>Wasn't it pointed out to be fully unrealistic because it didn't >have a weatheradar?The FS weather engine is screwed so it's not possible to create a realistic weather radar. Personally I would have been happy with a radar that at least picked out CB but I see where there coming from, everything is simulated to a ridiculously high level, a basic weather rader would be out of place.I would say go for it, you will get years of enjoyment out of it. I run it on a Core 2 Duo E8500 3.8GHz (1333FSB) 4 gigs of ram HD 4870 512MB GDDR5 (PCI-Express)That machine can handle anything but my old P4 3.2 ran it well enough to get from A-B it all depends on your expectations.Rob

The initial release of the MD-11 will be the FSX version but the FS9 version will follow after that. Read this thread: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=152110&page=or as Robert Randazzo states:"How is the FS9 version going?: The FS9 version is behind the FSX version. This is due in part to the inferior capabilities of FS9, and the need to build new, or in some cases, re-engineer aspects of the product that will be specific to FS9. (In effect, this is really like building 1.75 products because the versions are so different.) Our goal currently is that the FS9 version should be released within sixty days of the FSX version barring any technical hurdles that we haven't yet cracked our kneecaps on. If we don't hit any further hurdles, we are hoping to keep the FS9 release as close to the FSX release as possible- as in: within weeks. (No promises)"

>That machine can handle anything but my old P4 3.2 ran it wellI wonder how my AMD 64 3200+ compares to a P4 3.2? Shouldn't 3200+ indicate that it was equivalent to P4 3.2 GHz? But if so is the claim true?

A quick search says it runs at 2GHz http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/displ...lon64-3200.htmlYou also need to take into account the architecture of the chip, a Core 2 or Quad running at 2.4Ghz will be faster then a P4 running at 3.4Ghz due to efficiency.Rob

>that the FS9 version should be released within sixty days of>the FSX version barring any technical hurdles that we haven't>yet cracked our kneecaps on. If we don't hit any further>hurdles, we are hoping to keep the FS9 release as close to the>FSX release as possible- as in: within weeks. (No promises)">I might point out why and how I got interested in the 747 QOA.I bought the Ultimate Defrag 2008 from PC aviator and with that I got a gift certificate of $20. When I searched the PC aviator site I found the boxed PMDG 747. I have always thought it's a little bit expensive. But now I have practically already paid $20. Otherwise I also considered the boxed Embraer Legacy and VLJ buisness jets.And btw this gift certificate must be used latest November this year.

Sorry Jan. I'm used to the PMDG forum section rules. But it's nice to know a first name.Get another 1Gb of ram, you will notice the difference. More memory to load texures in is always a bonus and less page file swapping will speed things up. Also, if you got a $20 gift certificate, go for it and get the Queen. It's the best out there in large airliner simulation in my book.Kim

If you have all those other planes, then this is a must have. You'll just have to manage yout frame rates. You're gonna get hit if you're flying in complex weather situations or over comlpex scenery. For example, if I fly out of KLAX using the Cloud9 version of that airport, I get low rates. But once I'm up and have visibility set to say around 30 or 40 nm then things are good.You should get more memory.