I think will be interesting to see how the new Microsoft Vista operating system interfaces with FSX. If I remember correctly, FSX was designed to implement the software design changes that are to be found within Vista. Vista may be the solution to FSX low framerates.Tom

Maybe... Im rebuilding when vista and dx10 hardware comes out.

What is yall's (im from houston :) ) pc specifications?

"What is yall's (im from houston :) ) pc specifications?"Chase, I hate to nitpick and I hope you don't take offense to this ...But I have to correct you.I think you meant to say, "What "are" Y'alls pc specifications? (I'm from Indiana.:-)) We speak good English up here. It's our second language, you know.Best regardsMonnieJan1,KINDWhen I push the button and it works, I'm happy:-)

>>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 70.20 fps isn't smooth enough for me. I can tolerate 25 or so.

A quick an easy way of getting smooth FPS in FSX: get rid of all that water-detail, sun-glare & special effects & set scenery detail to low or medium.With those 3 things disabled I can fly with MAX autogen on my not-so-screamin system :) with constant 20FPS (locked)

Same. With the new catalyst drivers and DX update, I easily stay at 40.

A software product should perform well on installation, especially if I have THREE times the minimum specs! :-rollThe FSX Demo stuttered and chugged along in a very disappointing way. Yes, the clouds are much better than FS2002, but the frame rates were terrible in places (6-12fps on the runway!!!!). I bought FSX and something told me to leave it in the packaging. When I saw the feedback on these forums I was shocked. The scenery errors and activation issues were unacceptable IMHO. I took FSX back for a refund, and I'm glad :).This is how much it would cost me to run FSX:1) Microsoft Windows Vista Home (Basic Edition) =

Yep. I agree with all of you "Niners". If I were to get FSX I'd be straight away switching OFF the bloom, cars, boats, birds - all that useless stuff. Honestly we did without it for so long, why suddenly demand now.FS9 has, like most of you have said, never looked so good.To me, there's nothing more stunning than all this going at once....1) PMDG 747 with the new soundset (or equally the LDS767)2) TrackIR3) FS2Crew4) Activesky5) GEPro + REPro6) Running the landing checklist on 10 mile final to VHHH with a low vis, Asian smog running.Just magic - why throw this experience away now!!!!! To be honest. I could buy FSX. It might indeed run great. I may love it. But I just can't be bothered right now putting myself in a position where I could possibly trash my whole setup on the basis of seeing some shiny new photographic ground textures and some Far Cry water.

>This is how much it would cost me to run FSX:>>1) Microsoft Windows Vista Home (Basic Edition) =

>You don't mean 3 Gb? IN FSX forum there is a thread about FSX really needs 3 Gb.Not gonna get it from me..