I am sort of looking for some direction lately with regard to flight simming. I have found myself spending more time and money trying to get things to "work" than I do actually enjoying the hobby itself. I own all the latest flight simulators and have tried each extensively, yet I cannot fully settle on one at the moment. I need to narrow it down to one version because I do buy payware and I cannot afford to buy things that I don't use. I was thinking if I could get fellow Avsimmers to list the advantages and disadvantages of FS2004, FSX, and X-Plane, it might help me figure out what direction to take going forward.First I will list system specs: Q9550 @ 3.4ghz, 8gb memory, Vista 64, ATI 4870 512mb. I should note that I just got the Q9550 on sale + free shipping from Newegg. (I upgraded from an E6420.) I thought it would be a smart move going forward since I am not financially able to jump to the i7s just yet. The cache on the Q9550 was a big draw and it is a really easy overclocker, so I chose to go that route.Here are my current impressions of each sim:FS2004 pros:1) It is well-established and has numerous add-ons2) It runs well on modest systems3) I can keep using the payware I have (I own more payware for FS2004 than any other version)FS2004 cons:1) Low resolution ground textures2) Default terrain mesh not as detailed as more current sims3) Future add-on development now a big question mark with Aces' closure4) Won't fully utilize the new processor I just bought due to no dual-core support________________________________________________________________FSX pros:1) High resolution textures2) More add-on developers are going this direction3) Dual core supportFSX cons:1) Tough to tweak and run, even on great systems2) Does not seem to like ATI cards in heavy weather much at the moment3) Annoying stutters in instant replay and occasionally spot view (unless you choose "locked" spot)4) DirectX 10 preview will not ever be fixed (flashing runway textures and missing aircraft lighting)5) Microstutters, even at high frame rates________________________________________________________________X-Plane pros:1) Very fluid - high frame rates2) High resolution textures3) Better default atmospherics + weather4) Water looks great5) Dual core support6) Doesn't seem to mind ATI cards or Nvidia cards7) Some MSFS sceneries can be converted and used in X-PlaneX-Plane cons:1) Add-on development is very sporadic and slow2) Most 2D panels don't stretch to fit widescreen monitors (annoying gaps on the sides)3) Virtual cockpits have very limited functionality (buttons, etc.)4) All airports have no buildings/terminals5) Most aircraft models are not detailed at the moment________________________________________________________________I would like to hear other input from you, good people. I am seriously starting to consider fully using X-Plane since that may be the best option going forward. Some of the upcoming models are looking very nice. There is a LONG wait for things to develop, though. I thought the Q9550 would help make a stronger case for FSX, but it didn't really help much aside from faster texture loading. I still get microstutters and low frame rates around places such as New York. I also considered putting my old 8800gts back in the case since that should help FSX run a little better, but I also enjoy other games that really shine with the ATI 4870. The 4870 is just a better card all-around, except for FSX. (I should note that I have submitted numerous times at the AMD site for them to consider some driver updates for FSX. Seems like as each driver comes out, FSX improvements are never included. :()If anyone has any suggestions/fixes for me, please reply in a mature manner. (No replies like "FSX s*cks, use FS9.) We're all grown up here. (Some of us grown-ups are a little frustrated and confused at times. <cough>)Thanks for the help,Scott

Depends on what you fly. Heavy alluminium or low and slow.

Depends on what you fly. Heavy alluminium or low and slow.

I like it all! I try to keep a certain degree of variety. Airliners do seem to be a problem with my system and FSX. I probably enjoy flying those the most. Part of my FSX problem is the poor way in which ATI cards render clouds. The frame loss is way too exaggerated. I would likely get improved results with my older 8800gts 320mb. However, I would take a loss in performance in other games that I enjoy. All this said, at the moment FSX would probably only work for me as a GA sim. So this probably moves FSX to being my last option unless there are really good driver updates from ATI or unless I can get some input from someone else using FSX on a similar setup. I should also add that I own and have been using GEX and REX. (REX clouds at their lowest resolutions.)Scott