Hi allOn a swedish site mentioned by Staffan in this post:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&mesg_id=294631it says that Windows Vista will rely much more on the processing power of the graphics hardware by transferring processing from the CPU. This would be nice for fs9 (knowing nothing about x factor) since it is so CPU heavy. So, we could have a megafast fs9 and play with the sliders with just-barely equipment on Vista!! (If we can't run x still, like we all want, of course! Phew, whenever I meet just barely for Vista ..)-Happy New Years!-dasher7

Depends on if the sim itself needs to have special programming to take advantage of what is coded within Vista to make this happen, kinda like SLI which doesn't do anything for FS9. Also with newer versions of DirectX, you can lose some functionality that was needed for earlier games/sims that you got with earlier DX versions. I find that CFS2 which is over 5 years old doesn't do all that well on my nw XP pro rig with DX9c.I am looking forward to Vista though (and all it's security fixes, LOL) it'll be the way to take full advantage of 64 bit processing.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Great, looks like another computer upgrade. Sheeesh!

>On a swedish site mentioned by Staffan in this post:>it says that Windows Vista will rely much more on the>processing power of the graphics hardware by transferring>processing from the CPU. >Personaly I think it has little to do with the operating system but with the game itself. It is the FS10 that will need to offload more processing to the video card.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

>it says that Windows Vista will rely much more on the>processing power of the graphics hardware by transferring>processing from the CPU. As mentioned above, it DOES depend on the game....Vista will use your 3D card more for it's ~actual interface~ - the windows you see on your screen right now will be 3D accelerated, enabling the OS to perform some neat-o tricks like opacity, lens effects, and all sorts of other eye-candy rendering tricks to make the OS work for you. Have you seen the Mac OS recently? Think along those lines... It's good stuff! Once you get into a game, the game take over - it will be up to the FS-X programmers to offload some calculations to the GPU. FS9 will run pretty much the same in Vista as it does in XP, 2000, or 98 right now. I think the PC Gamer article commbined Windows Vista and DirectX 10 into one mutually exclusive bunch. When DX10 is released (*for WinXP and WinVista), I wager dollars to doughnuts that they will perform just about the same. -Greg

Just for informational purposes.....I have a friend who got Windows Vista Beta 1 through his MSDN subscription, and we installed FS2004 on it, just to see what would happen. It didn't run, at all. The screen went blank for a second, then we got kicked back to the desktop.I wouldn't take that too seriously, though. Microsoft themselves have said that current software that wouldn't run in Beta 1 should run in Beta 2. I was just disappointed that I didn't get to see FS2004 in action on Vista.

I just pulled down the 64-bit Vista December CTP DVD ISO image from my MSDN subscription. I'm going to install it dual-boot on my home theater PC and see how FS2004 does on it.I believe the problem you were having with FS2004 on Vista was not actually related to Vista, but to the IE7 Beta. I run IE7 Beta on XP Media Center Edition, and in order to get FS2004 to not drop out after the splash screen, I had to follow the instructions from this blog post: http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/200.../15/493252.aspxIt worked like a charm on my XP MCE so I think it should also work on Vista.Anyway, it'll probably take me a few more hours to get my system rebuilt and up and running with Vista. I'm interested to find out how FS2004 performs with all of the updated and refactored kernel code and new optimizations, and maybe it will also make better use of my dual core cpu. I just bought 2 SATA hard drives to use in RAID 0, I'm hoping this will speed up load times even more.Joe

Joe,Please keep us up-dated on this, as I find this very interesting.a few pics of the Vista screens etc would be great as well if you don't mind.many thanks,

Well its 5:30AM local time and I've been up all night working on this. Vista is still installing. Took me hours to diagnose a motherboard problem. Unfortunately I can't try it using RAID 0 as the Vista installer wouldn't load the drivers. But I suppose going from IDE to SATA I should still see an improvement in load times.Progress bar only at 50% and its been installing for an hour now...

Well two things:1 - Running FS9 on Vista will do absolutely nothing for your performance. FS9 is NOT optimized to take advantage of Vista's new graphics performance features in the new kernel. At the end of the day, you will have to get FSX AND Vista to experience the new performance optimizations. DX-10 doesn't magicially transform current games from CPU intensive to VPU intensive because the calls within the program to use those resources are part of the program.2 - I am a MSDN Universal member and have the December CTP for Vista. FS9 doesn't run on it. It did not run on the prior CTP or Beta 1 either. I've tried on both the 32-bit as well as teh 64-bit versions. The Dec Vista CTP is still not optimized and is still missing many critical hooks and components. While nice to play with, Vista is not to be taken seriously until the RCs start appearing at the end of Q2.

Imoz: The 64-bit version of Dec CTP for Vista is missing a LOT of 64-bit drivers! You'd do better to install the 32-bit version which is more compatible otherwise you will find that everything from your RAID to Mobo chipsets, etc won't work properly. I've yet to get the 64-bit version to install and recognize all of my drivers. AND, it won't work with FS9 anyway :-) (in case you want to save some time and effort)