftThermal - noneTRAFFICairline - 50%general - 50%airport - mediumlabels - offroad vehicles 51%ships - 51%liesure boats - 51%Original set-upoutbound shows 6 Fps - inbound 5 Fps. This is nuts because I know for sure that the Fps is down to much MUCH less than even 1 Fps. Try to pan around and it freezes for 2 -3 seconds sometimes up to 17 seconds!!. The sim is unflyable. Choppy, stoppy !! totally PANTS! Freezes up and crashed to the desk top once out of three times. I tried at night too just to see and it was like but it was even worse.With 1 GB RAM 6.7 Fps inbound - 8 to 7 Fps on return. Almost flyable and panning was possible too. Still very disappointing. Fps readout seems to stay at 6 Fps, I saw 4.3 at one point but it really is about 0.25 up to a maximum of 1 Fps. Still very choppy.With RAM and 7600 card6 Fps inbound and 7 Fps outbound. Flyable but frustratingly annoying with some pauses and stutters. Fps indicator is very stable at 6 - 7 Fps ! Shame the sim acually flies at around 1 Fps. Drop down to follow the cars and trucks at 500 ft and the Fps indicator still flutters around the 6 mark but the sim becomes very chppoy, stoppy and unflyable, I recon actual Fps to be in the region of .25 or less at this altitude!!My opinion ?? Best to stick to Fs9 if you want something flyable and affordable. This one needs to collect dust for a year. In fact it reminds me of FS 2000 when it came out. Love the little cars, trucks, animals and birds but not really flyable on a small 2.8 system like mine.

Good for you.. glad to hear you have a workable sim for your system and FS9 :-) Have fun..