I decided to give MS a second chance and attempted a reinstall of FSX (which, by the way, took an agonizingly slow 40 minutes to accomplish). I start it up, and it fails to find MSXML 4.0. And with that, over the past 2 hours, I have tried everything under the sun to fix it including all of the solutions on this board, on Trdragger's blog, on Google etc etc etc to infinity. I will now spend the other 20 minutes it takes to uninstall the game and try again next year when they release that oh so great miracle patch that everyone is just wishing and praying for. Maybe then it will be worth it. Feel free to flame me or delete this thread, I just had to get this off my chest so maybe anyone left at ACES who is still scratching their head wondering why this release has fallen on its face will gain further understanding of why.

Alex,Have you got XP SP2?

Alexi understand what you going though, thank goodness i didnt have to go through that, but yes FSX is unflyable with the tweaks so i will use it after my system upgrade.

>Alex>>i understand what you going though, thank goodness i didnt>have to go through that, but yes FSX is unflyable with the>tweaks so i will use it after my system upgrade.Your system is similar to mine but my FSX is fantastic. Yep, the fps is lower than FS9, but it is smooth where my fs9 stutters.It is really odd when similar systems run fsx so differently.Ray Keattch

Hello,Can't agree more -Background:My computer system is not the fastest but at 1 year old and equipped with an AMD 64 3500+, 2 gigs of ram, 2 SATA drives and 2 Nvidia 6800's in SLI mode I cannot fly my FSX at any better than 12 FPS (Drivers all current). I have all of the tweeks and have followed the forums closely for tips. Almost nothing I do improves the program. I have installed all of the Carenado aircraft and have bought the Eaglesoft Liberty and SR22 for FSX. I installed the GOFLIGHT driver and all of the FSGenesis mesh. I also installed all of the crossovers for UT USA , Cananda and Europe and MytrafficX. Lastly, I installed the new FSUIPC, AS6 update for FSX and commited FSX to my C drive and have FS9.1 on my D drive.I limited my FS9 to the same aircraft and scenery as my FSX and tried too fly the same scenerios to compare. 1.FS9 operates at 45 FPS - FSX at 12 (best - usually at 8 fps)2.Aside from the great looking rain on the runway I cannot run the FSX at an FPS that compares. With all sliders "left" it runs fine but I do not get any VFR scenery or flying "joy".3. My TRACKIR looks great in both but the FPS is so bad in FSX that I really cannot use it easily.4. Cannot run VoiceBuddy in FSX - makes the screen jump around. (probably due to the low FPS)5. GOFLIGHT works fine in both. I have a rather big GF setup and it is fine in both.6. FSUIPC is a life saver for all axis/button setup.Finally, as I plan to remove FSX from my system (for now) I hope that it will improve. I cannot update my system ($$$$$$) to run this beast and have any more joy than I already have with my FS9.1, Radar Contact 4 and the rest of my addons in a smooth running visual environment. Cheers to all,Ron SagelNEAR KCHS

Sorry, this wont help but fsx just seems to either get on with a particular system or not, i have two systems, one very powerful and up to date, fsx runs like a three legged hound. On another system, about 2 years older and much less powerful it runs acceptably.I have tried every tweak in the book and the state of play remains the same, the older system with no tweaks runs fsx better than the new one with tweaks.I would love to be able to say I'll get a core duo e6600 and it'll run like a dream, but i have yet to be convinced of any hardware upgrade that will definitely make it run better, it just seems like a lottery.good luck

There is just too much about FSX that I really enjoy. It failed to work properly on my older CPU, and has loaded an run flawlessly on my new setup which is NOT dual core.I've installed FS9 on the new HD and will add my 3rd party addons to it; yet there is enough difference in FSX, mostly due to it's airmass flight dynamics, and high resolution textures to keep my interest for the time being and beyond.L.AdamsonAthlon64 3700/2GIG/Geforce7600 256MB/1600*1200*32 res.

"I would love to be able to say I'll get a core duo e6600 and it'll run like a dream, but i have yet to be convinced of any hardware upgrade that will definitely make it run better, it just seems like a lottery"Well, my E6400 at 2.66 Ghz doesn't cut it in FSX.

