This is a very interesting headline at CNN:http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/01/technology...dex.htm?cnn=yesImagine such technology applied to MSFS. Ten years ago, MSFS looked nothing like what we have today. Imagine ten years from now?No need for a long discussion--just wanted to note that our hobby exists in exciting times!-John

Sorry hear that John,I get 216495 by using FS2012 at night, in complete darkness and displaying only the altimeter.RegardsRussell Jourdain (NZL007/ZK-RHJ)P.S. Thanks for the link - I agree we are in exciting times.

>Sorry hear that John,>>I get 216495 by using FS2012 at night, in complete darkness>and displaying only the altimeter.>>Regards>>Russell Jourdain (NZL007/ZK-RHJ)>>P.S. Thanks for the link - I agree we are in exciting times.waaaaaaaaaaaaa.luk.i get baaaaaad frumess.plz dun buse.i liek the mullet thug.

"waaaaaaaaaaaaa.luk.i get baaaaaad frumess.plz dun buse.i liek the mullet thug."Eh?

Oh get serious. The computer 10 yrs from now will be able to run FS2004 at 133742 fps, but it will still only get 20 to 40 fps when running FS2016. While looking much nicer and having more features, the software will still be pushing the hardwares limits. That is the way it always has been, why would it be any different in the future.

That's why the thread's title reads "My fs9 only gets...."I guesstimate that an entry level machine using HP's technology--you know, the one per the minimum specs on the box, will only get 10-12 fps running FS2016. But simmers will say it's fluid, and they will tell us not to whine :)

Faster computer? I don't got to buy no stinkin' faster computer. Everything over 25 FPS is just wasted. Lock it down at 18 FPS. Anything in double digits is OK as long as it doesn't stutter. Why would anyone need a computer anyway? Especially a faster one. 640KB of RAM is enough for anybody. Time have sure changed...sigh...Doug