I think it's a legitimate question given the equivocal nature of responses to FSX. I don't own nor have seen FSX, so I can't say. But what about you?Noel

I don't see that this is a hardware question, so why post it here?And speculation is futile. FSX performance IS NOT the same as FS9 on equivalent settings, precisely why ACES are releasing a SP1 patch so soon after release.I prefer to fly a sim that's smooth. I prefer the looks of FS9 with all the addons, but I like the potential of FSX with the higher detail resolution and improved air dynamics. If someone came up with a way to get 1 metre resolution in FS9 I would abandon FSX, in a heartbeat. But only for a year.FSX is the future. Just not today.Allcott

That question need not be asked.I mean, all things being equal performance-wise, it's a no-brainer.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

>I don't see that this is a hardware question, so why post it>here?>>And speculation is futile. FSX performance IS NOT the same as>FS9 on equivalent settings, precisely why ACES are releasing a>SP1 patch so soon after release.>>I prefer to fly a sim that's smooth. I prefer the looks of FS9>with all the addons, but I like the potential of FSX with the>higher detail resolution and improved air dynamics. If someone>came up with a way to get 1 metre resolution in FS9 I would>abandon FSX, in a heartbeat. But only for a year.>>FSX is the future. Just not today.>>>>>>AllcottIt was an accident Allcott. I can also think of lots of other perspectives, but the one I was hoping to get opinion on is which one would you prefer to fly now, were perf not an issue. Fs9 tricked out, or FSX with sliders maxed? Which one would be . . . more enjoyable to interact and use? This is what my question was, not what the potential is, or what if 1 meter resolution was possible.

Well, haven't seen FSX. What screenprints I've seen did not look overly different from what I have. ActiveCamera I would need to abandon I believe. I guess you are saying FSX is the no-brainer.

Yes pretty much I am saying, for me, if FSX had the same fps that FS2004 did, it would be hands-down FSX for me.Some people with add-ons like Ground Environment, etc. that really make FS2004 shine, maybe they would prefer FS2004 no matter what. But in my case, I don't/didn't have any of those types of add-ons in FS2004. So therefore, if perf was equal, FSX by far.I expect that, down the line, as hardware improves and SP1 and DX10 come along, FSX performance will indeed creep up to a decent level.Really on my system it's about there now, except in places like New York or Tokyo.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

As a different perspective if using VFR photo scenery with hardware that is up to it FSX is my prefered sim. I have FS9 with Just Flights VFR scenery. It wasn't really that good, I had to be at 3000 ft + to see much and then the resolution was not good, not good enough to really use it for VFR training. With FSX at 700 ft with Just Flight FSS scenery I can see major landmarks in good detail and pin sharp in FSX. Far more useful to me. Of course this is using it without sliders maxed as there is little point in having autogen when using 'the real world' outside the cockpit ;0)The bottom line on this has been done to death though, moving the sliders to the right in FSX is not the same as doing so in FS9 they are not equivalent settings as the scalability of FSX is something in a magnitude of 10 greater than FS9. If they were the same than FSX would be FS9 with improved flight dynamics, in reality it is a whole lot more than that IMOH. Role out SP1 and let the sim world rejoice LOL! But seriously, for those of us who have been using FSX up to now we can probably see that those who have shelved it until SP1 is available will embrace it very quickly if the performance improves. The addons will come and the wobbly start will be forgotten.

>I think it's a legitimate question given the equivocal nature>of responses to FSX. I don't own nor have seen FSX, so I>can't say. But what about you?>>NoelHi Noel,I agree with X15. I've got the hardware needed for running FSX with good fps and without stutters. In FS9 I did a lot of IFR flying with the big iron birds. In FSX I do a lot more VFR flying because the scenery is so much better. I didn't reinstall FS9 on my new hardware, and sometimes I miss the GE textures and UT. But I've no plans for reinstalling FS9 - FSX is so much better. I purchased a couple of FSX sceneries (Cloud9 Bergen and Aerosoft Helgoland X) and they are in a different leage compared to FS9 sceneries. I'm know patiently awaiting the releases of GE for FSX, UT Europe and North America for FSX, Vancouver+ For FSX, Misty Fjords for FSX, Tongass Fjords for FSX and...FSX is the future, even if it isn't that obvious right now. MS have to release the SP1, which will trigger a lot of upcoming releases of add ons. And most important are the tools for developers, like FSDS 3.5.Ulf B :-)

With used in conjunction with frame rate friendly high-resolution photographic scenery, FSX has the the edge on FS9.Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

Thank you for your insights and opinions. I look forward to new hardware and a new sim in FSX with SP1. I may wait til DX10 becomes a plus so I guess that appears to be hopefully late this year? I am still enthralled with FS9 which I use just about daily having just learned a few things about more complete use of the FMCs in the PMDG 737 and 747s. Being patient for a system upgrade is the part I have to force myself to do though as I tend not to make wholesale upgrades more often than about every 4 years or so. My 15K rpm SCSI drives I may move over to a new system as they were 5y warranted and SMART shows all three as being perfect, for what that's worth.Thanks again your insights were easy to interpret.Noel

I think you brought up a good discussion, even though it's a little bit of a teaser (with the caveat of FSX performance equalling FS2004 performance.)I guess it all comes down to what add-ons you use, to some extent...In your case you are using PMDG stuff, FMC's, and all of that. Until those things are updated for FSX, a person such as yourself would indeed probably prefer FS2004 over FSX even if performance was identical. ...at least until you see PMDG updated for FSX.Same with people who use Ground Environment, the Portland Scenery, and so forth. Until they are updated for FSX, there's not as much impetus for them to switch.Their FS2004 setups are awesome and even if perf was the same, they wouldn't be *as* inclined to go FSX.But on the other hand, you have users like myself who have none of those add-ons (only ActiveSky) and so in those people's case, assuming perf was identical, going to FSX is a no-brainer like I said.Again, very cool question you posed...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case