This could be important. What hardware is in your older system?Cheers Don

Look at my home built specs below plus I have her OCed @3.01Ghz and I have shelved FSX.I enjoy FS9 with all of its addons and I just purchased the DA Cheyenne and C9 KLAX.I have FS9.1 locked @ 27 and it stays there no stutters at all and no tweaks.BTw I have AS6.5 running with 8 layers of clouds and it runs flawlessly when all layers are being used.Andy

>There is just too much about FSX that I really enjoy. It>failed to work properly on my older CPU, and has loaded an run>flawlessly on my new setup which is NOT dual core.>>I've installed FS9 on the new HD and will add my 3rd party>addons to it; yet there is enough difference in FSX, mostly>due to it's airmass flight dynamics, and high resolution>textures to keep my interest for the time being and beyond.>>L.Adamson>Athlon64 3700/2GIG/Geforce7600 256MB/1600*1200*32 res.I have just bought myself a not so top of the line system components to replace my P4 2.4 specifically for FSX /FS9 (just as important)/ and medieval total war 2. I haven't assembled the computer yet. I purposely avoided dual cores as I have got the impression that a good single core will be better for FSX.I have invested in an Athlon 64 3500 (venice core) coupled with an ATI x800 GTO. I have 1Gig of ram. I expect that this setup will run FSX acceptably for GA flying, which is a lot of fun in FSX. I have noticed that many of the FSX happy campers have Athlon 64s. I have already noted that my X800 AGP card was quite an improvement to the previous Nvidia 6600GT in both FSX demo and definitely in medieval totalwar 2 demo. Check out 3dmark 2005 stats on cpu performance. You will see that AMD 64s do quite well.I will report back with results in FSX demo when the system is built. (FSX deluxe coming for Christmas)I think for heavy airline flying FS9 is a keeper at this stage, "air mass" is not so much an issue in the heavies I think and in any case add on developers built the slow and heavy feel into their flight dynamics for these. For instance I believe PMDG modelled the mass of 747 very well in their addon.BTW Don't forget that 10 FPS is just fine in a heavy in the long straight haul between airports. AN idea I've had to deal with FPS problems with heavies at complex airports in FSX could be to use an optimised for fast FPS config file for landings than switch to a slower but more interesting scenery viewing config file for airport taxing once off the runway.Cheers, Don

"Don't forget that 10 FPS is just fine in a heavy in the long straight haul between airports. "You have to be insane.

>There is just too much about FSX that I really enjoy. It>failed to work properly on my older CPU, and has loaded an run>flawlessly on my new setup which is NOT dual core.>> .............>>L.Adamson FSX runs acceptably for me. I applied many of the tweaks. Left the frame rate limit at 15, what was set during installation. My FSX sliders are around 2/3 of maximum. I think autogen (with the autogen tweaks) is typically set on the low side. I'm running on a three year old system. Hyperthreaded P4 at 2.8 GHz. 512 MB RAM. $50 ATI Video card (9550) with 128 MB RAM. I run 16 bit color. That should reduce video ram requirements to 1/2. I have two fast HD's, I put the pagefile on the other HD. That helps swap file access speeds. I installed the 'reduced' cloud files (available in AVSIM library). However, heavy clouds can still lead to stutters. Setting 'simple clouds' will improve performance when there are significant clouds. They aren't as realistic, but a reasonable compromise when one has problems. FPS may drop to 8 or so in some conditions, but generally it runs near the 15 fps limit. Overall, I'd say performance compared to FS9 is about what I'd expect, considering the higher system load FSX imposes. I'm thinking of getting more RAM. 1 GB total should help quite a bit. RAF

Don't know why this thread was moved, but this is not a hardware problem . This is entirely Microsoft software that is coming up with this issue. Not recognizing MSXML despite it being exactly where it is supposed to be (system32 folder).

>"Don't forget that 10 FPS is just fine in a heavy in the long>straight haul between airports. ">>You have to be insane.BOPrey:Well many have said so LOLBut no honestly, I did a flight from YSSY to KLAX in the pmdg 747 a couple of days ago FS9. On purpose I set FPS to 10 in display in the several hour long session over the ocean between Honolulu and Klax. There was no discernable difference in the enjoyment of the virtual cockpit as the scenery update at FL370 is very slow anyway when flying in a straight line. Of course at least 20 FPS is better for landing epecially if not done by auto land. BTW I still enjoy using my PMDG 747 add on in FS9 and I really can't get more than 15 fps taxing around a complex airport when in virtual cockpit mode. I expect the computer hardware upgrade will also improve FS9 performance quite a bit which is a big plus.There's some difference between my system 'to be' and your current one. For example the x800 video card vs 6800. Also you are running an Athlon XP and not an Athlon 64. In the FSX demo I have already noticed a much better looking sim and moderately better performance using the x800 vs 6600GT on my p4 2.4GHz system. It is almost acceptable for flying GA even on my lowly P4 2.4. As the AMD 64 scored at least double in CPU performance in 3dmark2005 and has double the FSB speed compared to P42.4 I expect that the upgrade will bring the fsx sim to acceptable levels for GA flying away from complex airports. That will be good enough for me and I will stick to Fs9 for heavy iron flying.I think my system will be closer to LAdamson's system and note that he is very pleased with performance on his current setup. This is encouraging news.Well here's hopingCheers Don