Not new too FS, but back after extended absence.I had purchased and tried FSX but was unhappy with the peformance on My Intel core 2 CPU running at 2.4 gigahertz and 2 gig of Ram.Browsing the Forum, I see mention of FSXA. Something new since I wandered away from Flight Simming.Question: Will this make FSX run better on My system? Or should I stay with FS 2004 and My excellent Freeflow scenery that gave Me lots of satisfaction in the Past. I'll probably have to do a lot of updating of the Flight plans I have now with Ultimate Traffic and World of AI. Lots of things change in a two year period.Thanks in advance for any helpful replies.Bill :unsure:P.S. I did Google FSXA, but could not find anything conclusive on the Subject.

Bill,I am sure this question could be answered better in the FSX forum:http://forum.avsim.n...1-ms-fsx-forum/And from me - if I wanted all the replies at the FSX forum to be polite, I would skip this:

Or should I stay with FS 2004

:(

"FSXA" is simply FSX + Acceleration add on package. Your system simply doesn't have the power or speed to handle FSX + anything, at least not acceptably.Quad-core @ 3+ GHz clock speed is really required.

"FSXA" is simply FSX + Acceleration add on package. Your system simply doesn't have the power or speed to handle FSX + anything, at least not acceptably.Quad-core @ 3+ GHz clock speed is really required.

I have a duo core 3GHz and 512mb card and was surprised how well FSX runs. The FTX stuff is pretty hard on it, but can run full autogen on default scenery, acceptably.

Browsing the Forum, I see mention of FSXA. ... I did Google FSXA, but could not find anything conclusive on the Subject.

best guess this is a reference to FSX and acceleration. acceleration is a MS addon to FSX -http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/fsxacceleration.aspx.

My Intel core 2 CPU running at 2.4 gigahertz and 2 gig of Ram. ... Will this make FSX run better on My system?

no.to run FSX on your system you will need to adjust settings to a level that the visual 'look' of the game will be lower than what you see in FS9. FSX requires a modern 'i-series' processor at least clocked to 4Ghz to 'match' FS9's look and performance. if a 6GHz processor is ever released FSX will out perform FS9.--

Thanks All! Anybody know if one of these I Core processors will run on My ASUS P5K Motherboard, or will I have to upgrade both? Is anyone really getting performance as good as FS9 on any computer or shall I continue to wait.There's Irony here. Because as soon as that might happen, Microsoft will come out with a new version of FS that requires an even bigger and faster computer. Sheesh! Bill

Anybody know if one of these I Core processors will run on My ASUS P5K Motherboard,

no

Is anyone really getting performance as good as FS9 on any computer

no

or shall I continue to wait.

your choice. if you have a stable and fast FS9 setup stay with what you have. FLIGHT is an unknown. no one even knows if addons will be allowed, hardware needs, etc. at this point there are two videos, nothing else, about the new flightsim game. the videos have easly been done in FS9 or X or even a non-FS video creation program. i have yet to find a reason to go to FSX. there is only one aircraft i want that is FSX only: PMDG J41. everything else i enjoy is available and stable in FS9.--

Thanks All! Anybody know if one of these I Core processors will run on My ASUS P5K Motherboard, or will I have to upgrade both? Is anyone really getting performance as good as FS9 on any computer or shall I continue to wait.There's Irony here. Because as soon as that might happen, Microsoft will come out with a new version of FS that requires an even bigger and faster computer. Sheesh! Bill

