I am a long time FS2004 user with all of the usual upgrades. I just purchased and loaded FSX Gold Delux version. My first impressions are positive. Out of the box, FSX looks great - possibly better than FS9 with all of my scenery upgrades. And, using the default planes, I am getting good frames (locked at 20). I am using Windows XP, an Intel E8400 (3.0Ghz), and a Nvidia 8800GTS (384Mb) and 4Gb of RAM (only 3Gb available in XP).I have not adjusted the default settings in FSX, other than a move to 1600x1200x32 for videocard resolution (the same as I used in FS9). My questions are -Is there an advantage of moving to Vista (perhaps to take advantage of better dual core usage and the addition of the 1Gb of RAM)?Also, will I still be able to get 20FPS in all areas of default FSX scenery if I upgraded to the LevelD 767 for FSX?Thanks,RH

I am a long time FS2004 user with all of the usual upgrades. I just purchased and loaded FSX Gold Delux version. My first impressions are positive. Out of the box, FSX looks great - possibly better than FS9 with all of my scenery upgrades. And, using the default planes, I am getting good frames (locked at 20). I am using Windows XP, an Intel E8400 (3.0Ghz), and a Nvidia 8800GTS (384Mb) and 4Gb of RAM (only 3Gb available in XP).I have not adjusted the default settings in FSX, other than a move to 1600x1200x32 for videocard resolution (the same as I used in FS9). My questions are -Is there an advantage of moving to Vista (perhaps to take advantage of better dual core usage and the addition of the 1Gb of RAM)?Also, will I still be able to get 20FPS in all areas of default FSX scenery if I upgraded to the LevelD 767 for FSX?Thanks,RH

You may want to wait for Windows 7.

I am a long time FS2004 user with all of the usual upgrades. I just purchased and loaded FSX Gold Delux version. My first impressions are positive. Out of the box, FSX looks great - possibly better than FS9 with all of my scenery upgrades. And, using the default planes, I am getting good frames (locked at 20). I am using Windows XP, an Intel E8400 (3.0Ghz), and a Nvidia 8800GTS (384Mb) and 4Gb of RAM (only 3Gb available in XP).I have not adjusted the default settings in FSX, other than a move to 1600x1200x32 for videocard resolution (the same as I used in FS9). My questions are -Is there an advantage of moving to Vista (perhaps to take advantage of better dual core usage and the addition of the 1Gb of RAM)?Also, will I still be able to get 20FPS in all areas of default FSX scenery if I upgraded to the LevelD 767 for FSX?Thanks,RH

1. Both Vista AND XP 32-bit only recognize 3GB of RAM. To resolve this simply upgrade to XP or Vista 64-bit and it will recognize all of your RAM.2. Vista does not make FSX perform any better (many think performance is worse - this depends on your system. 3. Wait for Windows 74. 20 FPS in all area of FSX with LDS 767... You don't quantify what you are willing to do to get 20 FPS in all areas. Anyone can get the framerates they want if that's all that's important to you, as long as you start moving sliders left and turning off features you can get 50 FPS in all areas if that's what you want. However, FSX will look like crap.

Thanks Guys for the response:I will wait for Windows 7 64."20 FPS in all area of FSX with LDS 767... You don't quantify what you are willing to do to get 20 FPS in all areas. Anyone can get the framerates they want if that's all that's important to you, as long as you start moving sliders left and turning off features you can get 50 FPS in all areas if that's what you want. However, FSX will look like crap."Right now, the sliders are where FSX put them at default, which are nowhere near all the way to the right. However, what I am seeing looks just as good as FS9 with all of my addons (Ultimate Terrian, Ground Enviroment Pro...).Do you think I will still need to move my sliders even further left than the FSX default settings based on my system specs?Thanks,

AnandTech did some benchmarks of Windows 7, Vista and XP: http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3557&p=1Very interesting, since in general Vista 64 performed better than XP 64 in the gaming benchmarks. I guess performance in Vista has been improved since the release a couple of years ago. Windows 7 RC1 is faster, but no significant difference in gaming. I guess I'll go for Windows 7 when I build myself a new computer some time next year.

FSX tends to be CPU bound. You could overclock your E8400 to improve performance, 3.5GHZ+ should be achievable rather easily depending on your Mobo and memory type.

FSX tends to be CPU bound. You could overclock your E8400 to improve performance, 3.5GHZ+ should be achievable rather easily depending on your Mobo and memory type.

Will it help me achieve my 20FPS goal using default scenery with the Level D 767 with default sliders (which are about in the middle)?Thanks,RH

Will it help me achieve my 20FPS goal using default scenery with the Level D 767 with default sliders (which are about in the middle)?Thanks,RH

First of all, overclocking will give you pretty much an equivalent frame-rate boost. ie 10% overclock = 10% more frames.What impacts performance in FSX most, is Bloom, Traffic, and Water... among other things... Turn off Bloom, building shadows etc.As long as you are willing to cut back on traffic and keep water at 1X low, I would guess you can fly intopretty much any airport at 20 fps. For starters set freeway traffic to zero...Some of us, myself included, really like the fps limiter applet. Find it here on this forum.If you start it up at 20 fps and set FSX to unlimited, you should be in good shape.