I'm a bit annoyed with FSX to be honest - I've gone from FS9 where I could max everything and still run at 30fps, to FSX where I can run at 25fps if i have nearly everything turned off. Whilst of course graphics should get better as new games come out what always enfuriates me is that theres never any way to set the graphics to the previous game's levels. It's not like its a different engine, so why can't It display FS9 graphics with FS9 fps?Does anyone know if dual processors are going to be supported in FSX ever, or are they just too lazy? I bet they'll make me by vista for the pleasure of it. Microsoft make me sick. What are they a company trying to make a profit?!

It would help if you gave your machine's specs. You may have one component that is bottlenecking the rest.The engine in FSX is quite different than the one in FS9. From what I've read, FSX at low settings looks similar to FS9 maxed out. And the frame rates you are experiencing are similar. Are you seeing similar sim quality in FSX as you saw in FS9? If so, you got the previous game's graphics levels.Regarding dual core...FSX takes some advantage of a dual core processor, but not full advantage. It will use the second core to load textures, but that's about it. I've seen posts where people describe 100%/20-30% utilization for the two cores.FSX will probably never fully support multicore processors. Microsoft designed the engine 2 years ago before multicore processors were the rage. And it is VERY difficult to convert single threaded code into multi-threaded code. I'm a developer...I have experience it.FS 11 will probably take more advantage of multiple cores, given that Microsoft will have more of a clean slate to start from.

I'm in the same boat as you. I have a pretty high end machine (well it was about a month ago!) and FSX runs like crap. But after flying in FSX, FS9 doesn't look that great but the only reason why i'm back to FS9 for now is i'm able to run full AA and AAF and wow does FS9 look amazing. One thing i've noticed is in FS9 I do get slow downs with some of the scenery packages, nothing major but even FS9 can kill your FPS on a pretty new rig. Other then that FSX is a much better 'out of the box' product compared to FS9. I'm hoping that Microsoft can come up with a patch to run FSX at least 50% better then it's running right now.

Post your hardware specs...you may have a bottleneck.

2gb RamIntel 2ghz Core DuoATI X1600 256mbiMac :)No upgrades for me even if I could be bothered to waste my money. I'm not that concerned - I've got it running prob looking as good if not slightly better than FS9 now with a lot of fuss, and its 25fps which is fine. Now apart from the loading times I can now use FSX for what I bought it for - using new addons which are coming out only for FSX. FS9 will stay on my hard disk for now though! You're right it can't beat even low-medium FSX graphics if you can put AA on and everything full.

That's a pretty good machine, even if it is an iMac. :)The one thing that might get you is sometimes FSX uses more than 256 megs of textures. So with your graphics card, FSX would need to go to system memory for the overflow, which will slow you down a lot. This usually only happens in big cities or if you have the settings turned too far up. You can check how much video memory is in use with MemStatus.http://www.nuclearplayground.com/NuclearPlayground/

Nice little app - my memory went up to 1gb/2gb, video went to 128mb (out of, according to this program, 512mb - perhaps i was given the wrong video card, or its wrong?!) and my processor, according to task manager, is the bottleneck at 50% usage (ie 100% of one processor).

FSX won't use both cores at 100%. It will peg one core, and use the other for texture loading at maybe 20-30%.

The 512MB figure comes from the 256MB on-board video memory and another 256MB that it "borrows" from the main computers system memory. I think this is an ATI thing (haven't noticed my NVidia machines claiming to have more memory than they actually do anyway :-> ).

Well Joseph, you will not be any happier after you read what two major games developers feel about Vista and DX10:http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200...5034.htm?Page=2There are some who feel the release of DX-10 was made exclusive to Vista's release, not because there were any tremendous advantages over XP per se, as most feel this is a lateral move, but as a way to force power users / gamers to buy the new OS! From what these two guys are saying, Vista is unlikely to offer many performance gains to serious flightsimmers / gamers running fairly power rigs!! So don't hold your breath for a miracle with FSX.Regards, http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

>Microsoft make me sick. What>are they a company trying to make a profit?!No Microsoft is a non-profit organization who gives all proceeds to organic dairy farms in North America. If you really want to shove it to Bill Gates, boycott milk.

AHAHAHAHA. That's good.BTW, Carmack has never been a big Windows guy. In fact, he used to dump all over DirectX (7, 8, 9 etc) and evangelize OpenGL instead.

Yeah I read that too, that he's not a Windows fan, in the responses to his interview. I guess we'll just have to see. Curiously, when was the last time a release of FlightSim coincided with the release of a new MS OS?http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD