>>Look at these two pics from FS9 with GE (from Flight1). I>don't feel FSX gives me much of a 'jump' over this and>certainly not at a super smooth 30FPS like I currently get>with FS9. As I have said before, I think if I had the FSX 1m>textures in FS9, I would be happy for the next 12 months or so>while the kinks in FSX are ironed out.>Even with GE Pro, FS9 is not capable of the glossy photo-type look that FSX has. X-Plane, and even FlyII from altitude could look much more photo-realistic, than FS9. With my much improved FSX textures, I still get that super smooth 25 fps, since that's what my target rate is set at. And for what ever reason, including lack of stutters, 25 fps actually is very smooth in FSX. As mentioned a million times before, with my type of simulated flight, which involves city and mountain areas of the western U.S., but very little "bush flight", it's quite easy to maintain that 25 fps in FSX.And of course, you're not going to get those great looking 1m FSX textures in FS9. If it was possible, then I wouldn't need FSX either! :)L.Adamson

"Even with GE Pro, FS9 is not capable of the glossy photo-type look that FSX has. X-Plane, and even FlyII from altitude could look much more photo-realistic, than FS9."Didn't say that it was. I said it's not THAT much better than FS9 with GE and I certainly appreciate the aligned autogen and better performance."As mentioned a million times before, with my type of simulated flight, which involves city and mountain areas of the western U.S., but very little "bush flight", it's quite easy to maintain that 25 fps in FSX."And don't we know it! Sorry but until FSX can maintain at least 15-18FPS in ALL areas its no go for a lot of people and certainly no go for almost all non US simmers, who have been well and truly shafted with the geographcial features in this version, but that's no concern of yours right? Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and all that......."And of course, you're not going to get those great looking 1m FSX textures in FS9. If it was possible, then I wouldn't need FSX either!"What? You mean you wouldn't miss the improved 'airmass' in FSX?Maybe you did buy and try Active Sky 6 after all........

"....the Space Station in FS11:-wave"It may be in FSX too.Carlos

The hardware map for FSX like it was for FS9 is brute force. Notice I didn't say higher gigahertz. Now we can run FS9 maxed. Not because of support for SLI or dual core but because of highly efficient processors that maximize the work they do per clock cycle. Not to mention faster ram and graphics cards. Yes brute force. The same will be for FSX but it may take 3 years. By then everyone will be complaining about that performance hog named FSXI.Carlos

And this is FS9 (no stock of course), with the FT ERJ (pretty fps intensive) at 24.8/25.Leohttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/163426.jpg

>The hardware map for FSX like it was for FS9 is brute force........ The same will be for FSX but it may take 3>years. By then everyone will be complaining about that>performance hog named FSXI.>>CarlosYes..three years hence, when there are sufficient h/w available to run FSX, we can all enjoy FSX THEN. For now, FS9 is appropriatly matched with today;s brute force.We are out of sync by one generation of flight sim.;)Manny

Ok, let's get serious. More FS9, nothing stock, not even the sky color, lol. Over 24/25 fps in this three pics.