Cool, I just don't want to build a system. I just want to buy one ready to go out of the box.

You really should consider learning to build your own machines - you'll get much better hardware at lower prices. I can build something that performs as well or better than those pre-built "gamer" companies like Alienware or Falcon for half the cost or less... It's really not that hard to do, there's an initial learning curve, but once you learn it once you'll be able to do it over and over with no problem. It also makes you a much better troubleshooter and whatnot since you know exactly what's in the machine and how it all works together etc.

FS9 only for me, waiting for the next generation of FS and a new powerful rig, we

Normally I am exclusively FS9.... except I use FSX to fly the MD-11. Once the FS9 version comes out I will predominantly return to FS9 but no doubt I will continue to dabble with FSX.

Same for me except that I have just re-installed FSX for the new Flight1 Mustang (just released and apparently no FS9 version planned). If they ever release an FS9 version, I'll probably get it! If I buy the MD-11, it will be the FS9 version (and, most probably, I'll make the same choice for the eagerly awaited 737NG 2.0 too). I guess, probably like hundreds (thousands?) of "hard core" simmers, I have invested so much money (and time, especially time !) in FS9 that even thought FSX PROBABLY is a better platform (with the correct hardware), I am more than happy to stay with FS9 and accept its limitations. Will I change my mind after playing with the FSX Mustang for a while? maybe. Time will tell. But the FSX world is very "empty" compared to the FS9 wold/environment I have build up over the years. And having just bought FS2Crew for the 737NG, I probably have months of happy simming and learning in front of me. Long enought to wait for the FS9 version of 737NG 2.0...Kind regards,Bruno

Most responders who favour FS2004 seem to do so for two reasons; their existing plug ins, and the hardware requirements of FSX. Nobody has said they thought there was any technical or visual advantage to FS9.Lets dismiss the hardware argument straight away. Most people know that Moores law says computers double in performance, for the same amount of money, every eighteen months. One consequence of which is that the hardware required to get decent performance out of FSX is the same price or cheaper today, then the hardware required by FS9 in 2004. If your box is more then two years old. You can double its performance for the price you paid for it, and if you are still using the same box you bought to run FS9, then you really don't have much of an excuse. That leaves the plugins. PMDG's MD11 shows what a proper FSX plugin can do, but listening to some of the voices on this thread, they seem to think that the developers should have worked on FS9 instead. So what should happen with the next FS? The one being planned with improved weather systems, better APIs, co-operative cockpits and so on? Why should they bother? I saw a copy of FS 2004 in my local Game store for

Exclusively FS9 as I spent a fortune to have my sim where it is now. There are - of course - still things to improve, but those I won`t get fixed with FSX. So FS9 will remain my one and only for the next couple of Years. There is still so much to discover ... and FS9 market is still developing well :( ...

["--------Lets dismiss the hardware argument straight away.--------- If your box is more then two years old. You can double its performance for the price you paid for it, and if you are still using the same box you bought to run FS9, then you really don't have much of an excuse. "]Paul Smith.---------------------------------------------Hi Paul- Here's my excuse for sticking with FS9 on a 5+ year old 'puter! AMD XP 1.8, GeForce FX5200 GPUsAlex ReidPMDG WestJet 737 Dawn Ckpt Prep @CYYJ

FS9 rules for me ... I`m not really interested in big changes, as all my sceneries + WoAi + FE + ASV + the PMDG "11" (hopefully soon), are completely satisfying for me. I`m one of those old fashioned, who rather fly than always buying new stuff.

Most responders who favour FS2004 seem to do so for two reasons; their existing plug ins, and the hardware requirements of FSX. Nobody has said they thought there was any technical or visual advantage to FS9.Lets dismiss the hardware argument straight away. Most people know that Moores law says computers double in performance, for the same amount of money, every eighteen months. One consequence of which is that the hardware required to get decent performance out of FSX is the same price or cheaper today, then the hardware required by FS9 in 2004. If your box is more then two years old. You can double its performance for the price you paid for it, and if you are still using the same box you bought to run FS9, then you really don't have much of an excuse.

