well said above :) I agree 100%I do want to add one more point:I have many systems will can run FSX like butter...in fact, they'll eat up FSX for lunch i'm sure. I've tried running FS9 on these machines and i can get into the 150fps range!! (for some FPS games, the fps is so high it shows 999...LOL) Forget about the off-the shelf Nvidia cards; try workstation level cards like the FireGLs....they are crazy....but they better be for 3K+ USD just for the card! However, even though i have the hardware, i just don't have the time to "start again." It took me about 2 years to get FS9 to where i like it, and i spend my days flying now instead of tweaking. I just feel like if i installed FSX, i will need to re-tweak, re-buy sooooo many things. I just don't have the time anymore. I agree FSX is probably way better than FS9...but for now, i'm happy w/ what i'm getting out of FS9. (i actually bought FSX gold pack..but it's still sitting on the shelf). -feng

well said above :) I agree 100%I do want to add one more point:I have many systems will can run FSX like butter...in fact, they'll eat up FSX for lunch i'm sure. I've tried running FS9 on these machines and i can get into the 150fps range!! (for some FPS games, the fps is so high it shows 999...LOL) Forget about the off-the shelf Nvidia cards; try workstation level cards like the FireGLs....they are crazy....but they better be for 3K+ USD just for the card! However, even though i have the hardware, i just don't have the time to "start again." It took me about 2 years to get FS9 to where i like it, and i spend my days flying now instead of tweaking. I just feel like if i installed FSX, i will need to re-tweak, re-buy sooooo many things. I just don't have the time anymore. I agree FSX is probably way better than FS9...but for now, i'm happy w/ what i'm getting out of FS9. (i actually bought FSX gold pack..but it's still sitting on the shelf). -feng

I don't blame you. If I had to start over and had FS9 running the way yours looks, I would be hesitant to start over. BTW, I enjoy your screen shots a lot.

well said above :) I agree 100%I do want to add one more point:I have many systems will can run FSX like butter...in fact, they'll eat up FSX for lunch i'm sure. I've tried running FS9 on these machines and i can get into the 150fps range!! (for some FPS games, the fps is so high it shows 999...LOL) Forget about the off-the shelf Nvidia cards; try workstation level cards like the FireGLs....they are crazy....but they better be for 3K+ USD just for the card! However, even though i have the hardware, i just don't have the time to "start again." It took me about 2 years to get FS9 to where i like it, and i spend my days flying now instead of tweaking. I just feel like if i installed FSX, i will need to re-tweak, re-buy sooooo many things. I just don't have the time anymore. I agree FSX is probably way better than FS9...but for now, i'm happy w/ what i'm getting out of FS9. (i actually bought FSX gold pack..but it's still sitting on the shelf). -feng

Feng...You probably have posted your system and OS version specs for FSX but do me a favor...post them again. Include the manufacturer of the motherboard and everything. That is, if you wouldn't mind.Mark

Another major reason I forgot to add about why I feel FSX trumphs FS9 is default airport appearances. This is my home airport, KDLH, where I live and work. FS9 here with maxed autogen (first shot)FSX 2nd shot autogen normal

Another major reason I forgot to add about why I feel FSX trumphs FS9 is default airport appearances. This is my home airport, KDLH, where I live and work. FS9 here with maxed autogen (first shot)FSX 2nd shot autogen normal

For the record I can't wait to jump into FSX when I have the money and time. Actually like I stated above and many times before the day is coming where PC's will be fast enough where the average off the shelf box at Best Buy will run FSX at amazing levels. On other points above we can agree to disagree... It makes since for me to wait for the day the standard PC can run FSX and let new add-ons pile for the sim. In another few years the new PMDG 737NG will be out, many more scenery packages will be released, and we'll have some nice pro quality Airbuses on the market. I'm currently working with a developer that's about to release another quality aircraft (airliner) to add to everyone's stable. So it makes since to just hold out when we all can reasonably afford machines that'll run FSX like a champ...Love the pic of KDLH... I go up there from time to time for the airshows they have and to look at the new Cirrus aircraft. :(

