My PC was built by MicroPro in Cleveland using the components I specified. MicroPro is now out-of-business. I have since upgraded the memory and processor myself. I have been buying from NewEgg based on their speed of shipping and price.My first high-end computer was built by AlienWare. Their customer service was pretty good although there could be long waits on hold. They were very good about RMA's, etc. My only problem was that if you needed to send in your system, it was probably a 10-day turnaround -- I am in Ohio, they are in Florida. I have no recent experience with them, however. You can order AleinWare through Best Buy, too.I have good contacts to keep me updated on what's happening with components, etc.

AbeIf you can wait about six months (hopefully less) for the PCI Express bus and next generation of graphics accelerators you'll be able to put together a system thats much faster than could be built today for about the same price. In the mean time it wouldn't cost much to upgrade your motherboard, CPU, and RAM to tide you over. Thats what I did and rarely get less than 20 FPS. It usually sits at thirty where I have it locked. David

Abe,I'll give you my 2 cents worth. I am using a home built system. XP1900 overclocked a bit, 512RAM, Win 98SE, ATI 9800XT. Using FSW clouds 30 mile draw distance, 150 mile sight distance, 100% 3D, cloud coverage maximum, all other sliders on max right, 100% AI traffic with thousands of PAI flights added, I get 20's on the ground and 40's in the air. This is also using Active Sky 2004 at the same time.

Appreciate the input. The original question or title post was to get everyone's attention. Looks like I did. Now the simple question I have put forth is being answered. I do appreciate it. I really dont care what it costs. I just want a system that will run the best that it can. I can wait for PCI-EXPRESS. I was thinking about that aspect of my project. I sim online with VATSIM. I dont care for AI and ATC. So, it looks like no one out there has a DUAL processor rig." Yeah, yeah, I understand that it doesn't matter." However, I was hoping for some results from that area also. The bottom line is I appreciate the input. I am narrowing down my system design. Thank you.I dont know if you folks have seen this but check it out.inmotionsimulations.com

Awesome. I think in your set-up its the Video Card. I have noticed the ATI 9800XT is posting some awesome specs here. Thanks

Alienware customer service is absolutely top notch. If the smallest thing goes wrong, they can't get a guy out quick enough for you. 24/7/365 Support.

XTra,Wow, that's some fast rig you have there! Those P4EE are nice but very expensive! Someday I hope MS will optimize the code for dual 64-bit CPU systems.Cheers!David

Does anyone know what system specs Microsoft used to demonstrate FS9 during the pre-release hype?I would assume the system they used was optimized to show the best performance of the sim.It would be great to know what those specs were.Scott :-)

Turning off your vid cards anti aliasing will probably produce the desired frame rates across the board on a top end system.If I'm not taking screenshots I turn it off and on my system at 1600x1200 screen res I'm getting fantastic performance on my aging system. Since I'm in the cockpit I don't notice any jaggies on the planes or buildings. Doesn't affect the clouds appearance and actually it's the only way I can fly through very dense FS9 clouds and still run smoothly.Try it you'll be surprised!P4 1.4GF4Ti 4200 128 mb512 mb pc800 rdramsoundblaster soundwinxp

>Whoa,>>Michael, there is one thing I have come to dislike since the>beginning of the internet revolution. And that is RUDE message>board replies. The correct response should have been. ">Abepilotdoc, FS9 does not take into advantage dual processors>or Hyperthreading.">>Now, Let me explain why I stated the question the way I did. I>remember reading the original AVSIM.com, FLIGHTSIM.com reviews>stating that the code was written to take advantage of HT>technology. >>I am politely asking for people to post their FPS rates or>their experiance using DUAL Processor Systems with FS2004.>>Thank you for your cooperation.>>ABE PILOT DOCNever read the reviews without also searching the forums in detail. This has been covered on several occasions and in each the simple, plain conclusion is that dual processing (anf the much-vaunted but utterly irrelevant hyperthreading)is not supported. You would be better off waiting 6 months and buying a mid-range 64-bit chip, with suitable mobo, top of the line graphics card and a decent sound card.But not yet.Allcott

Dr...from a 3rd doc to the other 2, don't we docs get downright arrogant about our profession...I mean...look at your reference to your profession during a flight sim thread...almost like you think what we do for a living is relevant! LOLdoc bob

If I remeber correctly when I saw this around the launch (last July) they were running 3.0Ghz machines with 1GB RAM, WinXP and either nVidia 4800ti's or early FX cards with 64 or 128MB RAM. If you ask any of the folks on the team they'll tell you they use anything from 1.8Ghz to 2.8GHz machines and a variety of video cards from GeForce 3's to ATI 9000-class ones to develop on. Very few people on the team are lucky enough to have really high-end machines and any are still running ~1 GHz/GeForce MX combos.

:-xxrotflmao

>If a mid-range computer is struggling to get 8 FPS,>a high-end computer that's 25% faster and costs 300% more will>also struggle.Say it, brother Jimmi!:-beerchugIMO, unless you have money to burn (and some people do), it is best to shoot for about 80% on the hardware scale (relatively speaking) for the larget bang for you buck. Aside from benchmark junkies, I doubt the average user would see a whole lot of difference between the 80% system and 100% system.Right now, I see that as approximately:AMD 2.5 XP (Barton) ($90)ASUS (or Abit) mainboard ($110)Two sticks (512 mb) of pc2700 DDR RAM (160.00)Radeon 9800 Pro ($200) (Newegg $212 (today) Compusa 200 (+rebates)Total: 572.00And I bet it could hand with just about any system out there performance wise. >I currently have, since almost 1.5 years ago:>AthlonXP 2400+ @ 2.2 GHz, Epox 8RDA+ @ 183 MHz FSB, 512MB RAM,>Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB, 160GB Maxtor, 120GB WD.Heh, about 1.5 years ago this WAS the top of the line system ;-)

I don't think I'm arrogant about my profession. For all you can tell from my user name is that it is drdickie. How about Donald Raymond Dickie instead?I don't think you added much to the discussion and this reply doesn't either so lets keep it "relevant".