Come on, the CDT accessing menus has a very well known fix. The UIAutomationcore.dll fix. It's explained in this same section here (see issue #1): http://forum.avsim.net/topic/280688-graphics-corruption-in-fsx-update-possible-solution-found/

Dario,Don't get me wrong I would like it to work but the link there points to graphic corruption, has been running for two years and still seems not to have an answer. Mine simply crashes after a number of times accessing the menu system.Gerry

I'd say yes it is. Plan for the costs of a higher end system, make sure you go to a 64Bit OS, then buy the PMDG J41 and learn that while you wait for the NGX :-)  I have REX2 Overdrive and some of the sights you see are simply stunning, amazing dawns/dusks and nothing quite like ripping through HD clouds in the J41 VC, starting to earn the strapline "as real as it gets......"Don't think you'll regret converting, but your wallet might ;-)   

Dario,Don't get me wrong I would like it to work but the link there points to graphic corruption, has been running for two years and still seems not to have an answer. Mine simply crashes after a number of times accessing the menu system.Gerry

This issue is really one of the easiest to fix. Download this dll file and place it into your FSX folderhttp://www.search-dll.com/dll-files/download/uiautomationcore.dll.html

Guess I'm the minority here. I just downgraded from FSX to FS9 and repurchased my PMDG 747 (debating on the Md-11) for FS9. I have an i7 @t 4GHZ, 6GB DDR3, and a GTX480 and got tired of the god awful frame rates on my 747. I run REX2/UTX/GEX/ and a number of other junk I can't recall. My problem is that I like to fly my 747 with the PFD/MFD/Both EICAS/CDU/ EICAL PANEL/ all undocked on 4 screens. With everything undocked I can only peak at 14fps and that's with every tweak known to man. Compare the above using the same plane/setup I get about 35+ fps using FS9. At 10,000 feet with REX, MegaSceneryUSA, and some nvidia/fs9 tweaks its hard to tell FS9 from FSX. I do have to give the crown to FSX for VFR flying and presenting a more alive world for flying. FS9 Cessna at KORF =130+FPSFSX Cessna at KORF = 70+FPS Oh yeah I just discovered FS9 after looking at some youtube videos and could barely tell the difference from FSX.

I am a die hard FS9 fan but I thought I cannot criticise FSX without looking at it at least. Initial impression is that the scenery is definitely better and the stock aircraft return good frame rates with smooth flying. However I have not been able to get past that because of the constant CTDs when accessing menus. I googled this problem and found that there is really no known cure.It has killed it for me. I am not going to shell out $500 odd dollars to get FSX to where I have FS9 now with it crashing around my ears all the time and then , it seems, with good payware aircraft and scenery to see the frame rates plummet. It seems that whenever anything to do with FSX comes up in these forums it has to do with CTDs, poor frame rates or fixes that rarely seem to work in sorting out the inherent flakiness of the programme. I would love the NGX but cannot live with with FSX. I want to fly the thing not spend all my time fiddling with the insides of it.Gerry

You must be very bad at googling if you didnt find the countless threads about uiautomationcore.dll

Dario,Don't get me wrong I would like it to work but the link there points to graphic corruption, has been running for two years and still seems not to have an answer. Mine simply crashes after a number of times accessing the menu system.Gerry

Again, it's in that thread :) ISSUE #1Or simply use the links others provided, but please read past the thread title :DAnd what you mean "still has no answer?" the highmenfix=1 thing is the answer to the graphic corruption. I tell you I've been running FSX with no crashes for quite some time now, and I'm not the only one.

I have an Dual Core @2.6 GHz, 4GB Ram and a GeForce 9500GT and i'm a happy FSX flyer even though it's a bit slowly sometimes, but there are many programms out there which you can use to increase your frames.

I've Dual Core @ 2.6 GHz and 4GB RAM aswell :) But I have overclocked it to 3.2 GHz and FSX runs alot better, even with the PMDG 737X. So, I recommend you to give overclocking a try. Beside that,you write: "but there are many programms out there wich you can use to increase your frames." Oke, sounds good but can you please tell me wich programs you use to increase the frames?Thanks in advantage!

