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. :(

Hummm. 2 Core Dual = 1 Quad core so that is here already. FSX for me. Much better visually and runs well with sliders all the way if tuned properly. Running at 1920x1200 screen and never get below 18fps but even if it did get down to 12fps it would still be perfectly flyable unlike FS9 was.

I am mostly using FS9. The only reason that I installed FSX was to get the MD-11. Once the MD-11 for FS9 is out, I will not be using FSX anymore. It is still just to much of a headache to use. LONG LIVE FS9!!!!!or until FS11 is out (maybe) :( Jonathan

FS9 in my hanger. Just not enough good aircraft or airport scenery on the market to switch. In the process of ordering a new rig at this time but have alot of great add-ons for FS9.

FSX all the way. Course many of my fellow flight simmers live by FS9 as I did. but once I upgraded the old computer it was FSX and I have never looked back....well maybe a few times...

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.... That leaves the plugins...Paul Smith.

Another answer for Paul,Dear Paul,If I was a new simmer starting from scratch, with 2000 to 3000 $ in hand, I would agree 100% with you. But I am afraid that by dismissing both hardware and plugin issues you are dismissing the two most important factors for the existing simmers : time (all the time spent in ugrading, customizing and developping their basic FS9 environment and the time needed on a new FSX learning curve)... and money.FSX has to be a better platform than FS9. But as most of the plug-ins, add-ons etc. developped at great cost for FS9 are not portable, il makes people reluctant to change. Even something as basic as the view system was changed in FSX. Not a big deal, most people will say but it shows that although Flight Simulator's success owes a lot to the ability for third parties to create add-ons, standardization and compatibility are not (yet) a priority for Microsoft.Since these gentlemen know more than I will ever do about their business and the software industry, they decided that compatibility requirements should not prevent them from introducing new features. They are probably right but they left part of their (core) customers behind them. And the more these customers have invested in FS9, the less they are interested in changing now.I am probably out of luck but today, most of the add-on areas/airports that I fly to/from in FS9 do not (yet) exist for FSX.Kind regards,Bruno

Hummm. 2 Core Dual = 1 Quad core so that is here already. FSX for me. Much better visually and runs well with sliders all the way if tuned properly. Running at 1920x1200 screen and never get below 18fps but even if it did get down to 12fps it would still be perfectly flyable unlike FS9 was.

Wow, full sliders you say? Even at KJFK, with overcast weather, 100% AI, inside a PMDG 747/MD-11?

If I was a new simmer starting from scratch, with 2000 to 3000 $ in hand, I would agree 100% with you. But I am afraid that by dismissing both hardware and plugin issues you are dismissing the two most important factors for the existing simmers : time (all the time spent in ugrading, customizing and developping their basic FS9 environment and the time needed on a new FSX learning curve)... and money.FSX has to be a better platform than FS9. But as most of the plug-ins, add-ons etc. developped at great cost for FS9 are not portable, il makes people reluctant to change. Even something as basic as the view system was changed in FSX. Not a big deal, most people will say but it shows that although Flight Simulator's success owes a lot to the ability for third parties to create add-ons, standardization and compatibility are not (yet) a priority for Microsoft.Since these gentlemen know more than I will ever do about their business and the software industry, they decided that compatibility requirements should not prevent them from introducing new features. They are probably right but they left part of their (core) customers behind them. And the more these customers have invested in FS9, the less they are interested in changing now.I am probably out of luck but today, most of the add-on areas/airports that I fly to/from in FS9 do not (yet) exist for FSX.Kind regards,Bruno

