Hi all, I took a break for almost 8 months from simming now. Just a few questions before I come back1.) Has hardware caught up yet? Can we use FSX like FS9 yet? Any new hardware worth mentioning?2.) whats happening in the world of simming. Any new sims planned?CheersIan

1.) Has hardware caught up yet? Can we use FSX like FS9 yet? Any new hardware worth mentioning?

Yes, and no. FSX is still tempremental even on the most current, high-end hardware. This leads me to...The most current high-end hardware is the i7 chips from Intel. Google and you'll find all the down and dirty details.The thing to remember about FSX is you have to tailor the sim to what YOU want it to do and how you will be flying it. That is why it is so scalable in terms of the features you can customize to fit not just your hardware, but your own personal preferences, too.

2.) whats happening in the world of simming. Any new sims planned?

Well, I am sure you are aware, but ACES studio was shut down by Microsoft.Aerosoft is still in the planning stages of a new sim that may, or may not be FSX's replacement (I would put money on it NOT being a replacement even when it does come out; this is just my personal opinion).The only other alternatives are X-Plane, and FlightGear... Neither of which are as developed and established as MSFS in terms of addons, both freeware and payware.Hope that helps get you caught up? :(

1) Yes, i5-750 @ 4 GHz @ 190$ :(

Has hardware caught up yet? Can we use FSX like FS9 yet? Any new hardware worth mentioning?

I'm having great luck with a machine I built myself a few months ago for under $500:Intel Core2 Duo @2.8 (or 3.0, can't remember) GHzIntel DG41TY Mobo (always smoother when collars & cuffs match, as 007 said...)4 Gb DDR3 (cheaper than the newer whizbang RAM and plenty fast enough)MSI Nvidia GeForce 9500GT PCIe 1Gb (MUCH cheaper than current bleeding-edge cards)300 Gb SATA HDDTransplanted my old Soundblaster Audigy Platinum- new sound card would increase price(some brand) 750W PSUSame old "Image Quest Q17" 17-inch LCD monitor I've been using for 5 years or soSame old Saitek X45 stick and throttle I've been using for 10 years or soWindows XP-Home SP3 (another transplant, not incl in $500 price)DX-10I'm flying with:FSX SP2 (no Acceleration) GEX & UTXShockwave "3D Redux" LightsMAAM-Sim R4D/DC3/C-47 package with custom HSI/Gyro photo-real panelsCarenado Saratoga-SPCS "727 Captain" (all variants)CS "C-130 Experience" (all variants)I'm able to comfortably fly with all sliders except traffic full-right and a reliable 20-25 fps, no stutter, no scenery load glitches, no BSOD...From what I have read here and elsewhere, FSX under Vista or any 64-bit OS can be problematic, and many people are "having issues" with Windows 7, which is a MUCH better OS than Vista. XP-Home has been rock-solid for me and I plan to keep it until somebody pries it from my cold, dead fingers.I haven't tried any photo-real scenery yet (the OrbX stuff looks simply AMAZING!), but from FL350 where I spend most of my time it seems almost pointless. Your mileage may vary on this if Alaska Bush Flying is your thing.In short, I think we are already a couple of hardware generations BEYOND "catching up with FSX" unless we expand our definition of "FSX" to include "FSX Acceleration in 3-monitor SLI with the most complex and demanding 3rd-party aircraft and worldwide photo-real scenery plus REX clouds plus Radar Contact ATC and every other addon we can find and using only incredibly complex photo-real airport environments such as JFK and Heathrow."You'd have to up the ante a bit above $500 to fly all that smoothly.

1.) Has hardware caught up yet? Can we use FSX like FS9 yet? Any new hardware worth mentioning?

Nope, still far off, but closer. The usual talk around this FSX forum is "FPS locked at 30 stable!, only dips at major airports", while for fs9 its 60fps with occasional dips.

Having stayed with FS2004 for a long, long time (running on an 5 year old Alienware) I've just decided to make the jump and try FSX. There's some nice hardware out there (try the Falcon Northwest site!) but it's $$$s. Kudos to everyone who builds there own or manages to get the performance for less bucks. If it doesn't work on what I've just bought I'm going to be very sad!Anyway, new PC, Windows 7, clean start - it's going to be interesting!

Can we use FSX like FS9 yet?

If you set all the options and sliders in FSX so it looks likd FS9, it performs like FS9. FSX performs on my new computer pretty much as FS9 performed on my old computer at that time, well actually better.

Like Cryo said, and I would agree that you can play FSX with sliders maxed, but only in certain conditions.Areas where this wouldn't work:Large cities with payware FPS-hungry airliners.Most everywhere else should be pretty good. On my pretty old system (see sig) I run 30fps locked with small payware GA such as RealAir Duke, Lotus L39, or Carenado Piper Arrow. However my sliders are med-high but I still get great results because I fly in more rural areas.If you are going to build I'd suggest a Core i 7, - maybe a 920 or 950 overclocked to 4.0GHz. And a GTX285 video card to go with it.A 4.0GHz Core i7 system will get you places...

I just want to add to what Hoggy Dog, posted.You can run FSX on "modest" hardware... As long as it is overclocked to perform like high-end hardware. And just as I and others agree, you have to customize the sim, so it performs how you want it to given whatever conditions you are placing on it.FSX was primarily designed to improve the GA / VFR experience of flight simulation. Flights below 5,000FT AGL. Of course, there are major airliner addons for FSX like PMDG, and Level-D... But you can almost tell FSX is geared more toward Bush Flying, GA and historic aircraft that don't need a lot of calculations e.g. steam gauge flying vs. FMC / GPS flying. In other words, you can have almost everything maxed out with a GA / Steam gauge plane and maintain a near 30 FPS (or more) constant, locked or unlocked. However, try that with a complex commercial airliner and you're down to low double-digits, and maybe even single digits depending on the weather and the area you are flying into / out of (major cities and hubs).Here are my system specs just for reference:Intel E5200 Core2Duo @ 3.75 GHzGigabyte GA-EG31M-S2 Motherboard2 Gigabytes A-Data DDR2 PC 6400 (800) RAMATI HD 4850 512MB DDR3 PCI-E 2.0Okia 600 Watt Power SupplyWindows 7 x64With these specs, I can run the PMDG 747X with autogen sliders set to "Sparse" and all AI traffic (boats; planes; cars) set to "0" and get a constant 30-35 FPS @ 1680x1050 (16:10) with in-game 8XAF and 8AA activated, and frames set to "Unlimited". I have UTX USA, GEX and REX running, too. I also have some high res West Coast terrain meshes set at 5M, too. I consider this good performance because I fly into major hubs like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Reno, Seattle, etc (West Cost Routes) and it is very smooth.This rig cost me less than $500 USD, like Hoggy Dog's.I chose the E5200 because it is an insane over clocker. The stock speed of a E5200, is 2.5 GHz. This is one of Intel's budget chips... But its core architecture is a Wolfdale core. The same cores the E8600 and E8500 Core2Duos, have. I bought the chip for $75 USD last Christmas on a Black Friday special on New Egg.This Christmas, I asked for an Nvidia 9600 GT that was $69, at my local Best Buy. Sixty-Nine dollars! This card isn't the newest and most powerful, obviously, but the research I did by looking at benchmarks and reading other flight sim enthusiasts experiences say this is a very good card for FSX (FSX historically does better on Nvidia hardware). And with my CPU over clock, I think this will make this a good choice. I know it will be a bottleneck, but not as much as if I purchased a 7600, for example.So, again, the point is you can run FSX at fairly high levels and have good performance as long as you do your research and make SMART hardware choices :(