Would I be right in thinking that you have a preference for FS9? It is just that I seem to have heard most of those arguments before. In fact I heard them first when I still used FS9, so that makes them pretty old and very tired.

No I use FSX.FSX/FS9 are years old now and even with my fairly modern rig it doesn't perform anywhere near as well as it should. Don't get me wrong, there's much to like about the FS series despite it's flaws, but there is no good reason why rX or anyone else should play appologist for MS's sloppy code that's been rehashed for the best part of a decade.There are newer games with better graphics that run more smoothly. If they can't improve the performance substantially, they should start again. (And finally add some realistic weather to boot.)

While we're veering off the dreamliner topic and heading towered which sim is better ;-), has anyone else seen what outerra can do? It'd be amazing with a PMDG quality add-on :DCheck out www.outerra.com

Question for you or anyone, why do some people refuse to install SP2 for FSX? I have seen a few posts here from time to time people not wanting SP2 installed. The fps increase I get with SP2 is too good not to install and just don't understand or know what I'm missing.

I'm assuming that its because they have acceleration which is the same thing and not compatible, or maybe they hat the DX10 Preview (which you can just turn off...). But, I don't get it, otherwise. The J41, for example, won't run without SP2.

I'm assuming that its because they have acceleration which is the same thing and not compatible, or maybe they hat the DX10 Preview (which you can just turn off...). But, I don't get it, otherwise. The J41, for example, won't run without SP2.

No, there actually is a weird subset of the FS community that thinks any patch released by Microsoft for Windows, FS itself etc are bad things that are somehow going to hurt their performance. I see it all the time in support tickets, people refuse to install FSX SP2 or Acceleration, they refuse to install XP SP3, refuse to install the most current .NET framework etc. It's baffling to me. Patches almost always improve performance and in the case of Windows itself (especially XP) they're crucial for maintaining security on the system since they patch tons of security holes in the OS.

It baffles me too, and have dealt with similar working in support for years. I asked this question on another topic but think it went missed so once again,,, why do people refuse to install FSX SP2? I guess there are loads of FSX users that don't install it and really can't imagine why since the performance gain and amount of fixes it gives.

I saw this heavily when I used to use AVID software. You go to their forum and all the posting veterans would go on about how they would install AVID on XP with the machine unplugged from the internet using drivers a year old and refuse to allow any sort of updates, because of the old saying "If it aint broke don't fix it". Imagine if Beoing thought that way, or Ford Motor Company, it is almost like a new breed of luddite for the digital age.

While we're veering off the dreamliner topic and heading towered which sim is better ;-), has anyone else seen what outerra can do? It'd be amazing with a PMDG quality add-on :DCheck out www.outerra.com

This is impresive. I would love to see that on MS Flight

No I use FSX.FSX/FS9 are years old now and even with my fairly modern rig it doesn't perform anywhere near as well as it should. Don't get me wrong, there's much to like about the FS series despite it's flaws, but there is no good reason why rX or anyone else should play appologist for MS's sloppy code that's been rehashed for the best part of a decade.There are newer games with better graphics that run more smoothly. If they can't improve the performance substantially, they should start again. (And finally add some realistic weather to boot.)

They can improve performance substantially, they just run their 10 year old code on processors that are over a hundred times more powerful. Easy!