"I can still drag my normally 35-70fps FS9 down into the teens with numerous frame rate hogging addons. And from the postings I've always seen, I'm certainly not alone!"This statement proves absolutely nothing as FSX can drag most PC's to a crawl with nothing but the default install. Correct me if I'm wrong but add-ons is what's carrying the franchise along, right. Running a default install of any given version of FS should be as painless as possible because add-ons by nature bring so much more to the table. For the past 10-12 months our ears have been filled with Aces acknowledgment of this fact. Aces told us more than ever before this sim would be for the add-on community and furthermore optimized for the general user. Add-on developers were even flown to Redmond. From what I'm seeing only the most hardcore fanatics among us can muster up the courage to defend this monstrosity... The general public/user can't run the darn thing... For the record running the sim without autogen does not help your argument about smooth sim performance. The last time a version of Flight Simulator was produced that didn't have autogen was FS2000. As you mentioned above FS2000 (the worst version of FS ever released) was a very worthy sim for you. It had many new features that were a first for Flight Simulator (which is a very valid assessment). Autogen for most of us was a worthy advancement in FS technology as well. You don't mind flying a sim in the year 2007 that looks on par with a sim built in the year 2000. Something is wrong with this picture and I'm sure others see my point here.L.Adamson reality check, FSX is not smoother than FS9 with comparable graphics options. Why don't you turn the autogen back on and tack a flight over New York to compare (by the way take note of the many misplaced buildings and see if you can get that dusk lighting to work, nobody else can). You really need to get out of the clouds and mountains and come back down to the real world. FSX doesn't deliver where most people need it to deliver...

<"After reading these comments here I would advise anyone from here on out to dismiss anything L.Adamson has to say. He and Geofa are in a camp all their own. Even the most hardened FSX supporters can't touch what L.Adamson just wrote above.- Dillon--">No Dillon - L.A is right. Most every post from him is pretty balanced and reasoned - as it applies to his FS needs and his (like mine) new hardware. Getting personal on this site will get the thread locked, and, further - your own credibility will suffer - as it is right now..I also get a very smooth 25 - 40 fps with ten, but I WANT to start my DF727 at a "REAL" KSEA, with FDC and FS Passengers: I WANT to fly an IFR flight plan down to KSAN using FS Navigator, SID's and STARS; I WANT to see normal, real-life traffic at the airports, along with the extra bonuses that ten may have to offer - such as road traffic. At this moment I cannot do that because the add-ons are simply NOT THERE and the defaults do NOT meet MY needs, so I will fly 9 on my Conroe until 11 comes out - fixed, and ready for multi-core processors and the coming dx10 cards are available and at decent prices. It will be another upgrade. Oh well. This is my hobby, and this is where I stroke myself, often by "shopping" on our flightsim sites.This is the same with L.Adamson. He has a different need and ten satisfies that. Same with Geofa.Have a nice day.

>>I could post some slides from the Intel IDF to show you the>>CPU future, but I cant be bothered as you clearly wish to>>leave your head in the sand like so many others.>>Yeah, I'm in the sand along with the rest of the 'idiots' on>the ACES team and the entire Microsoft company. The>now-standardized series of disgruntled end-users that crop up>after every new release are the ones with real>vision. I see that now, thanks to you. I mean... what>could a company like Microsoft possibly know about the future>of CPUs and how it could influence a major product line? >Sheez... I must look really dumb right now.>>I surrender. You're totally right. Their intent the>whole time must have been to design a product that could never>be used to its potential. Every programmer, graphic artist,>and manager assigned to the project were either (a)>completely ignorant of the future of CPUs, or (:(>conspiratorially driven to destroy the FS franchise with an>unusable product. Again, I clearly see that now.>>I totally forgot that Microsoft is a company that never knows>what it's doing. Duh. Where was my head?? :-roll Hmmm,I have actually been very pleased with all FS releases since FS98, with the exception of FS2000, which despite L.Adamson's glowing reference, plainly was terrible for most of us. As it stands right now, I place FSX in the same category.I'm afraid ACES have got it wrong and when they started writing this piece of software, it's clear that they had a vision of ~5Ghz single core CPU's. They backed the wrong horse, plain and simple. Why else would we be hearing about SP1 with improved multi-core support?As I said, if you would like to see some slides from the spring Intel developers forum showing the technology roadmap out until 2009, let me know and I will be happy to post them.Just do a little research and you may learn something......