There's a myriad of reasons I haven't switched to FSX as a means of primary flight simming. For the most part it's my existing payware add-ons in FS9. The other reasons are, as stated, time and money. I hardly have time right now to sim much so messing around with all the nonsense to set up the sim the way I like it is nearly impossible. I'm also broke, so the add-ons I feel I need (FEX, GEX, AS, UTX, FSUIPC, ect..) would put me in the red and who knows if my computer would perform the way I'd need it to. Plus, adding AI is a pain in the @ss, then AFCADs, adjusting ATC with EditVoicePack (beta still). In reality, lots of add ons don't even exist for FSX that I want. I'm really just a payware plane flyer, but hardly anything exists. Plus I'm sure with a complex add on and all the environment upgrades my system would require a lower visual setting than FS9. Too many unknowns. Will upgrading FSX result in poor performance for me? Possibly. Can I afford to take that chance right now? No. At this stage of the game, unless I start doing better finacially, I will be throwing money away in FSX upgrades since FS11 will be out sooner than you think.

I think if I had thousands of dollars invested in FS9 add-ons etc. then I would be FS9 all the way, or FS9 mostly. So it's only natural after 5 years of FS9, a lot of people have lots of FS9 stuff accumulated. So I can see where a lot of current FS9'ers are coming from; especially heavy iron drivers who need the perf at the major hubs. That's most of the people answering the poll...

FS9 still primary here. Recently ported things over from XP to Vista 64, and decided to try FSX one more time with the MD-11 on a 64-bit platform. Performance is up to minimally-acceptable with the combo, but the FSX wind direction bug is a real nuisance, even with FSUIPC wind smoothing engaged. Looks like ActiveSky Advanced will be the last, great hope for FSX for me. If it doesn't deal with the wind bug, I'm giving up on FSX and will wait until FS11 shows up before trying again with another platform. Right now I use FSX for some helis and other low/slow stuff, while I continue to enjoy my massive collection of FS9 add-ons. Looking forward to getting the MD-11 into my FS9 virtual sky.Regarding Moore's "Law," I think that it's becoming widely understood that we've hit a wall in the last few years, and we're not seeing that sort of growth rate in usable processing power.I'm staying away from FSX-only add-ons as I consider it a crippled platform still. I never bought the 747X, and am still shying away from other FSX-only products. I am still buying FS9 and FS9/FSX add-ons.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

FS9 and FSX have the same horrible wx generator. The difference being FSX has simconnect, which made it harder for add-ons to directly access the internal variables. The FSUIPC developer finally broke into the code about a year ago and his latest versions are as effective in this job as the FS9 FSUIPC version. I have found the FSUIPC wind smoothing pretty effective when set to dampen variations to at least 1 deg/kt per 8 seconds. Of course, no matter how much it is dampened I agree it is not "as real as it gets."

I'm really just a payware plane flyer, but hardly anything exists.

Hardly true, let me mention a couple that I own: Aerosoft F-16, Aerosoft Twin Otter, DA Cheyenne X, Eaglesoft Columbia X, FeelThere E-jets, Leonardo Maddog 2006, Level-D 767, Eaglesoft Twin Comanche, PMDG 747 and MD-11, RealAir Spitfire, Flight1 Pilatus PC-12, Majestic Dash-8. Plenty more that I don't own (Flight1 Mustang comes to mind), but then you can't have everything. Some are ported FS9 aircraft with adequate performance, more and more are native FSX with much better FPS.I understand the love for FS9 perfectly, I'm very envious of the happy FS9 simmers flying the Project Tupolev, and I am really looking forward to PMDG delivering a good 737, a big gap for FSX at the moment, but there is no need to explain your decision not to switch by spreading misinformation. Plenty of payware in all categories available if you want it.Tom

Hummm. 2 Core Dual = 1 Quad core so that is here already. FSX for me. ------------------------------- Running at 1920x1200 screen and never get below 18fps but even if it did get down to 12fps it would still be perfectly flyable unlike FS9 was.