Hi Bill.I will throw in my positive experience since Scoob is an FSX bear and I will give you an opinion from the otherside so that you don't get completely scared off. Hopefully your thread doesn't turn into one of those FS9 vs. FSX threads that we all hate, but since only one other person has given you some positive feedback, I thought it would be fair to offer my opinion.I've been running FSX since April '08 on the rig I had built in my sig, which is only a dual core E8400. It comes stock running at 3.0ghz and I overclocked it so far to 3.85ghz , which frankly is probably about at far as I am willing to take it, although I know a few others running theirs at 4.0ghz and beyond.Anyways, the fact is that it runs FSX fine for me and as you can see in my sig, I own some "mega" hubs that I fly into all the time with no problem. Generally I use the sim for flying airliners, mainly the PMDG 747 and LDS 767, and honestly I have no issues flying into dense areas like FSDreamteams KJFK or Aerosofts EDDF. Performance will also vary depeding on what type of AI you use, size/compression of textures (ie REX, what you have running in the background, etc. One of the biggest killers of FPS in FSX I have found is running high levels of the stock AI and turning the car AI traffic up to high. Swap out the stock AI for some UT2 or MyTraffic AI and thrown in REX or FEX DXT clouds getting rid of the stock 32bit clouds will also gain you some FPS.Personally, I think that FSX really runs best on either a dual or quad core CPU as long as you can overclock it to 3.85 or higher. When I was running it on my E8400 at the stock 3.0 ghz is was ok, but I had to turn somethings down a bit like the AI freeway traffic, boats,a/c, and sometime I would have to lower the scenery complexity slider a notch down from Extremely Dense to Very Dense, but still it worked pretty well at the stock 3.0. Having said that, running at 3.85 has really made the biggest difference for me and gave me a lot more headrooom for cranking up AI while still flying the complex a/c like the PMDG 747.It's hard to know what went wrong with Scoobs install of FSX or why he's had trouble running it at high levels smoothly or well, but for me it hasn't really been that much of a big deal. If your looking to do a cheap upgrade you could try an E8400, E8500, or E8600 which are all socket 775 which I believe is what the P5K mobo is that you own. Those chips if you can find them can probably be had for less than $250 now since i series chips are all the craze.If you want some more info on tweaks, setups and other things I have done to run FSX well, feel free to contact my via PM if you want and I can fill you in with some more info. You could also take a look at NickN's FSX setup guide at the GEX section of Simforums.com where he has outlined a way to set FSX up from scratch and achieve good performance.You could also look in the FSX portion of the forum and talk to some of the folks there who run it well and LIKE it rather than hate it so you can get more feedback than just no, no, and no, lol.I'm not much of a screen shot artist, but here are a few links to some FSX shots I have posted running it with my current rig to give you an idea of what mine looks like on my antique E8400. Unfortunately I had some other nice shots but they have already been purged from Avsims screen shot forum, so only some still remain that can be viewed.http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=2757.msg22965#msg22965http://forum.avsim.net/topic/290974-beautiful-morning-in-salzburg-austria/page__p__1799415__hl__cmpbellsjc__fromsearch__1#entry1799415http://forum.avsim.net/topic/296012-klm-744-kdfw-to-eham/http://forum.avsim.net/topic/290701-a-few-from-nice-lfmn-to-zurich-lszh/page__p__1797903__fromsearch__1#entry1797903http://forums1.avsim.net/topic/258173-careflight-over-dallas/Anways, this will give you something to think about. I have been so happy with the way I am running FSX that until I do my next operating system upgrade to Win7 64bit, I am going to stay with the CPU/mobo that I am running now. I am fortunate that I have the resources to run pretty much an rig I want, but having found what seems to be the sweet spot for me and I hate to monkey with it and build a mew rig when the performance may not be a whole lot greater than what I have now. Not saying that an i7 wouldn't make it a lot better, but since I am not having any trouble now, its hard for me to justify changing everything out at the moment for what might only be a slim improvement.Regards

