>With the changing of the MB, you have to pay for new OS too.>>no you don't. If you've got your XP keys and CD, you can call MS and have your old install deactivated and install on new MB.However, eventually you're gonna want Vista.

>The only hardware technology on horizon are quad cores which>won't do anything for FSX! So we'd have to wait years to>enjoy what we saw on screen shots? I was really hoping that>DX10, would improve the performance so as to allow us to max>the sliders! sigh!Umm... FSX will take some advantage of multi-cores, and I know the folks at MS want to improve this, and they didn't seem to me to be saying it would be held off until FS11 - so perhaps when they release the Vista update we'll see another improvement.Also, MS is MUCH MUCH more committed to FS now, and what I heard implied periodic updates a la service packs, as opposed to one patch per product lifecycle.And the increase in CPU clock speeds, and new graphics cards will make an improvement. More cores will allow you to have the OS tasks having less of an effect. And if an add-on is written intelligently using SimConnect, parts of it can be separate applications, and then you'll really benefit from multiple cores. As I said in another thread, imagine if the FMC for an airplane was a separate program. Basically, everything that can be done asynchronously can be treated as a separate thread and execute on separate cores.

Plan on getting DX10 but dont upgrade yet. Of course they will support PCI-e - the main question is what kind of power supply will you need. If the initial reports are correct they are going to need alot more power than dx9 cards. So just wait..

Your logic is way off

>Your logic is way offYeah, my logic is off...definetely:-).Nobody has seen neither FSX + Vista nor DX10DX10 cards...and at the same time everybody is optimistic about FSX+Vista+DX10 and telling me that my logic is off.

Nah, you're not that off, I think your post was a little mis-interpreted. I think it's pretty safe to say that concept screens rarely turn out to look the same once the hardware gets produced. I think that's pretty much what you were getting at. I feel that's a fairly plausible scenario, given what we've experienced (or at least some of us have experienced) over the last 15 years./conjecture mode onDX10 won't be a panacea performance-wise, those kinds of things rarely are (see also AGP bus, see also hyperthreading, see also VESA local bus) but it does look to offer signif better visuals. But whichever earlier poster said he doesn't think there are any big hardware advances in the near future except quad-core, well, that is true to an extent...but, if you can take an E6600 or the E<67xx?? or fastest one today> and imagine a cpu 10-20% faster, and OS's that spread out resources better between cores, that is what will be mainstream about 1.5 years from now, and I think that (coupled with a 1gb vid card) will run FSX very well indeed, meaning sliders pretty far to the right. /conjecture mode offThe great thing about this FSX is, that it looks like it's pretty darn scalable. That means those with a lesser PC will be able to run it looking as good as or better than FS9, and those with the beast rig I alluded to above, will have an FSX program that has enough future built-in (7 cm terrain!!) to rise to their level, too.I kinda like trying to predict the future, it's neat, I can look back on this and laugh if I am wrong or way off, or chuckle if I am right...RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

Nothing has changed or will it ever.There will ALWAYS be a better,faster something being developed.Whatever you have or going to get will quickly lose its value.So buy the best you can afford,take care of it and ENJOY IT!I am getting ready to build a completely new system and with all the latest greatest and could care less about dx10.There will be a dx11,12 13.....When its here,working,actually being used in games and makes my jaw hit the floor,eyes pop out,then I will buy another card.No stress,no hyperventilating or raising my blood pressure worrying about it.

Yeah, I would pretty much agree with everything you put in there. PCIExpress will remain the interface of choice for video cards. The only possible changes is that a 2nd rev of PCI-E is coming up, but I don't think it hits until late 07 and it's most likely backwards compatible.IF you are building a new system in the next 2 months, get a low/mid video card and just plan to upgrade later. Also, I would try to skip the first version of the DX10 cards... Both ATI and NVidia have a habit of having crappy first gen new-DX cards, and the mid-cycle revisions or 2nd gens tend to be a LOT better.I'd SERIOUSLY recommend 4GB RAM if you can swing it. Vista is going to be a memory PIG, probably needing a good 1GB just to be semi useable, so go higher for smooth performance.But yeah, I'd say you're on the right track. Don't expect miracles visually until DX-10/Vista.The whole arguement about the multi-core, multithreaded nature of FSX (or lack thereof)... You all need to keep in mind that ACES has to write their code to support all the single core users out there effectively. To write something like FS to really make effective use of multiple cores, they'd have to architect the code so differently that it would run horribly on a single core system (it would spend too much time swapping out threads). So, they have to strike a balance in this release. I'd expect FS-11 to require a multi-core CPU.--2002cbr600f4i

Thanks for that, Timothy. Now I know I won't be buying a new computer until Vista for the home computers is released.I know what I'll be spending my tax refund on :).

Yes. You may utilize the second core a little bit more than it is now, but do you really think simconnect application would take advantage of a 3rd or 4th core? I don't think so! And, for the first time since I remember, there are no higher speed processors in the road map for the next 6 month! (only quad cores). After that we may get the 2-5 percent spreed increases that we saw in the last 3 years. (I bought my 3.4 ghz intel system 3 years ago!! I would have imagined that, by now, my system would have been considered a dinasour!)

You should at least wait a couple more months. Then you can compare the features of dx10 to dx9.

> Nobody has seen neither FSX + Vista nor DX10DX10 cards...and at the same time everybody is > optimistic about FSX+Vista+DX10 and telling me that my logic is off.I saw FSX (beta), Vista (beta) and dx10 articles. Its good enough..

>>I'd SERIOUSLY recommend 4GB RAM if you can swing it. Vista is>going to be a memory PIG, probably needing a good 1GB just to>be semi useable, so go higher for smooth performance.More memeory is always better (at least 2 sticks of matcheddual-channel), but just for the record, I am running VistaRC1 X86 on 512x2 sticks and it is just as usable as XP IMHO.Also getting about 25-30 FPS in the FSX Demo with the defaultsettings. Haven't tried maxing out the sliders, but in beta 2I was down to about 2 FPS with things maxed out. But RC1 seemsa lot snappier than beta 2. ATI drivers are a bit flakey though. I'm not sure about the state of DX10 in Vista. I know the Aug DirectX SDK has a DX10 renderer that the readme said would only work in RC1. I take that to mean there were some changes since beta 2. scott s..

My FSX demo is running very well on a new Dell 9200 E6700, 2gb, 7900GS. With every slider to the right the Juliana scenery is very smooth (25 fps most of the time, locked) -- except when I look at the outside view in a location surrounded by autogen. My question -- are those using the Beta finding framerates are lower than the Demo -- especially over land. The Demo's all water, which looks nice, but I imagine over London or New York it will be a different story and my sliders will have to start heading west!

Hey Tim,Just wanted to say thanks for your comments / input here. Very helpful, as always.Best RegardsEddy North Wales, UK