would i be able to install vista first then XP? Cause im thinking of getting a new PC cause my current PC is bad for crysis and the PC comes with Vista. So what happens when you boot? Does it ask you what OS you want to use? If so that is a good thing.Jourdog

I have just upgraded my sons computer Asus P5KC,Intel quad Q6600 @2.4 Ghz, 4 Gig Crucial 1066 ram, Ati 3870, Vista Home premium 64 bit.FSx is a dream, fast, smooth and no blurries with Horizons photo scenery at over 500 kias. A wonderful experience.

Jourdog,There are many possibilities, and everything is possible :DAnd yes, it is possible to install dual boot with Vista first installed.Quick google search gave this, looks like a very good guide:http://apcmag.com/how_to_dual_boot_vista_a...ystep_guide.htmIf you boot, you can set it to wait until you choose which to boot. It is a simple two line choice. After you select one, the appropriate OS will start booting.

FSX by itself IS a dream. On my PC, almost everywhere, a dream. 40fps+ (of course not all sliders right). But try some addons...PMDG, Heathrow... good luck :-)

ok thats good news. i also found an article which was a little less complicated on Vista and XP Dual Boot. Also, will Crysis be affected by that memory thing? I will also be running RAID 0 for faster access to drives etc. Will this be affected by all the file changes etc?Thanks, Jourdog

If RAID or not, that has nothing to do with Vista.Just keep in mind one thing:Having one drive for Windows+Swap (separate partitions) and 2nd for FS (single partition only for FS!!) is more of a benefit than a RAID drive as one disk with everything on it.I don't think Crysis will be affected by it (if you turn it off), but I am very sure that it will give you less FPS. But if you want DX10, then its your only choice.

>If I knew that FS11 would require Vista to shine, then I would opt >for that. LOL, By the time you see FS11 we will most likely using Windows 7 which has already been confirmed by Microsoft for next year. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display...t_Chairman.htmlAsus P5E3 Premium/WIFI-AP (Intel X48 chipset)Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770OCZ Platinum 4GB(2 x 2GB) 1600 (PC3 12800/C-7)Evga 8800 Ultra

Re: addons in FSX. Of course there's not many sadly but overall scenery and airports in FSX is much better than FS9 IMHO. Also, with some of the new scenery packs (like the excellent ones from Megascenery e.g. Hawaii or Southern California) you get a stunning 1.19 meter per pixel compared to 4.75meters per pixel with FS9 - http://www.megascenery.com/megasceneryxdisc.htm. Also, you have for airports some excellent ones from Aerosoft/MegaAirports: EGLL, LHBP and some smaller ones (but still excellent) like Lukla (near Everest), Hawaii Dilingham X (absolutely gorgeous in combination with Hawaii MegasceneryX) and the new Lord Howe island. I know this thread is supposed to be Vista/XP but since discussion has also turned towards FSX/FS9 I felt like throwing in my .2cents. Also, I have been using both PMDG 747 and LDS 767 in FSX without issues. I would like to say this though: using Vista/FSX you may find yourself tweaking a lot more than with XP (FS9/FSX) - I certainly have spent my time doing so - but the end result IMHO is certainly worth it. Keep in mind that you need a dual-core CPU and at least 2 GB of RAM to run FSX/Vista successfully at decent settings.

Check it out - MegaSceneryX Hawaii and Aerosoft's Hawaii Dillingham X with most scenery settings maxed out. http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/5279/maxexfsxloadpk6.jpg

Sorry to say, but I find your graphics to be very poor IMHO.Little further from the airport, textures are VERY blurry, you have no appropriate AA/AF set, which would surely bring your FPS down, and even textures below the airport look very poor for such "high resolution".And please, if you say you don't have any issues with PMDG, post a screenshot with FPS shown sitting in the cockpit on Aerosoft Heathrow. Thanks.

Wow... just thinking how I can reply to the above post without coming across as rude or insensitive. Well, probably I can't, sorry!You cannot be serious - "very poor". Come on. Surely you're just having a bad day... Ok so maybe it's not *perfect* (no simulation is as far as I know), but "very poor"... Wow. You must have some *seriously* high expectations. I didnt't post this to say: hey guys! look at my rig, look at what I can do, but rather: look at what some add-on packages can do to make FSX *a lot* better. Guess I can dig out a comparison SS of the same location with stock FSX settings, no add-ons, but I just cannot be bothered at the moment. Your statement has left me a little depressed.Of course any high-end simulation like PMDG (and LDS also) is a fps hog. My point was I have it running STABLE (finally, after loads of tweaking), I didnt say that I'm getting good frame rates. Especially not sitting on the tarmac at EGLL/KLAX etc with 100% traffic. Even with relatively modest scenery settings I'm usually not getting more than 10-15 fps in those locations. As for "you have no appropriate AA/AF set"... Please, give me a break. Have you ever tried running anisotrophic filtering / antialiasing on a 1920x1200 resolution and still getting good frame rates? Didnt't think so - unless perhaps you have TWO QX9650's clocked at 5.0 using the Skulltrail platform lol. Point is it's just not possible. At least not with current hardware. It's comparable to running Crysis at the same resolution and AA/AF turrned on. Even with a quad-SLI/crossfireX rig you still don't get decent fps at max settings. That's for future hardware. As for the blurriness in the distance... well excuse me for saying so but that also tends to happen in the real world sometimes lol! Btw I have the "level of detail radius" setting totally maxed out. Also, no high-resolution scenery looks absolutely stunning below 1,000 ft. I guess I should have chosen another SS... Well, have a look at this thread here (I just posted it a few hours ago in the SS section): http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=271288&page=then tell me if you cannot find ANY of the screenshots there at least a TINY bit appealing for your eyes. Surely you will not post back and say "I'm sorry but IMHO I find them all to be appalling".Well, sorry if I have come across as edgy I just didnt understand your statement - AT ALL... IMHO it doesnt get much better than this using FSX. I'm off to get a drink. EDIT: Btw just realized I had posted a SS that is WAY too big - sorry for that, I was at the time not aware of the avsim image limitations - I am now. Too late to edit the post though and replace the picture. So I deleted the above picture from my 3rd-party server and upload it again below using the recommended settings:http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7839/maxexfsxloadkf9.jpg

Hmmmm. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else is not using AA/AF. With my monitor I have to use them. And with my card it doesn't make any difference what setting I'm at as far as a FPS hit.BobHow was your drink?

Ok, enabled both AF and AA via the FSX display settings. Happy? (sorry that new image was taken a bit earlier in the morning hence different lighting). I agree that now some of the textures look a lot sharper but still I disagree with your previous statement of "very bad". And by the way, drink was good, alhough I did find controlling the Baron a tad harder whilst under the influence lol...http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/5475/20...30305121rc9.jpgEDIT: new image using full daylighthttp://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8656/20...30491287ju2.jpg

Easy. I'm not the one that was complaining. I just asked a simple question. You can do whatever you want.Bob

No no you misunderstand. I guess I should have pointed out, but my above post was not directed at you. Sorry that you thought that.