I'm using the stock speed with Turbo Mode on, which overclocks the cores that are actually in use. FSX is multithreaded, but the threads don't use an equal amount of CPU - the main thread is by far the biggest user, essentially making the sim a single threaded app with a few minor multithreads running alongside that. I'm seeing around 3.3GHz on the Turbo Monitor gadget when in the sim. I can probably get better performance by OCing the whole CPU and turning turbo off, but I'm having temperature trouble with this heatsink (Coolermaster Hyper 212+, which came highly recommended) right now that I'm trying to solve. I'm seeing temps that are about 20-30 degrees higher than what reviews of the cooler say, so I'm not quite sure what's wrong. I've fully reseated it and the problem remained.Chris - I don't have airport sceneries, so that very well may cause a bigger drop, I don't know. Those have just never interested me because I spend little time on the ground at airports when I have free time to fly. The way the terrain and sky look (hence the UTX, GEX and REX) is much more important to me than the airport.

I can only get 15fps on the ground at Heathrow 2008 with REX and the Captain Sim 757, with all the sliders to the right.

Amazing. You're getting bad FPS with perhaps the two most FPS intensive addons ever produced- CS757 and Heathrow.Do your homework first. It is almost as if you went out of your way to get bad FPS just so you could complain.I'm glad others explained how arbitrary user polls are... now I don't have to!It is wonderful to see PMDG and PMDG customers alike defending FSX from false statements. There is hope after all!

I'm using the stock speed with Turbo Mode on, which overclocks the cores that are actually in use. FSX is multithreaded, but the threads don't use an equal amount of CPU - the main thread is by far the biggest user, essentially making the sim a single threaded app with a few minor multithreads running alongside that.

Ah yes, the Turbo Mode.. forgot to mention that. It is actually the common denominator in these cases I mentioned.Anyway, this may finally be my ticket to FSX land as the 860 price is trifold less than it's big brothers.

Okay really, another FS9 vs FSX thread? Now your being silly guys.

I'm sick of this type of statement. I spent $600 two nights ago at Fry's buying an i7 860, a P55 mobo and 4GB of DDR3, salvaging the rest of the parts from my two year old previous machine. I'm now getting 25-40 FPS near the ground in FSX with UTX, GEX and REX flying our J41 and 60+ FPS away from the city/airport with almost every slider maxed. This argument that you need to spend thousands of dollars on some super computer to run FSX well is a flat out lie and people need to stop repeating it.

I'd love to know your computer hardware/graphics settings :( Cheers,Todd

Yes.. probably the average simmer is between 15-25... and the majority of simmers staying with FS9 are probably a minority against the large boom from FSX.

Marcio, this data contradicts your assertion: http://www.avsim.com/poll/stats.php?sid=33...t=a&vw=q877 what do you base your input on?

Also most of us want to sim what we fly in the real life as flight simming is about copying the real life things.Think about this.

I have thought about it and I have to disagree with you. You'll find that many of those flightsimming are NOT real pilots and are not able to fly anything but the simulator. For many others, while we may be real pilots, flying is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO expensive, that it is easier to sim when you get the itch. In this respect, they might want to copy real-life things that they've experienced. However, more often than not, many of us - real pilots or not - want to be able to fly a realistic simulation of something that we'd NEVER get to touch in real life. I am a low-hours (about 130) private pilot and what I love, more than anything, is the ability to fly things I know I'll NEVER get to fly.I agree that the FS9/FSX thing is tired, but it is also important as resources and focus on our sim will dwindle down to some "core" group of simmers as more and more years pass. I have repeatedly come down on the "let's just move on to FSX and focus on one platform" side of the argument, but there is nothing I, or anyone other than the collective sentiment of the developers, can do about it.