Feng...You probably have posted your system and OS version specs for FSX but do me a favor...post them again. Include the manufacturer of the motherboard and everything. That is, if you wouldn't mind.Mark

try here:http://www.boxxtech.com/index.aspthese machines will eat up any 3D games for lunch. However, these are workstations; not really meant for games (complete overkill). But get ready to pay big time for this performance. Typical prices for BOXX machines run between $6,000 - $9,000 USD (and that's just the base price....add 100Gigs of RAM...well...it adds up) But hey, if you got the cash to spare and want liquid smooth FPS, then here ya go. -feng

Yikes I'd rather spend 1500 on an i7 920 clocked to 4.0GHz and get smooth performance

Another major reason I forgot to add about why I feel FSX trumphs FS9 is default airport appearances. This is my home airport, KDLH, where I live and work. FS9 here with maxed autogen (first shot)FSX 2nd shot autogen normal

Ryan- just to round out the comparison- here is FS9 triple view, mid to high FS9 settings. "You pays yer money & takes yer choice!"Alex ReidDuluth- KDLH R27 "DreamFleet Bonanza clear for TO!" (AMD 1.8, 2 GeForce FX5200 GPUs. Real monitor span is 45"& the radar appears just as close as in your pics) (Misalignment between screens caused by screen shot removing bezels and showing outer mons in a flat plane- rather than angled at 40

try here:http://www.boxxtech.com/index.aspthese machines will eat up any 3D games for lunch. However, these are workstations; not really meant for games (complete overkill). But get ready to pay big time for this performance. Typical prices for BOXX machines run between $6,000 - $9,000 USD (and that's just the base price....add 100Gigs of RAM...well...it adds up) But hey, if you got the cash to spare and want liquid smooth FPS, then here ya go. -feng

Thanks for that...but there appears to be a slight premium to having the boxx name, (about 7.5 grand worth), that may be better spent on all the hungry children in the world :) Is that what you're running? Hey, why are you calling them workstations by the way? Not to be to difficult or anything but workstations are typically unix boxes running the old SG Indigo systems...used to use them when rendering feature animations for some of the studios I've worked with :)What I'm after, (so I can build it myself), is a top end recommended motherboard and a top end recommended video card...thought that you might be able to give a quick thumbs up since you're obviously got it wired!Mark

That's some wide angle action there, but still the environment is very sparseThat's why I'm glad MS addressed non class B airports with the release of FSX. Even rural airports look pretty good.

That's some wide angle action there, but still the environment is very sparseThat's why I'm glad MS addressed non class B airports with the release of FSX. Even rural airports look pretty good.

Ryan- Yes, when I bump up settings to max there is more environment detail- but then my old 'puter threatens to walkout for unfair labour practices! Small rural FS9 airports look pretty good to my eyes. I've pretty well abandoned the heavies in favour of low & slow in the BC coast mountain area- great scenery there in FS9. In some cases I've 4x4D these mountain roads in real life, and the FS9/UT/GE scenery is pretty accurate! Besides, this is home, sweet home!Alex

heh, Alex, I can't help but comment on your persistence on displaying and arguing for your triple monitor setup. You always come back within a post or two with a new screen shot. I applaud you! ....even though I'm a trackir kinda guy*cough*.... :(

heh, Alex, I can't help but comment on your persistence on displaying and arguing for your triple monitor setup. You always come back within a post or two with a new screen shot. I applaud you! ....even though I'm a trackir kinda guy*cough*.... :(

red1- thanks for your compliment. But I'm not arguing for triple monitors as such- they are just the vehicle to bring FS Views into line with real human vision. Normal human Field of View spans 180

Actually that's not strictly correct, what the human eye tends to do is something called saccades, which is basically, it darts about taking in numerous details and combines lots of quick sharp snapshot images into an overall picture which your brain interprets as a whole picture. You have to do that; the centre of your retina is more equipped to pick up detail than the edges of it, because of the greater concentration of light sensitive cones in the centre, which is of course what peripheral vision is all about too.You don't normally notice your eyes doing that, but you can pick up on it if you think about it. As an example, place a glass tumbler on a desk and think about what you are doing as you look at it. You'll find that you are actually darting from the glass, to the desk, to the shadow, to the light pattern through the glass on the desk etc, etc. All of this is combined by your brain to tell you that a glass is sitting on a desk with the shadow helping you to determine distance, shape and so on.You do the same thing when looking at a runway on finals, looking at various aspects of the scene and combining them to give you the 'full picture'.Al