At this point, I'd do FSX and the new system. Your specs are too low to get the WOW FSX! feeling, but with an upgrade and a few addons, it's 100X better. I remember using an addon ground texture addon in FS9 and it still wasn't as good as FSX default. Run at around 20FPS on medium high graphics and it's visually much more attractive.My system specs:Intel i7 Quadcore stock 3.07 GhZNVidia GTX470 4GB8GB RamWindows 7 64 bit UltimateCollinGood luck to yOU!

Wow guys, thank you so much for the replies. I don´t know where to begin really.The thing is I have the money to give my system the overhaul it needs to become FSX-worthy. But I´m not sure it´s worth it for a number of reasons. I´d have to start form the ground up with the add-ons. I just don´t know if I have the energy for starting all over again. I know nothing about overclocking and computers, I just want to fly, and I don´t think I feel like getting into that mess now. I think what I´m looking for is a gurantee that if I go for Windows 7 x64 with an i7 and 8gb + 1 gb video card I´m going to get a damn good simulation. But all these instability stories and bad frames are scaring me. To top it all off, I´m starting a new residency in a couple of months which will probably take away 90% of the time I now have available for our hobby. Anyway, I bought FSX and it should arrive within the week. I´ll install it and see what happens with this system. I have a feeling about how things are gonna end though, regardless of my lack of enthusiasm now: Since I´ll already have FSX installed, when the NGX comes out I´ll say to myself "I just can´t not try it out" so I´ll buy it. Then my frames are gonna suck and I´ll go: "well now that I´ve gotten this far might as well really go for it" and next thing you know I´ll be upgrading my system and spending dozens of hours trying to understand this overclocking business. This hobby´s killing me hahaha

IF you have any chance of running FSX well with that system, you need to upgrade your video card! While it's true FSX (like FS9) does not take advantage of the video cards GPU as much, it does use it's memory, and as such requires a high video memory bandwidth, at least 70GBs. Your 9400GT only can go 12.8GBs. That is simply no where near what you would need for FSX. Replacing it with a different card will make a big difference.

Wow guys, thank you so much for the replies. I don´t know where to begin really.The thing is I have the money to give my system the overhaul it needs to become FSX-worthy. But I´m not sure it´s worth it for a number of reasons. I´d have to start form the ground up with the add-ons. I just don´t know if I have the energy for starting all over again. I know nothing about overclocking and computers, I just want to fly, and I don´t think I feel like getting into that mess now. I think what I´m looking for is a gurantee that if I go for Windows 7 x64 with an i7 and 8gb + 1 gb video card I´m going to get a damn good simulation. But all these instability stories and bad frames are scaring me.

With a clean computer to start out you shouldn't have any stability issues providing you follow the proper steps. Before anyone argues, this is just the way I do it. I'm not in any way suggesting it's the best or most correct way.I'd start with downloading CClean (it's free) & make 3-4 passes on your registry to make sure it's good to go, then restart your PC. Install FSX in it's own folder outside of program files (exa... C:/FSX) run it, restart PC. Install SP1, run it, restart. Install SP2, run it, restart. Start installing your addons (I prefer using root folders, like I used on FSX), run & restart after each one. Run all setup programs as administrator. That may seem like a little overkill but its the only way I do it & it works great for me. I redo my boot drive every 2 months because cheap SSD's don't have autotrim & slow down over time. I basically just clone it, format it & restore the clone. Last week I decided to accompany that with a clean install of FSX following the above steps & it runs better now than ever before.

This hobby´s killing me hahaha

Thanks for calling it a hobby. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/314239-is-msfs-a-hobby-or-a-game/

With a clean computer to start out you shouldn't have any stability issues providing you follow the proper steps. Before anyone argues, this is just the way I do it. I'm not in any way suggesting it's the best or most correct way.I'd start with downloading CClean (it's free) & make 3-4 passes on your registry to make sure it's good to go, then restart your PC. Install FSX in it's own folder outside of program files (exa... C:/FSX) run it, restart PC. Install SP1, run it, restart. Install SP2, run it, restart. Start installing your addons (I prefer using root folders, like I used on FSX), run & restart after each one. Run all setup programs as administrator. That may seem like a little overkill but its the only way I do it & it works great for me. I redo my boot drive every 2 months because cheap SSD's don't have autotrim & slow down over time. I basically just clone it, format it & restore the clone. Last week I decided to accompany that with a clean install of FSX following the above steps & it runs better now than ever before.