15 fps in fsx is if you ask med NOT BAD fps you can fly with it, and heatthrow is just an heavy airport lets face it.there are good thing in fsx and bad things just like in fs 2004 thats the way i see it. :(

PMDG has stated the NGX will be for FS9. Of course with it not developed they reserve the right to change their mind. FSX is the future? Future of what? MS already discontinued FS for now so the word future is a bit of a stretch. I for 1 have a ton invested in FS9 and won't be upgrading to FSX anytime soon. With no new simulator coming out I see no need to. If PMDG abandons FS9 I will abandon PMDG. Not a threat just a fact. I have all of their products except the J41. I won't be missing anything. I already have a 737 from them. People with the attitude of " FS9 is outdated , catch up" have never really invested in FS or are new to FS. To upgrade just for the "New Version" doesn't make it better. FSX has been out for 2 years ( approx) and for the first year it was rare to hear anyone with FS experience talk great about it. It took patches and expansion packs.I won't be switchingRegardsRichie Walsh

I agree with you, it is like the people saying how great Vista was. I would run FSX if I could afford a computer to run it with add ons. I tried to run it on my new laptop and with add on aircraft got a wopping 12 FPS, sorry that is just not flyable or acceptable. I don't want to spend time tweaking someones bad program when I just want to fly, sorry FS9 works and simmers know it.Michael P.

I wonder if PMDG will make the Dash 8 for FS9, any word on that?Michael P.

i'd die for the Dash 8 for FS9, but it prolly wont happen. I have so much Scenery in Canada that I could fly Jazz Routes on...but they wont do it, to bad. Anyways umm so Q-100 300 or 400? What you guys thinking.

@Jordan/MichaelThis thread http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...p;hl=Dash+8+FSXStates the following

The Dash-8 is FSX only, that I can say with certainty.

by TABS / Ryan MaziarzSorry Guys.My bet/hope is for the Q400 - but I would buy and use any of them.Chris.

There is far more to FSX than the oft referenced "eye-candy", and that fact would be apparent to anyone who has spent any measurable amount of time with FSX to give it a fair shake.The End.

Like me. I have FS9 and a ton of add-on goodies but when I upgraded my PC I got FSX, to see for myself what all the fuss is about. Out of the box it may look better than FS9 out of the box but it is nowhere near as good as my present FS9. Some coastlines are so inaccurate that they cry out for Ultimate Terrain. I had to get some freeware textures for Europe to stop it looking like a desert in Winter. Performance was reasonable with default aircaft and then I bought the PMDG JS4100. Just about flyable most of the time and the occasional slide show. After a couple of weeks I went back to FS9 and see absolutely no reason to spend money on FSX.So, I can't agree with your sentence quoted above - and that is from actual experience.Iain Smith

I keep checking here every day for some previews of the Dash 8. Can PMDG put me out my misery and show some previews? I not asking for the 777, just some previews.ThanksMark

PMDG stated they'd have previews of the Dash 8 "soon" several months ago, is there nothing we can see, please ?

Like me. I have FS9 and a ton of add-on goodies but when I upgraded my PC I got FSX, to see for myself what all the fuss is about. Out of the box it may look better than FS9 out of the box but it is nowhere near as good as my present FS9. Some coastlines are so inaccurate that they cry out for Ultimate Terrain. I had to get some freeware textures for Europe to stop it looking like a desert in Winter. Performance was reasonable with default aircaft and then I bought the PMDG JS4100. Just about flyable most of the time and the occasional slide show. After a couple of weeks I went back to FS9 and see absolutely no reason to spend money on FSX.So, I can't agree with your sentence quoted above - and that is from actual experience.Iain Smith

So FSX does not look as good as FS9 with UT? No surprise there, but if you just want eye-candy, did you try FSX with UTX, REX and the water features turned up to 2.x high? Pret...ty! (I normally use water at 1.x low or 1.x mid but then I usually only use an old P4 and fly high enough that water effects are not visible anyway).How many years have you spent tuning and configuring FS9 for optimal performance (measured in FPS) and how many hours did you spend tuning FSX (measured in smoothness). When you say "just about flyable" or "slide show" what does that mean? I know what they mean in FS9 terms, where < 25fps on a tricky approach can make it so jerky and unresponsive that landing is near impossible, but in FSX? If you had maxed the sliders, maybe, but I have managed <10fps landings (I don't like them but they weren't jerky), just lower auto-gen and traffic settings as required. (I assume you were using FSX with SP2 or Acceleration? I mean, you wouldn't try running FS9.0, now would you?)