"No Dillon - L.A is right. Most every post from him is pretty balanced and reasoned"Is this a joke?

Do an advanced search on L.Adamson. He has ten postings on this forum since October 30th. Go and read them. I stand by what I said.

If by 'balanced' you mean everytime anyone has ANY criticism of FSX he responds with "But the photoreal textures are so much better than FS9" regardless of what the criticism was about, then yes, I suppose you can stand by what you say.

>>The negatives of FS2000 far outweighed the pluses. Even Aces>acknowledged this fact. They had to go back to the drawing>board with FS2k2 which ultimately saved the franchise. FS2k2>was the best performing release of any FS title before or>since. FS2k4 was a close second with the exception being>cloud and autogen performance.>>After reading these comments here I would advise anyone from>here on out to dismiss anything L.Adamson has to say. He and>Geofa are in a camp all their own. Even the most hardened FSX>supporters can't touch what L.Adamson just wrote above.Yea right.....:-lol During the period that FS98 was being flown on desktops around the world, I, along with Geof A. were known as Pro-Pilot "shills". We recognized the deficiencies in FS98, which apparently, many desktop only "pilots" did not.The only way FS98 worked for me, was to combine it with Microsoft's Combat Simulator for improved flight characteristics, or the Pacific Northwest Mega Scenery for improved mesh topography.And why, you might ask? Well it's simple, FS98 just WAS NOT based on a real world representation of topography altitutes. Therfore, many higher altitude airports west of Denver, simply could not exist in the FS98 simulation. At the same time, the new Pro-Pilot included real world mesh altitudes with it's simulation. Due to a lack of elevation points compared to modern day simulations, the airports could be a few hundred feet off, but at least they were there. It was FS2000 that brought me back to MSFS. If you can't or didn't see the vast improvements in FS2000 versus FS98, from a real world aviation perspective, then I'm quite surprised (or perhaps not:-roll). During this time period, I found that I could use Pro-Pilot as a pre-flight simulation to get advanced knowledge of runway layouts in respect to surrounding topography for before taking the real flight. And thats because Pro-Pilot used real world data-bases, and FS98 did not.IMO, If you really believed that FS2000 negatives out weigh everything that was wrong with FS98, then I doubt I can say anything that will change your mind. FS98 was simply still just a " flight gaming sim". FS2000 brought us real world aviation data-bases, which brought the sim up to levels of a simulation, instead of just "playing flying".L.Adamson

>You really>need to get out of the clouds and mountains and come back down>to the real world. FSX doesn't deliver where most people need>it to deliver... I thought this was a "flight simulation"! Mountains and clouds certainly do have a bearing on real flight.:7 The real world of crowded airports and lots of trees are fun to look at, but a bus simulation might work just as well! :-hah In the meantime, should I want to play airline captain, instead of a real world mountain pilot, I'll use FS9 for it's improved frame rates in heavy airport traffic. It's easy to do, as FS9 is still on the new HD, and isn't going anywhere! :D L.Adamsonreal mountains & clouds:

. . and by the same token - FSX is still on my hard drive for when I want to play GA VFR (sorry, VMC) pilot. . Meantime - I just downloaded Cloud9's KLAX (FS9) for $12.95 and I'm off to play Sr. Captain in my lil' ol' 727, courtesy of DreamFleet! You should see that KLAX sucker jest full of aerioplanes! Life is good. :-cool

