a new consideration for us simmers

[Guest SJDickson]

Your argument in the initial post isn't new; it has been made for years, practically since the advent of personal computing, yet the PC market has continued to grow in leaps and bounds year after year. In fact, rather than softening, the consumer PC market is projected to see double digit growth rates through 2008 with Intel, AMD, ATI (recently aquired by AMD) and nVidia all continuing to develop ever higher performance parts.You and I may decide to skip a release cycle - and our reasons for doing so probably have more to do with our moving into a different demographic than due to a fundamental shift in the market itself - but the technology steamroller continues unabated.

[Guest over and out]

I remember seeing last year that FSX was coming out. My first impression was, "oh know, I just got FS9 configured out with all these great add-ons, I spent all this money, and now they have a new Flight Simulator on the way" At first I thought that if I can run it on my machine, I would be very tempted to scrap my FS9 with all the add ons, but I could in know justify doing so.And then I got the Demo, and it was horrible on my machine, then I noted that PMDG 737 (for example) was not going to be able to run on it etc. And then I started thinking that I'm just going to keep FS9 and I hope they keep making add ons for it. Then there were some great sales on FS9 add ons that I took advantage of.Then I was relieved once I saw that so many people were experiencing the same thing, meaning that FS9 would be around for some time to come!So now I am perfectly content with my FS9. I'll be upgrading PMDG 737 to the 800/900 soon. Lastly, as some one else noted. Even if I could get FSX to run ok on my computer, it would be impossible to addon to it. Can you imagine FSX with let's say Megascenary or a complex aircraft addon?

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I hit your link...and uh..er...OK...belay that request, lol.I guess that I'll not be disappointed, huh?:)Cheers,Mitch

[Guest Mr Chips]

I'm with you buddy. I've just added a X1950 Pro AGP to AMD 3200 and I have no plans at all to go through the completely unnecessary expense of replacing the rest of my hardware. As you say, literally everything runs fine 'n' fast and is fine fettle and not only could I not justify an upgrade for FSX but where does that mentality end?Lets see what FS12 brings - lol.

[Mike T 208]

LOL! Sorry Barry!Yeah, on second thought, my bad! I'm in trouble with all the guys here too after the wives got wind of this one. I'm in seclusion..especially since about 5 of my buddies are SWAT team members on the Chicago police department (I've made it a point to stay away from my windows) :-lol

[Mike T 208]

:-)No need...there is no dispute that FSX can be absolutely spectacular..especially with the 1m scenery at altitude. To clarify, its not that FSX can't be spectacular and so can Vista (which I really like by the way). I think my point (which I didn't make to well) was that I think Vista is more beautiful than XP...just like many think FSX looks better than FS9, the real problem is give feature for feature, the mass exodus to either Visa or FSX is not a reality at this time.So the real "mistake" IMHO by Microsoft is that both Vista and FSX require significant compromises and expenditures vs their incumbant counterparts. The Roman Mob, so to speak, is not amused. In that, they walk hand in hand, and share the same fate.At the end of the day, the migration to FSX and Vista will happen eventually, but a great many people are far from happy with that thought and have resolved to stay with XP and FS9. From that standpoint the parallels are quite interesting.

[BillW 210]

This is our declaration of independence from Microsoft pushing us into outrageous upgrade requirements. They need to listen. I suspect that we are pretty representative of the general public on this matter.

[LAdamson 240]

> Can>you imagine FSX with let's say Megascenary or a complex>aircraft addon?Considering that FSX seems to have a high senery workload as it is, MegaScenery is working with no additional frame rate loss at all. In fact, MegaScenery is one of the main reasons that I'll run FSX right along with FS9. MegaScenery has approx. 16 times the resolution of FS9, with the new FSX versions; and it definately shows. I had little interest with MegaScenery for FS9 because of the high altitudes required for it to focus, but now look forward to new FSX titles.As to a complex aircraft addon ---- an excellent reason not to dump FS9! :7 L.Adamson

[djbrowndog 0]

Well, i'll hang about until at least SP1 for Vista is released then will be confident about its performance and security, then might upgrade, purchase and install it (looking at at least 12-16 months). Microsoft likes to use its customers as (beta) testers. i'll wait for all those buyers to (beta) test it for me. As others have said (or not):FS9:- sensational add-ons for reasonable prices- most of us have got it nicely tweaked for our machines (finally!)- good scenery (have seen some dx10 shots but who has those machines anyway?)- realism from add-ons (i'm running- rc4, pmdg 800/900, aismooth, various scenery addons mostly freeware- check out VOZ! looking at fs2crew at the mo...) - plenty of freeware for those of us who work a casual job- a little lacking in scenery detail but more than adequate/real with addon material (free and pay)- i could list more but the beer is making me sleepy...FSX:- Demo struggled on my machine (lack of RAM possible cause..not FSX)- can't see any real improvements apart from (well)detailed scenery (after running it on my mates "high end" machine)... but I'm after realism in the flight model...atc, sids, stars, real-life procedures, flight dynamics and responses, weather, cockpits - this hasn't really improved in FSX. i don't give a rats for a hang glider dropping balloons full of urine on platforms over the superbly detailed Appalachian ranges.- Adventures?!?!? what the?- it does have the A320, haven't found a good add-on for FS9 yet, free or pay. (suggestions welcome)- some addon developers only releasing for FSX (pmdg?) or are they rethinking this point?- need to spend lots on a machine/product/platform to get a little.....anywho,thats my beef,djbrowndog (Chris, VIC, AUS)mmmmmm.....BOAGS!

[Guest crotiusf16]

I am running a P4 3.0Ghz AMD with 512RAM and a FX5500 (256MB - 128bit) and I get 20fps at a height of 10000feet with a Beechcraft in stormy weather. In sunny weather it sometimes ranges between 25 and 29fps. I downloaded instructions somewhere that has taught me how to optimize the cfg for FS9. I must say, it was a great help. With some aircraft it begins a bit sticky but as I change my views it gets better and better. Maybe I am just lucky with my old machine.

[Guest tascaso]

Nice post, good information, likewise AMD 64 X2 4800 with 2 gigs of Corsair, and a 7800GT are plenty of horsepower to smoothly run Steel Beasts Pro, Forgotten Battles 1946, Silent Hunter III with all the latest mods and upgrades, GTR2 completely maxed out with 35+ cars racing on highly detailed tracks.Yet I have side by side installs of FS9 highly modded and FSX and they are both PIGS in the frame rate department. Both have been tweaked, chopped and altered with all the "forum contrived" fixes for their prospective ailments. So, they both sit on the HD and gather virtual dust, think I will eBay FSX and probably uninstall FS9, as neither are getting much attention. Bottom line is we have plenty of CPU/GPU horsepower! We just need software to take full advantage of that horsepower.T. Ascaso