>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.html>>I don't know how you can resist upgrading.>>Mike.but fs won't take advantage of any of those. that's already been disclosed.

>I'm inclined to agree with the original poster not because of>concerns about performance - the FSX demo runs as well as FS9>on my AMD 3700+ system - but simply because I struggle to see>any significant value added if you have already invested>heavily in the many high quality addons available for FS9 (FE,>GEPro, ASV6, UT, PMDG 737/747, LDS 767, Carenado C206,>Dreamfleet Bonanza/Baron, VOZ, RC4 - the list goes on and on).> Unlike most previous product cycles, it has been three years>since the release of FS9 and the number and quality of 3rd>party addons has been much greater this time round. In fact>unless all these addons can be quickly ported to FSX at little>or no cost FSX would be a costly downgrade for me. I'm a bit>puzzled as to why MS released the demo as it came out much too>late in the development cycle for any feedback to lead to>new/changed features and as a marketing tool it falls short. >Maybe there is some killer feature lurking in FSX that has>escaped me or isn't included in the demo that will change my>mind so I will await with interest to see how the punters>react to the full FSX release for a final judgement.>>Brucebactually it runs horrible. you know the FS rule right? to get 18fps with aftermarket software, stock FS must run at about 80-100. so if your FSx runs as good as your loaded FS9, well divide that by 10 when you start pumping 3rd party into it.

>>>>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.Oh, right.I should stop trying to read this forum at work :(

:(

Yea its OK but hardly earth shattering when you already have FS9 with all the various scenery enhancement addons and high end aircraft. The only really dramtic visual change I can find in FSX are the new water textures which are very good except that, at least on my rig, they only display over a short radius before a sharp and ugly transition to lower res textures - see post 20 in this thread for a screenshot.Bruceb

>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.Like i said in my previous post, i run the matrox triplehead display system at 3840x1024 which requires MUCH more horsepower than the piddly 1280x1024 res that you probably run. This is the only reason why the game chugs for me. If i ran that scant 1280x1024 res then im sure my current machine would handle it just fine. Try the matrox setup and im sure youll see what im talking about.

Hi AstroDave I was reacting to NotaSenators post and not to you.Your setup sounds great its just that I would have some trouble sneaking that in under the watchful eye of missus 'Boshar'