There must be many simmers, like myself, whose PCs are borderline for FSX when complex add-ons are brought into the mix. My present rig (Gigabyte GA-EP31 with Intel Core2 Duo E7400 @ 2.8GHz/2GB PC6400 DDR2 RAM/Geforce 9600GT 512MB) was bought to run FS9 at it's best and it does.As I had a load of gift tokens at Amazon I decided, out of curiosity, to get FSX and see how it did on my rig. I have been pleasantly surprised with how well it runs but that is with default aircraft. I have the PMDG 744 and MD11 for FS9 and would love at least the MD11 for FSX. So I was thinking it would be good, before I splash out the equivalent of US$80, if I could d/load a trial version which would run for say 10 to 15 mins or so, to give me a good idea of what I could expect.I must admit that I have no idea how much work this would involve for the PMDG guys, hence the title of this post. Is this a feasible idea?Iain Smith

There must be many simmers, like myself, whose PCs are borderline for FSX when complex add-ons are brought into the mix. My present rig (Gigabyte GA-EP31 with Intel Core2 Duo E7400 @ 2.8GHz/2GB PC6400 DDR2 RAM/Geforce 9600GT 512MB) was bought to run FS9 at it's best and it does.As I had a load of gift tokens at Amazon I decided, out of curiosity, to get FSX and see how it did on my rig. I have been pleasantly surprised with how well it runs but that is with default aircraft. I have the PMDG 744 and MD11 for FS9 and would love at least the MD11 for FSX. So I was thinking it would be good, before I splash out the equivalent of US$80, if I could d/load a trial version which would run for say 10 to 15 mins or so, to give me a good idea of what I could expect.I must admit that I have no idea how much work this would involve for the PMDG guys, hence the title of this post. Is this a feasible idea?Iain Smith

I second this. I was also pleasantly surprised to see how well FSX runs on my new i7, but not all add-ons run the same. I'd like to know how well the PMDG 747 would run in FSX as opposed to how I see it running in FS9 at the moment. 80 dollars is just too much to take a chance and see.

I don't think this will ever be, reason is pirates love demo versions, it would be very easy for them to make it not expire.

I feel the same way. I would like to try out the 747 because I've heard it's harder framerate wise on the system than the MD-11. I had to take a leap of faith with the MD-11. I would buy the 747 too, but I am afraid of it's framerates. A demo would be nice. The MD-11 works fine so far on my system, but it took me "months" of self debating & forum dwelling before I decided to go for it.It will keep me happy for now, but someday if it gets cheaper, I'd like to add the 747 to my hanger. Or maybe in another few months I'll talk myself into it! lol

There must be many simmers, like myself, whose PCs are borderline for FSX when complex add-ons are brought into the mix. My present rig (Gigabyte GA-EP31 with Intel Core2 Duo E7400 @ 2.8GHz/2GB PC6400 DDR2 RAM/Geforce 9600GT 512MB) was bought to run FS9 at it's best and it does.As I had a load of gift tokens at Amazon I decided, out of curiosity, to get FSX and see how it did on my rig. I have been pleasantly surprised with how well it runs but that is with default aircraft. I have the PMDG 744 and MD11 for FS9 and would love at least the MD11 for FSX. So I was thinking it would be good, before I splash out the equivalent of US$80, if I could d/load a trial version which would run for say 10 to 15 mins or so, to give me a good idea of what I could expect.I must admit that I have no idea how much work this would involve for the PMDG guys, hence the title of this post. Is this a feasible idea?Iain Smith

Ian, my system is very similar to yours other than an E8400 (3Ghz) and I find both the 747x and the MD-11 run very well on it (30fps fixed limit). I have lots of Aerosoft addons like Heathrow, Paris CDG, etc, etc and I it's reasonable even on those airports (about 15fps)... Only one I have to be careful with is the MallorcaX one as that is extremely heavy on my system but even that runs if I don't ask too much of the graphics.Obviously it would depend on how you set fsx up but as long as you have reasonable settings it's fine. I even run ASA with it so you should be ok. (On vista 32bit btw and on XP 32bit as well using an AMD+)Saying that I will upgrade to W7 64bit later in the year and with that and a bit more hardware it should be better for me.I won't give up my fs9 though for fsx only as both have their merits.John Ellison

Ian, my system is very similar to yours other than an E8400 (3Ghz) and I find both the 747x and the MD-11 run very well on it (30fps fixed limit). I have lots of Aerosoft addons like Heathrow, Paris CDG, etc, etc and I it's reasonable even on those airports (about 15fps)... Only one I have to be careful with is the MallorcaX one as that is extremely heavy on my system but even that runs if I don't ask too much of the graphics.Obviously it would depend on how you set fsx up but as long as you have reasonable settings it's fine. I even run ASA with it so you should be ok. (On vista 32bit btw and on XP 32bit as well using an AMD+)Saying that I will upgrade to W7 64bit later in the year and with that and a bit more hardware it should be better for me.I won't give up my fs9 though for fsx only as both have their merits.John Ellison

Thanks John, that's interesting info. I have pre-ordered W7 and will install the 64 bit version when it's out in October so let's hope the final version does do what others have said and FSX will run even better. Like you I intend to keep both FS versions for the forseeable future.Iain Smith