Broadly speaking, if you disregard the additional aeroplanes and stuff, FSX with the Acceleration pack is essentially FSX with Service Packs 1 and 2 installed as far as the base software goes, although in actual fact FSX Acceleration does add a few whistles and bells that you otherwise would not have by merely installing the Service Packs alone (most notably some engine modeling tweaks which offer additional preference tick boxes).That did at one point mean some developers could do more with FSXA than they could with FSX+SPs, for example A2A's Accu-Sim engine stuff used to only work fully with the Acceleration version of FSX, but A2A have since found a workaround which makes having FSXA unnecessary to take advantage of all Accu-Sim's features, so whether you buy Acceleration largely depends on whether you want the aeroplanes which come with it more than anything else these days (you're not missing much to be honest, there are better choppers, P51s and F/A-18s out there).Hardware things you can do to improve FSX performance include the obvious upgrading of RAM, processor and graphics cards etc, although to make serious changes in that direction, in the case of the ASUS P5K series, a new motherboard would likely be required, and probably a new power supply unit as well if you do that, not just for the increased power required by faster processors, but also because I seem to recall that older P5Ks use a 20 pin power connector, whereas newer motherboards invariably use the more modern 24 pin connector, although your PSU may have both connector options (a lot of them do if they are less than about two years old). The RAM sockets on the P5K won't be suited to the latest DDR RAM though, nor the motherboard bus speeds up to supporting that fully either. You'll certainly be unable to slot the latest processors in a P5K, although more fancy processors are available in a few different socket forms, including the Intel Socket 775 which the P5K uses, so at least some form of dual core processor upgrade will doubtless be possible and probably not too expensive now that it is considered older technology if you wanted an interim solution.Doing so would undoubtedly speed FSX up a bit, although it is effectively upgrading up a blind alley in the long run in terms of where you can go from there on a older motherboard, thus it's a bit like throwing good money after bad in some respects. So the truth is that if you want to really accelerate FSX, you'd probably be better off just starting out with a new motherboard. With an eye to the future, when MS get around to releasing 'Flight', they will obviously be attempting to tackle the performance issues of FSX, but they will almost certainly be looking at doing that based on genuinely available current hardware rather than some projected future hardware pipedream that Intel have erroneously assured them is coming in two years (as they did with FSX), because they've already had their fingers burned in trying to do that with FSX when relying on technology which never materialised. So in the long run, a new motherboard will be a good idea unless you are planning to stay with FS9.Beyond changing the hardware, you can also change the software, since FSX runs better on more recent operating systems than it does on older ones, i.e. I've found that there is often a slight performance increase in FSX when run on Vista or Win 7 as opposed to XP.With all that said, if you are happy with FS9, then be happy with it and spend no money at all on upgrades! Switching to FSX is not a legal requirement LOL For example, the latest B737 add-on from I-Fly is available for FS9, but you won't find an FSX version.Al

I don't know...maybe I'm just a little grumpy today, but honestly people, logging into an FS9 forum and finding lengthy diatribes about how to make FSX work...please, can you take this stuff where it belongs?See link in Post #2 above.Would you want to log in here and read all about my troubles with setting buffer sizes in X-Plane??Flight Unlimited too, maybe?

It's not a thread about 'you must switch to FSX', it's a thread where an FS9 user was unsure about something they had heard in relation to FSX. Maybe he could have posted it in the FSX forum, but he chose to stick it here, at some point a moderator might move it, but since it is here at the moment, that's where people have put their replies.In the meantime, rather than ignore a question, all people have done is reply in an attempt to be helpful as far as I can see, so why be a misery about people who are merely trying to help out? I even went to the extent of pointing out that if the guy was already happy with FS9 then he should stay with it and also pointed out one of the things you can't do with FSX but can with FS9, i.e. get the iFly B737 for it.In any case, you are under no obligation to read any thread on a forum, thus under no obligation to get annoyed about it, especially since the thread title was hardly enigmatically ambiguous.Al

Yeah sorry to be grumpy, it's just the third time in a day that I go looking for a little FS9 wisdom, and find FSX blather plastered on the walls...

Sounds like a drink of some description is in order :-)Al

Ahh yes, and now a small after-dinner port...There you go, please feel fee to prattle on about anything under the sun, with no further interruptions from this quarter.