You start investing in FSX now, and MS Flight will be out soon. What will you do? Get stuck with FSX? The reason we are sticking with FS9(at least I am) is because FSX didn't preform well on the systems back then and only recently we are able to run it. Hopefully, MS Flight will be different.

FS9 didn't perfrom well on the system I had which was quite new at the time of release, I see no difference as I stuck with FS9 until I bought my snady bride build (in my sig) the same as I couldn't run FS9 worth a darn until I got my E6600 core2duo system in 2006.

Can you enlighten us what tweaks you performed?.....Just curious...

Me too, FSX is a dog on my average system. I'll try anything. Just curious, not disputing you in any way..

Trust me as the most loyal FS9 guy out there, the NGX is a game changer and as I was Beta testing I was stunned at the performance I was getting in FSX...Take FSX out of the picture though, the NGX is worthy of a sim to itself and that is really how I look at FSX now LMAO. It is FSNGX not FSX for me ;)...Yep, I may be biased as I was a beta tester but I will be damned if the NGX changed things entirely for me. I even stopped begging RSR for an FS9 version during the beta it was so damn nice in FSX. With that being said, I prefer FS9 as a sim, I would prefer FSX textures in FS9 and the doppler sound and moving traffic but FS9 still "looks" better to me. Personal preference I guess yet despite preferring FS9 I am spending all my time lately in FSNGX because it is just that good! :)

For those interested in what tweaks I did: I simply used this tool - http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html. It basically create a fsx.cfg that will maximise your components for FSX and give you the best possible outcome for performance. I also used Nvidia Inspector (google it) and applied settings from here. After I did that, I got some very pleasing results. My specs if you're interested, and as you can see, it's not the most powerful of computers. I5 750 Processor @ 2.7gHzNvidia GT240Dell Motherboard6GB Ram I'm also using the following addons without any problems: REX 2.0 OverdrivePMDG 737NGXPMDG 747-400QW757GEXUTXUT2 @ 100% (general aviation off)UK2000 - various sceneries (althought frame issues at bigger airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow)Various Aerosoft sceneries (mostly smaller European airports) I'm achieving roughly 20-25 frames with all the sliders (pretty much) on max. Honestly, I know FSX seems like a pain, and I really was running FS9 thinking FSX couldn't look anywhere near as good, but with the right add-ons, FS2004 suddenly looks incredibly dated. Hope that helps :)

For those interested in what tweaks I did: I simply used this tool - http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html. It basically create a fsx.cfg that will maximise your components for FSX and give you the best possible outcome for performance. I also used Nvidia Inspector (google it) and applied settings from here. After I did that, I got some very pleasing results. My specs if you're interested, and as you can see, it's not the most powerful of computers. I5 750 Processor @ 2.7gHzNvidia GT240Dell Motherboard6GB Ram I'm also using the following addons without any problems: REX 2.0 OverdrivePMDG 737NGXPMDG 747-400QW757GEXUTXUT2 @ 100% (general aviation off)UK2000 - various sceneries (althought frame issues at bigger airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow)Various Aerosoft sceneries (mostly smaller European airports) I'm achieving roughly 20-25 frames with all the sliders (pretty much) on max. Honestly, I know FSX seems like a pain, and I really was running FS9 thinking FSX couldn't look anywhere near as good, but with the right add-ons, FS2004 suddenly looks incredibly dated. Hope that helps :)

Thanks mate, I'll give it a go. Nothing to loose.

FSX couldn't look anywhere near as good, but with the right add-ons, FS2004 suddenly looks incredibly dated. Hope that helps :)

There's no way FSX is going to run on my system either way I hope to say the same thing about FSX when Flight hits the market and it makes since to buy a new rig.

There's no way FSX is going to run on my system either way I hope to say the same thing about FSX when Flight hits the market and it makes since to buy a new rig.

I am quite surprised how well FSX performs on my (now fairly old) system. For example flying the Aerosoft Beaver around Ireland, using the new Horizon VFR Photographic scenery for Ireland, I get frame rates of 40-50 fps or more and it all really runs very smoothly. Similarly using the Newport Hawaii photoreal sceneries I can achieve frame rates of 30-40 or more with Carenado aircraft although these rates generally drop to lower levels of around 20fps when you are flying into or out of detailed airport addons (such as FSDT airport scenery in Hawaii and Eiresim in Ireland), but nevertheless generally everything remains quite smooth. Yes, there are some scenery addons (Aerosoft Manhatten is a particularly good example) and indeed some aircraft addons that reduce my FSX almost to a slide show, but I have to admit that I have grown to like FSX and the quality of it's default scenery and use it for a fair proportion of my flying. The main reason that I have not switched to FSX as my main flightsim platform is that, like many people I suspect, I have spent far too much money on addons for FS9 (which runs beautifully and now looks almost as good as FSX) and I don't want this investment to go to waste. Bill _{Windows XP Pro SP2; Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0Ghz CPU;Arctic Cool 7Pro; ASUS P5N-E-SLI Motherboard;4GB Corsair 800Mhz DDR2 RAM; 768MB nVidia GeForce 8800GTX Dual VGA Graphics card;2x 500GB SATA 7200RPM Hard Drive; 650W (2 x 12V) PSU; 2 x 1000GB + 1 x 150GB Western Digital External Hard Drive;CH Pro Yoke and PedalsAll helping to power 338GB of fs9!}