When FSX came out and I spent my $70 on it, I figured that put an end to FS9 payware for me.BZZZZ! Wrong.I just spent $80 on Ground Environment Pro and Flight Environment for FS9 and I still might get one or two other programs. Why? In the end it's because I want more of more - not more of less. I am a big fan of FSX, I think it's great, but I simply don't have the hardware to pull off some of the flying I want to do. (AMD64-3000/2GigRAM/7800GS) If I want a great low level bush flight, then FSX has me by the collar. But when I want to fly one from one busy high detail airport to another, with custom terrain and weather and lots of AI traffic, then I have to go with FS9. I just can't do this in FSX. Not yet anyway.So, for the time being, if I want have cake and the ability to eat it too, then it's FS9. Like some ohers have said, maybe in a year or so I'll be able to do this with FSX, but for now, I don't have a prayer. And fun/happiness, as I tell my daughter, is the art of the possible. With FS9 + add-ons, for the time being, I am able to have more fun than with FSX.

Great topic. FS9 to FSX is really not like previous transitions. I see some people are still in denial. :DMe, I'm enjoying FS9 more than ever before. It's looking spectacular. I've bought the Budapest and Hannover sceneries since the release of FSX, not caring at all about their upgrade promise. ;-)I seriously hope and I am mildly optimistic that devs will not forget about FS9 and us outcasts. I can only applaud Coral Sea's post on TropicalSim's approach. Unfortunately their sceneries are not near where I usually fly, but I'm ready to spend some more money on new sceneries (ImagineSim's Cincinnati for example, there's also a new Heathrow in a pipeline somewhere I believe, curious to see how that is compared to Heathrow Pro) and other add-ons for FS9.I fly between big cities in Europe and the US/Canada. From add-on scenery to add-on scenery. Mostly payware with a few notable freeware exceptions. I enjoy the bigger airports and 100% AI traffic. The lack of improvements in ATC and AI management together with an average look and feel and infamous performance make it very easy for me to stick with FS9. Honestly, I don't see myself ever using FSX, not unless there are a couple of miracles. ;-)

:-beerchug

This is like buying a fully loaded luxury car with new and improved features over the old model, only to find out that half the time it's broken down and needs to go back to the dealer.I dont think anyone would doubt the improved features that FS2000 brought to the table, just in most cases the performance was so horrible it made it useless. (ring any bells? FSX?....)

>This is like buying a fully loaded luxury car with new and>improved features over the old model, only to find out that>half the time it's broken down and needs to go back to the>dealer.>No, the whole argument regarding these two different simulations is silly. Obviously, all of us would never buy the same car. We'd buy the vehicle that suit's our purposes. If we need a van or truck to haul materials, or for business, we'd buy one of them too.It's the same with simulation. FSX fits some of my personal purposes to a tee, while it fails in others. It's the same with FS9! Heck, it's the same with X-Plane too! I could use the vehicle analogy against FS9 all day also, if that's where we're going with this. The fact is, for a good percentage of my simming purposes, much of FSX really IS new, improved, and like splendid luxury. And BTW, the luxury vehicle analogy has been used in a tiresome way for years and years. Never really means much as a comparison, because world wide flight simulations, unlike a vehicle, must encompass much more than a short list of finite parts, not to mention so many varibles and expectations on the users end. A good flight simulation will never be finished, and it will never work for everyone in the same fashion or for the same uses. We must be honest and realize that. I do! I already know, that what I want, isn't what everyone else will want.I'm being realistic here, and am maintaining FS9 for what FSX can't accomplish. On the other hand, I see much potential in FSX that just won't happen with FS9. After 20 years or so of simming, piloting, etc, I don't need someone else telling me what works best, as I can easily figure it out for myself. L.Adamson

The lack of improvements in ATC and AI>management together with an average look and feel and infamous>performance make it very easy for me to stick with FS9.>Honestly, I don't see myself ever using FSX, not unless there>are a couple of miracles. ;-)Just look for stansted just released dual version for FS9 and FSX for the price of one :-)+ ACES thats real fun two man of to fly in FS9 that is lolAndr