I've posted a similar thread in the past, but I want to post this again, to keep things in perspective.For the record, let me start out by saying the following:1) I don't work for Microsoft.2) I don't own the latest and greatest hardware. Here's what I have:CPU: P4, 1.6RAM: 512MB SDRAMHD: Maxtor 80GB 7200 RPMVIDEO: GeForce FX 5200, driver 45.23SOUND: Creative Labs SB Live3) I don't have the sliders maxed out (although it's one or two steps below max).All I really want to say is that I think Microsoft did a good job with FS9 because it gives me a chance to do what I haven't been able to do in real life: Fly and enjoy the scenery. I love flying and, due to various reasons, I haven't had a chance to fly as a pilot in real life.Sure I could do the same thing with previous versions of Flight Simulator, but two things stood out for me as far as FS9: more realistic ATC (especially with the added ability to request changes in altitude and destinations) and Taxiway signs. Sure those two things may be minor to some, but for me, it made it one step closer to reality.Yes, I do get stutters when FSMeteo updates the weather, and yes, I may get frame rates in the single digits in high density areas, but those are things I learned to put up with.The more realistic scenery and clouds were an added bonus for me.I just thought it was so neat when I flew by the Space Shuttle launch pad and saw the shuttle. When I saw the Maid of the Mist at Niagara Falls, I thought it was awesome.My point is (finally) as long as I get to do what I want to do, I'm perfectly happy.My hopes for FS2006 (or 2007)? That they add either marshallers or gate numbers (or both) and that I'll get good performance with my current computer with the sliders at one notch above midpoint.LET THE FLAMES BEGIN.:-ukliam

Besides my issues cocerning fs9 . You are right it is VERY beautiful. I set my visibilty and cloud draw to 90mi. And let me just say it is breathtaking.Especially during early to mid evening!! And marshallers would be great! If you remember they(ms) did toy with that idea.

I don't understand why someone would flame you on this!?? I am happy for ya, I am in the same boat, it performs better than FS2002 did for me and I like it as well. Can't wait to see what a fster machine does with it! LOLRegards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

Regardless of the avail of fps over 50, this scenario buys the cake:I was landing at this airport with parallel runways and my approach was closely paralelled on the other by a B737 to my left that landed 2 seconds after me, i watched him constantly, it was beautiful at sunset with all the lights and colors and the B737 tire smoke at touchdown (somewhat excessive), and my humble fps of 12 varied but ever so slightly over time enabling great enjoyment from this sim. I regularly keep the ATC at 100% as well as AG and scenery, and only vary the weather settings to enable more fluidity in complex situations. Rarely do I find myself bogged down to the 5 and 7 fps cases, and this only happens when Im surrrounded by clouds anyway and there is no scenery to accentuated the jitters... just a bunch of revolving cloud textures, so what if the fps aint high...

Oh yes I did forget, that was my positive outlook, Now, for my hopes for the future.1)Constant fluidity regardless of situation, even though the fps does not have to be really supercompter high...2) More realistic photoreal airports, free, not payware stuff.3) More realistic VC panels, not the messy cheap B737, but the fantastic Lear and KingAir types.4) Better incorporation and more of the autogen candy (not the chickens). And less trees blocking touchdown,5) Less cluttered ATC with constant unrealistic hand offs.and lastly but not leastly:acurate and detailed LANDCLASS everywhere !!!Allen