Hi guysFirst off I want to say that this is not to bash MS, ACES or anyone else affiliated with FSX. With that out of the way, here goes my quick and basic Friday Night 20/20 story.This week, I upgraded to the standard version of FSX. Performance on my aging system was so-so. Something I liked is how the sim did not have any studders, which made the 5-8FPS out of the box fairly flyable. The detail the sim produces is just beautiful. Its updated textures and landclass make it very appealing to the simmer's eye, mine too. I will say that the 6-8FPS on the ground and 9-12FPS in the sky is improved with alot of the tweaks avalible here at avsim. The one I found the most helpful was that provided by PMDG.If you have the patience or a new, strong machine, give it a shot. It did get my frames up, but it's still not near what I can achieve in FS9. FSX is a amazing and very appealing simulator, but it just requires so much. Honestly, my FSX box is getting put up untill I am able to upgrade (hopefully next year) to a new computer with Vista and DX10 support. If you are thinking right now about upgrading so you can accomodate FSX, dont. Wait for the new year. Prices drop on todays top of the line, and this is the time of year when new hardware becomes avalible. Wait for the new hardware and cheaper prices before upgrading. FSX is amaing, but dont expect 20 or 30FPS right away after installation. You can reach that 15-20 with the tweaks avalible, but something might hold it back each time you load up the sim. Half the time I could get 15-20 in-flight and around 8-12 on the ground, and the other half of the time, it was single digits.I'd hate to see people go out and upgrade now for FSX when so much more is going to be avalible in the next few months. If you dont have FSX now, dont worry. It's not going anywhere. Sit back, relax, and enjoy FS9 and make that upgrade after DX10 is realeased. :)Take care guys, and lets enjoy our hobby. :-beerchug:-wave

Hi,That is exactly what many of us will do. I for one, have not purchased FSX yet. And if my chrystalball is right, I will not get it within the next 2 years or so.As for now, I can not imagine what can beat FS9 in graphics, performance and available addons. And the screenshots posted with FSX has not convinced me to fall for it even 1%. ;-)For now, I am just enjoying the post in the FSX forum from all FSX defenders/tweak adicted who are sooooo satisfied with it. And they get soooo very high framerates as 10 - 15, with super computers,..and...with default stuff !!! :-lolhttp://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifDell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HDBlogg: http://blogg.passagen.se/primeaviFiles: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

I admit I will upgrade. BUT it will not be until after my next system upgrade, which will be about a year away. I'm going for a new laptop next....

Thats what I thought about. When we start getting 3rd party addons, frames and performance will go to #### it all honesty. Detail wise, not much was improved. GEPro and AS6 will keep me happy, not to mention my 40FPS with all my payware aircraft. Im happy with my performance, I dont want anything less. Ill switch to FSX when I upgrade which will probably be next year. It is a very detailed simulator, though. :)

I'm the same way about holding off on FSX. Addons is a consideration and I'm watching the addon companies and how they might use FSX as a marketing tool.Carenado, god bless'em, issued a free patch for their airplanes into FSX.FSD International convinced me to go for the Navajo V2 FSX upgrade, but I wanted a standard Navajo for FS9 anyway.Eaglesoft is offering a 30% discount coupon so current owners of their aircraft can use them in FSX. A 30% discount coupon is another way of saying; We want you to buy our/your airplanes all over again at 70% of their original cost so you can just use them in FSX.I'll admit that I don't know how much "code writing" goes into the conversion of aircraft from FS9 to FSX but there seems to be a philosophical argument here. Isn't that conversion cost, a cost of doing business?Carenado seems to recognize that whatever version of flight simulator that you are using they will support it at no additional cost to you if you had already bought their airplanes. It removes a certain amount of customer apprehension when it comes to buying their products. Maybe it's a thank you for their Bravo Zulu award for the 206.FSD has tacked on an additional cost of their Navajo so it can be used in FSX. BUT they are giving you a new model of basically the same airplane for FS9.Eaglesoft seems to have taken the position that the purchase of their aircraft are for a given version flight sim, if you bought their bizjets for FS9 then they will stay there. If an FS9 Eaglesoft customer wants to use the same aircraft in FSX, then you will have to pony up 70% more money for basically the same aircraft license. I can only register my vote with Microsoft and the obvious problems with FSX by NOT buying it off the shelf in it's current state. I do look forward to some of the features FSX and hope I can use it someday with my $1700 two year old computer. Daryll