---------------John- I can fly FS9 smoothly right down to 7 fps in heavy load situations such as night @ KLAX. The only negative effect is that nearby objects such as blue runway lights flashing past wingtips will have a chatter or flicker while overall motion remains very steady. This with triple monitors/views on a 5 year old 'puter!I suspect the reason is that only one view is being updated at a time- 2/3 of the scene is always static. Thus 7fps displayed is really closer to 14- as far as one's eyes and brain can detect.Because the 3 views are synched into a single image by bezel adjustment, the pilot sees a view where only LARGE movements in one monitor (1/3 overall) are visually detectable! All else appears remarkably smooth.In effect, the image on this old machine has a resolution of 3072x768 !Interesting how we can fool our eyes!!!Alex Reid

FS9 and FSX have the same horrible wx generator. The difference being FSX has simconnect, which made it harder for add-ons to directly access the internal variables. The FSUIPC developer finally broke into the code about a year ago and his latest versions are as effective in this job as the FS9 FSUIPC version. I have found the FSUIPC wind smoothing pretty effective when set to dampen variations to at least 1 deg/kt per 8 seconds. Of course, no matter how much it is dampened I agree it is not "as real as it gets."

Dan; FSX winds are three-dimensional (they include a vertical Z-axis component), and FS9 winds are not, so the wx systems are not exactly the same. My experience with FS9 is that FSUIPC is able to control and calm the winds down quite definitively...in FSX, there are still 180-deg shifts in wind direction, which FSUIPC's wind smoothing will quickly correct...but you still get a ~2Hz flip-flop in wind directions for abt 30 sec when entering the coverage of a new wx station. With FSUIPC's smoothing enabled, at least a sustained wind shift won't shoot you down. When 150-knot jetstream winds flip directions 180 deg, even momentarily, it wigs out AFCS systems on the better add-ons, invoking A-floor/stall/overspeed system protections where installed. In my own panel programming, I continuously compute a moving average of the airspeed, and throw out data with excessively large deviations from the MA, thus avoiding the systems glitches associated with the FS wind bug.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Hardly true, let me mention a couple that I own: Aerosoft F-16, Aerosoft Twin Otter, DA Cheyenne X, Eaglesoft Columbia X, FeelThere E-jets, Leonardo Maddog 2006, Level-D 767, Eaglesoft Twin Comanche, PMDG 747 and MD-11, RealAir Spitfire, Flight1 Pilatus PC-12, Majestic Dash-8. Plenty more that I don't own (Flight1 Mustang comes to mind), but then you can't have everything. Some are ported FS9 aircraft with adequate performance, more and more are native FSX with much better FPS.I understand the love for FS9 perfectly, I'm very envious of the happy FS9 simmers flying the Project Tupolev, and I am really looking forward to PMDG delivering a good 737, a big gap for FSX at the moment, but there is no need to explain your decision not to switch by spreading misinformation. Plenty of payware in all categories available if you want it.Tom

I wouldn't consider that "misinformation". People who buy payware know what's out there. As to your list, I already have the DA Cheyenne, Leonardo MD2006, Level-D (which I had as the PIC767 in 2002), PMDG 747, and a bunch others. Except for the Leonardo, why would I buy all those again just for a new sim with a few different features and more problems (e.g., performance). As for Eaglesoft, FeelThere, and a couple others, I won't buy their stuff. The Flight1 PC-12 sucked IMO, and the Majestic Dash-8 looks like a 2002 aircraft. So, no, when you're picky about looks, function, and other factors, FSX doesn't offer much in payware aircraft.

I wouldn't consider that "misinformation". People who buy payware know what's out there. As to your list, I already have the DA Cheyenne, Leonardo MD2006, Level-D (which I had as the PIC767 in 2002), PMDG 747, and a bunch others. Except for the Leonardo, why would I buy all those again just for a new sim with a few different features and more problems (e.g., performance). As for Eaglesoft, FeelThere, and a couple others, I won't buy their stuff. The Flight1 PC-12 sucked IMO, and the Majestic Dash-8 looks like a 2002 aircraft. So, no, when you're picky about looks, function, and other factors, FSX doesn't offer much in payware aircraft.

I think FSX is a good sim if you have the horsepower to run it well. There are many add ons that I woulden't buy again, so that is not really a factor for me. I will most likely just live in the MD-11.Michael P.