Looks like FSX will be backward compatable.Just dropped a couple of 3D aircraft in from FS9 and provided I started from ST.Martin all OK.No sound though because I did'nt import the files.Shame about the time limit.I'm running Athlon 3200+ x64,2gig of ram,Radeon X1300 Pro 512mg on XP x64, maybe that helps.Gonna move to AM2 when "VISTA" finaly ships purely because of what the future holds,but the final of FSX should be fine on most peoples present rigs.Check out the link below.RE: "System Requirements". http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...oduct_info.html

As always, the system requirements are far below what's necessary to run the sim with any degree of detail. I strongly suspect anyone using less than a 3.0Ghz CPU, a very recent top-of-the-line DX9 video card, and 2GB of physical memory won't be "fine". But, of course, that depends on how one defines "fine". Time will tell...Doug

It's just because your system sux! :) Just kidding

Hi Doug,I think we've got to bear in mind its only the "DEMO" and only just going to BETA,have to wait and see what the tester's come up with.I remember trying to run the demo of Half Life2 on an old rig,no chance, but when the final shipped it ran (just).So live in hope.....JimP.S. We could always forget the SIM and get a PPL.I've heard the graphics are realy true to life :-)

>As always, the system requirements are far below what's>necessary to run the sim with any degree of detail.I take those minimum system specs as a blatant marketing lie.i.e. Get people to purchase FSX and then they are forced to upgrade their PCs. My system is way above those minimum specs and I can attest to the fact that it just doesn't cut it even with everything dumbed down. (FS9 runs just fine with mid settings)I cannot figure out how they expect it to work on an old graphics card with 32MB of VRAM.A 2GHz CPU, 1GB RAM and a decent graphics card (6000GT or higher) should be the minimum specs. Why won't they be more honest with the specs and let people know up front that their 3 or 4 year old PC won't cut it?Paul

Well this ugly transition. I think I have all settings maximised but if there is something I have left out that will fix this anomaly grateful to be put right.Bruceb

>I have a 3.6 Ghz CPU and Radeon X850 XT Platinum video card>and the performance of the demo is dismal. I certainly will>not buy a product with that performance. Given the recent info>on no upgrade to ATC and the current good performance of FS 9,>a great collection of add on aircraft and good scenery add ons>like GE Ground Enviromnent Pro, I really do not see any>compelling reason to upgrade to FS X.>>Gregjoin the club. the EXCLUSIVE CLUB. same boat mate, not even bothering with it. i can only imagine what will happen when i fire up the leveld or comparable product.

>Get the spyware off your system, defrag and see me in the>morning.What's your address? i can pump 50fps in fear or so.

I've got a 3.2 P4, 1 Gig RAM, and a Radeon 9550SE card, and I've had to move the sliders away to the left. I've had my rig coming up to two years now, but I'm planing on getting a Vista rig next year when the biz with the DX10 cards settles down a bit.Have a look at these prospective DX10 renderings:http://www.aerosoft-online.de/flusipilot/f...06/gc_2006.htmlI don't know how you can resist upgrading.Mike.

Yeah good luck running fsx in directx 10 mode with anything less than a cray and a geforce 9900. I currently have the same pc as the original poster of this thread which is a dell xps im assuming and the game runs pretty decent in single monitor mode. I have upgraded my pc to a 7900gt and a matrox triplehead video solution. I run my flightsim in 3840x1024 stretched across 3 screens for a 180 degree cockpit. The realism is amazing, but needless to say, you need a buff pc to pump out this res. The fsx demo runs like crap on my box at this res and honestly doesn't look that much better than fs9 does with FE, BEV, and the multitude of aircraft which i have purchased. I am planning on upgrading to a conroe and dx10 video card solution when they are released but i don't suspect that first gen dx10 hardware will be able to run this game in all its glory at the rez that i require.

>>Get the spyware off your system, defrag and see me in the>>morning.>>What's your address? i can pump 50fps in fear or so. I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here or why you are asking for my address, but it doesn't seem entirely appropriate.

I must have been born under a lucky star.I get a beautiful game at a solid 25fps locked on a much lesser system than a lot of the ones listed here.My only sacrifices right now are AI (air,land,sea...the air doesn't really seem to do much in the demo anyways), 2.x low water, which takes away the reflections and such, but still looks great, and autogen, which is bugged anyways. Everything else is cranked to max. Blurries are few and distant, and except for a few stutters in free spot view that don't happen anywhere else, it cruises like a dream.Like I said, I must be incredibly blessed.Athlong-in-the-tooth XP 24001GB DDR333 Dual Channel128MB Radeon 9600 Pro, casually overclockedMSI nForce2 motherboardonboard 5.1 sound300GB WD SATA 2 HDDXP Home with SP2 (obviously)

>>>Get the spyware off your system, defrag and see me in the>>>morning.>>>>What's your address? i can pump 50fps in fear or so. >>>I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here or why you are>asking for my address, but it doesn't seem entirely>appropriate.You told people to come se you in the morning, what do you expect haha.

So what add-ons do you use in FS9?My 2ndary machine (in never throw things out) has about the same spec you have and with the described settings FS-X will do 25 FPS but an equally butchered FS9 gives me 50 FPS solid and thats the room you need to use the realy good add-ons like PMDG, Level or large photo scenery which brings back the framerate to a modest but fluid 24 FPS.You can limit settings and get FS-X to run but thats it you run out of extra power needed by the better add-ons. The thing some of us agree on in this threat is that FS9 + addons feels beter then plain vanilla FS-X and at best the FS-X demo just can keep up (fps wise) with a fully loaded fs9.For us there seems to be no benefit.Simple test which FS-X needs to pass for me:When I turn down FS-X settings to FS-9 levels of details (my current FS9 settings)I need at the least a framerate equal to what I get in FS9.

>>>Get the spyware off your system, defrag and see me in the>>>morning.>>>>What's your address? i can pump 50fps in fear or so. >>>I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here or why you are>asking for my address, but it doesn't seem entirely>appropriate.your assumption that the badly coded game runs bad because our computers aren't up to spec is what i am stabbing you at. but feel free to backtrack now, it was expected.