Below 20 fps is simply unacceptible to me, especially only with the default aircraft. I don't care if it is "stutter free" or not, that just isn't smooth enough for my kind of flying. Some people are perfectly happy with that, and that's great. I wish I could tolerate it. I've said it before and it is worth repeating, I have yet to even come close to maxing out fs9 yet. I built my new PC this summer specifically with fs9 in mind, and I'm glad I did. FSX might be on my hard drive someday... but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Thats something else we must consider. Im thinking almost two years ago, I was out of about 1600 or 1700 dollars. News flash... Time flys folks. Im not ready to do it all over again. Plus, I've probably built another computer with what Ive spent on payware. I more than likely have a grand, easily, in FS. I cant leave all that behind for FSX and its poor performance with default everything. Addons are shot today. Its not possible to run something like the PMDG in FSX. For the sake of sanity, I cant do it. Maybe after updates are released and I build a new computer next year, Ill shoot to the move then. For now though, FS9 has never looked or ran better, especially with the omega 6.9 drivers and the october update of DX9. OC'd my card to XTPE speeds and it sure hauls a load. :)

>I have yet to even come close to maxing out fs9 yet.Your joking, right? The only time I can think of it dropping under 20 is around big airports and even then it would be around 15-18. Go on, let that urge take you over. Max'em out. Keep sight distance around 90 and cloud draw to around 70.

I'm not going near FSX until MS comes up with some kind of fix for the ridiculous fps hit the autogen makes. And I'm not talking full sliders at all.

It's just about fun which Sim you fly...As for FPS hoover around 27 till 60 fps in FSX with 120 AI and heavy weather (ASV 6.5) and great visuals ;-) ready for the add-on stuff...So i have real fun in both sims...Have both Sims on my HD and enjoy both as for development it will be for FSX....If I can port my beloved aircraft over then the balance for me will be FSX :-) (767 / 747 / 737-300-800-900 / Legacy) Because I never fly the default stuff besides GA...Have fun guys whatever you fly... Andr

I'm the same way. FSX looks nice, but I've got a 50 GB FS2004 installation right now. That's a LOT of crap to have to throw away or wait for/pay for upgrades. And my system isn't that great (Athlon XP 2500, 1 GB RAM, Geforce 6600GT 128MB 8x AGP) so I couldn't run FSX without chopping the sliders back so far as to not make it worth it.I'm not dumping on FSX or the people who decided to be early adopters. I'll upgrade. I just plan to take my time doing it because I'll have to have an entirely new system to run it well, so I might as well wait for Vista/DX 10 anyway.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

I have been thinking this way too. Part of it is the big investment I have in FS9, plus the darn thing is really quite an impressive simulator in its own right. I have always planned major PC upgrades only after I can expect at least a doubling in overall processing power, and I'm not sure what sort of time frame to get that sort of improvement over what I have now, mainboard of which is 4y/o, CPU 2y/o and overclocked. FSX is not optimized for dual core processors I understand, so much of the CPU/memory performance potential that is contained in these newer processors (over my old 3.05GHz P4) is not really going to get me 200% of my current performance when it's FSX that's in the test bed in the forseeable future.Yes, sim on!

Something you'll realize though, they arent after speed anymore. Now its strength. My 3200 competes with the p4 3.2 BUT out performs it in gaming do to its 64-bit strength even though it clocks around 2 gig. If you do want to upgrade, go to the duo core. Supposed to be pretty quick. :)

>Something you'll realize though, they arent after speed>anymore. Now its strength. My 3200 competes with the p4 3.2>BUT out performs it in gaming do to its 64-bit strength even>though it clocks around 2 gig. If you do want to upgrade, go>to the duo core. Supposed to be pretty quick. :)Yep my Core 2 duo tripples in speed compared to my old AMD64 3700+ with 1mb cache...Yep it's that fast... still have my 3700+ in the network for my youngest son lol Andr

Yes they are that fast! I rebuilt my PC a couple of weeks ago, opted for an E6600 2.4Ghz Core2Duo and I've yet to find something that will push it :DI also love going into device manager and seeing 2 cpus listed, heh he!