I don't think Moore's law is actually applying to CPUs anymore at this point though. I certainly haven't seen double the performance out of my last two upgrades. Video cards, yes, but CPUs are rapidly reaching a pure clock speed limit I think - they've gone to adding cores now, which doesn't scale linearly and requires special (and very difficult) programming to utilize effectively.

I was an early adopter of Vista Home Premium Edition and haven't regretted it at all. Yes, there were some initial problems but reading about the OS made things much easier and things run well now.I was also an early adopter of FSX and PMDG 747X and haven't regretted that either.I agree with Paul Smith in saying that hardware has improved in performance and people are reluctant to migrate because of their existing investments in sceneries, etc.I also believe that FSX and PMDG 747X are constrained to using few of the wonders becoming available, like multi-threading, multi-processing, cheap large memories, etc. Much of the potential improvements in performance will only become available with Windows Vista successor and FSXI, and even that is presently just a hope, not a promise by MS.All one can safely say is that in 10 years time we shall look back to today and wonder at how crude things were.Cheers, Richard McDonald Woods :(

FS9 rules for me ... I`m not really interested in big changes, as all my sceneries + WoAi + FE + ASV + the PMDG "11" (hopefully soon), are completely satisfying for me. I`m one of those old fashioned, who rather fly than always buying new stuff.

Well said as unless you are blessed with unlimited funds, you'll never catch up.Michael P.

You really should consider learning to build your own machines - you'll get much better hardware at lower prices. I can build something that performs as well or better than those pre-built "gamer" companies like Alienware or Falcon for half the cost or less... It's really not that hard to do, there's an initial learning curve, but once you learn it once you'll be able to do it over and over with no problem. It also makes you a much better troubleshooter and whatnot since you know exactly what's in the machine and how it all works together etc.

The way I see it is I can't afford to fry something or screw it up or experimenting to see what is computable.I like warranties and tech support and a machine I can just fire it up and fly.Michael P.

FS9 exclusively for both airliners and GA.

I am a FS9 user but I must say, even I am pleasantly surprised by the voting. FSX, after what a couple years on the market and its not even close...FS9 is (so far), the clear winner. I guess in hindsight, PMDG doing an about-face and developing for FS9 was a good strategy. I wish LVL-D would do the same for their 757 but thats another thread. I know it must be a royal PIA to dev on 2 sims but it looks like it is the way to go until the end of 2010 when FS11 rolls out. We ALL must hope that we ALL can finally go to FS11.

I am a FS9 user but I must say, even I am pleasantly surprised by the voting. FSX, after what a couple years on the market and its not even close...FS9 is (so far), the clear winner. I guess in hindsight, PMDG doing an about-face and developing for FS9 was a good strategy. I wish LVL-D would do the same for their 757 but thats another thread. I know it must be a royal PIA to dev on 2 sims but it looks like it is the way to go until the end of 2010 when FS11 rolls out. We ALL must hope that we ALL can finally go to FS11.

FS11 will be great as long as it doesn't need 2 core duel processors and 8 gigs of ram or some ridiculous requirement like that. :(

If I had the money I'd consider switching to FSX to see how I liked it, but when comparing it to FS9, I hate how the whole sim feels. I'd really need to try out a couple planes in FSX, which requires money. The default planes and the ground handling seems off to me. I just know I'd need new ground textures, landclass, AI, payware planes, WX engine (AS), and FSUIPC. I just don't have the time or money to screw with it at this late stage of the cycle FSX. FS11 will be out by the time that happens.FS9 all the way for me.

FS9 all the way, exept for trying out the MD-11 in FSX. But as soon as the MD-11 will be released for FS9, FSX will be uninstalled immediately. :(