Normally I'm waiting at the door at EB the day a new FS version is released. Judging though by that video that was just released, which I wasn't impressed with at all, and the quality of FS2004 with it's addons. I think I'm going to hold off this time to see what others think of it. If I do get it of course it will be the Professional version!

FS9 with my addons looks and feels great, and it will stay on my pc even after I've installed FSX on a separate hard drive. As the addons I've got for FS9 are adapted for FSX I'll gradually move them accross and at a certain critical point FS9 will go, but not until I can run FSNav, ActiveSky, Active Camera, FShotsfx, FE (FE clouds still look way better than FSX defaults), possibly GEpro, UK2000 sceneries, Cloud 9 sceneries, a variety of meshes, Aeroworx B200, Flight1 ATR72, PMDG 737NG series (or their new promised version)LDS 767 etc etc. So I'll be running both for a year at least I anticipate. With large capacity hard drives at good prices these days, this approach seems the ideal solution to the problem.

....and lets hope FSX finally rids us of that *horrible* desert landscape in FS9...you know...the leopards-spots terrain http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/fragend/...-smiley-004.gif

>....and lets hope FSX finally rids us of that *horrible*>desert landscape in FS9...you know...the leopards-spots>terrain If I remember correctly the dreaded leopard-spots textures appeared two versions ago, in FS2002. I couldn't believe how ugly it looked in the pre-release screenshots. My guess is that it was designed to look realistic from high altitude, but from low altitude it looks completely bizarre and quite horrible (for this reason I made a small set of my own textures). Fortunately I haven't seen this in any FSX screenshots, so with a bit of luck the leopard has been pensioned off! Just another reason why I look forward to FSX. The textures are also higher resolution, which I regard as one of the most important new features. Best regards, Chris

My answer would be no at this point in time. That's because I'm very content with FS2002. That said, just about one week ago I've decided to move to FS2004 now that all the patches and payware/freeware packages are available and working. I'll most likely keep FS2004 for a very long time because FSX is being fine tuned to run on "Vista" and I'm not ready to buy "Vista" when it's released. It's funny, but I've shocked some people when I mentioned that I'm just now moving to FS2004.. You can read that hear: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...&mesg_id=323103

I'll probably wait for a few reasons:1) Generally, I've found that when I move up in FS versions I also need to upgrade computing power; not quite there yet especially with the wife examining expenses ;-) This will also give time for Vista bugs to be worked out as well as FS's.2) Let the add-ons develop. I really do appreciate all those who jump right in with the new FS and the latest add-ons. You are way braver than I am and also help work out the rough edges.3) I'm not bored with FS9 right now, but can see getting itchy in about a year's time. Next summer, if a new computer arrives, I'll be making the switch to FSX Mike

Why switch?? ; finally proper use of gpu. No more repeating textures, space flight & textures, better landclass, living airports, higher res, more voice accents, better looking default planes...and with more news to come I'm already creating disk space....haven't touched fs9 for months now.

I've worked quite a bit on scenery myself to add the landmarks I fly by and the airports to which I fly. But really, most of the enjoyment I get out of FS is procedures, and learning the operating parameters of planes I have never flown (and probably never will).FS9 will probably be around for a while with me, but if FSX runs on my computers as is, I will probably be moving on. As I understand it, many of the addons I use today will install in FSX. If they don't have all the FSX features, well, they didn't have them in FS9 either. I won't be losing much I imagine.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

I wouldn't hold your breath. More features means more performance cost. I could be wrong, but I'm imagining frame rates may improve a little, but I'm thinking if you want the frosting, they'll be about the same.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

No. Not any more. Bring on FSX!

Add to that the missions, improved weather effects including cloud shadows and the directx10 graphics and performance and it will be great. Not many disapointments though I would like see the traffic on the country roads, but that aint going to happen.

if they are really taking advantage of next-gen graphics processors, that means better framerates

There are currently no nexgen graphics boards available, and their features won't be available 'till Vista is available, which isn't expected till next year.Personnally, I'll be very surprised if there is any "huge" performance gain due to DX10. I've heard 8x this and 10x this. I won't believe it till somebody sees it in FSX. Those numbers are pure fiction at the moment as there is, as far as I know, STILL no hardware to watch it perform on. And I assume the numbers are based on a feature by feature basis, as opposed to how the whole system will perform, including CPU and memory. Yes, FSX is supposed to take "better" advantage of the GPU, but it's still going to be CPU bound.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

I'll run them side by side for a while. It's due out in October (according to Amazon.com)and I'll upgrade the PC to a new box in 2007. FS04 suits my PC now and runs everything (addons, scenery, etc) with no major issues.

Hmm, I'll bet it'll be one of the first addons.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)