That´s a great post, thank you for the idea. I might start doing that even if I stik with FS9 since I´ve noticed some degradation lately and I was honestly wondering why that might be since I always defrag my FS9 folder and drives.

Thanks for calling it a hobby. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/314239-is-msfs-a-hobby-or-a-game/

That´s the only way to call it! :(

That´s a great post, thank you for the idea. I might start doing that even if I stik with FS9 since I´ve noticed some degradation lately and I was honestly wondering why that might be since I always defrag my FS9 folder and drives.

Did you mean the part about SSD's & autotrim? There are lots of good web articles that explain it in detail so I won't get too far into it. Basically SSD's are sloppy & the simple act of writing to one makes a mess - autotrim fixes that, but not all solid-state drives support it. It's a very miniscule thing, but add up thousands/millions of reads/writes and you'll notice a change over time. Never defrag a solid-state drive, that's just doing more writes & slowing it down even more. For what it's worth, Intel SSD's have the best autotrim and read/write rates but that's definitely reflected in the price. I'm happy paying a fraction for a cheaper SSD, having similar performace & cloning/formatting/restoring it every couple of months. It's the same hard-drive, so none of your registrations/activations are affected by doing this.

Did you mean the part about SSD's & autotrim? There are lots of good web articles that explain it in detail so I won't get too far into it. Basically SSD's are sloppy & the simple act of writing to one makes a mess - autotrim fixes that, but not all solid-state drives support it. It's a very miniscule thing, but add up thousands/millions of reads/writes and you'll notice a change over time. Never defrag a solid-state drive, that's just doing more writes & slowing it down even more. For what it's worth, Intel SSD's have the best autotrim and read/write rates but that's definitely reflected in the price. I'm happy paying a fraction for a cheaper SSD, having similar performace & cloning/formatting/restoring it every couple of months. It's the same hard-drive, so none of your registrations/activations are affected by doing this.

That's not entirely accurate - SSDs aren't "sloppy" (which implies there's something SSD makers could do about this), it's just a fundamental limitation of how the technology works at the core level. Flash memory is made up of "pages", which fill up larger units called "blocks". You can write to individual pages, but you can't directly erase them - you have to erase entire blocks. This happens due to the core electrical physics involved in how flash memory works. When you "erase" a file from an SSD, it just marks the page(s) that contained the file as unusable for writing. Over time enough of this happens that the drive controller needs to start erasing blocks in order to make more room for your write requests. The slowdown problem happens when there are no longer any blocks that are completely devoid of data - ie, you have a certain number of pages in the block that have had a file erased (ie, marked not usable for writing) and then a number of pages that still contain valid data. To get around this, the drive controller has to read the contents of the block out to cache RAM, erase the block, then write the valid data back into the block. This gets you your new writable pages. This takes a non-trivial amount of time to do however, especially when you multiply it over thousands or millions of blocks that could need this done if you're trying to write a large file.The TRIM command that's present in Windows 7 and a few other OSes essentially just makes this process happen right when a file is deleted instead of at the time a new file is written. With TRIM enabled you delete a file and right then the whole process happens - copying of the block to cache, erasing the block, then rewriting the still valid data from the cache back to the block. Without TRIM it happens when you try to write a file, which is definitely "felt" as a slowdown by the user because you have to wait for the process to happen. TRIM makes the process happen at a better time when you're likely not trying to write to the drive just after a deletion has taken place.That's the basics of it - there's a series of very good articles at AnandTech that explain it in extreme detail if you're interested in it further. Intel and Sandforce based drives are the best essentially - Sandforce (ie, OCZ Vertex 2) is what I'd actually go for right now - they're cheaper and in some ways better/faster than the Intel ones.