Which bug are you referring to?

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/326913-performance-hit-after-hard-braking-on-runways/

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/326913-performance-hit-after-hard-braking-on-runways/

I think this maybe related to the Transparency AA bug Bojote found, which caused a significant performance issue on landing. Try turning it off if it's on with your system. Since I turned mine off, performance is much more steady on landings. I just tried the test described in the linked post, with both the PMDG 744, and the default 737, and didn't see any problem. My system is an E6850 4GB and a 9800GTX card

Funnily enough, last night, I deleted my entire 80gig FS2004 collection on both backup drives keeping only the txt file with licence codes etc.I run FSX and it is so smooth and fluid with my new GTX470 and i7 950 @ 3.07 (Thats at KLAX with most sliders to the right and PMDG JS41). I can't imagine what it will be like when I OC to 4ghz.No need for me to go back to FS2004 even though I have spent a fortune on addons etc. Most of which I never even used properly.

I´m have both, but since 2 or 3 months I use mostly FSX, cause it looks so much better even in default areas as FS9. - But FS9 has more addons like my beloved PMDG 747 wich my system isn´t capable in FSX, so I´ll have to stick with Fs9 till I get a system which can tame FSX.

I have tried FSX at least five times, and went back four times. With my current installation I'm not, however. It is still installed, and if I want to go places I don't have in FSX, I'll fire it up again. However, as things stand right now, I have no reason to do 95% of my flying in FS9. My performance is now good enough (thanks Bojote!), coupled with visuals that are much better than FS9's ever will be, that I don't have agood reaosn to go back to FS9. Take NYC KJFK for example: my FPS in FSX are better than in FS9. With the QW757 in FS9 I got about 14, in FSX about 18. Granted, I have less AI moving around, but that's probably the only difference. I have FSDT KJFK, MegaSceneryEarth NYC, IS KLGA and Aerosoft Manhattan X, and I have their FS9 counterparts installed in FS9.I still have to test out Aerosoft's EHAM with my aircraft, though. I don't think the result will be very good, but then again, it wasn't very good in FS9 either...

I use both and to keep the broken record skipping along. FSX for G/A flying and FS9 for the big iron. My frames in FS9 are way better than FSX with way more AI (100% with every WOAI package installed in FS9), just can't do that in FSX.But the photo real textures in FSX knock my socks off...

Only recently have I erased FS9 from my flying. Both sims ran beautifully but managing both became too much, so I did the reformat thing and installed a new copy of FSX. It was about simplifying things and I am perfectly pleased with FSX Acceleration and with all the payware. I loved FS9, but it is not missed as performance with FSX is excellent. AMD 955BE (3.5), 460 GTX, 4GB Mushkin DDR3, 2 640GB Sata3 64MB cache drives, 24" Asus monitor, Win7 64-bit, CLS, RXP, Quality Wings, Friendly Panels, GEX, Eaglesoft, PMDG, are some of the payware company's products that perform well with this 'mediocre' system. Sorry: early morning rant...:-)cheers,Greg G

After I discovered the ORBX world, I upgraded my system, tweaked, upgraded some more, tweaked again, then some more. I finally achieved stability.FSX with FTX is so BEAUTIFUL that there's no way that I could ever go back to FS 2004. Even flying heavies into Manhattan X, GEX, UTX, at night, with poor weather, FSX is still delightful in the teens. If I lower Complexity & AG to Dense, I can be in the high 20's and smooth. There's no reason for me to ever return to the poor visuals of fs 2004.