I don't think you can run FS9 with all sliders maxed and get 20 fps at the airports you mentioned.:) I am surprised at the number of simmers who do not understand that any simulation (non engineering model) is built upon compromises and assumptions. FS9 is an amazing accomplishment and FSX will be better. I wonder if they ever just fly the darn airplanes or just tweak all the time? LOL.Bob...

>I don't think you can run FS9 with all sliders maxed and get>20 fps at the airports you mentioned.:)I do with no weather. I run a 4800+/2 gig Corsair/850XTPE 256 and FS9 does very well, have it locked at 30 and only goes down in real weather.I am one of those that installs a version or the demo and cranks it all full, since there is no other way to enjoy it. Each option I have to knock down a notch in FSX will be less of an enjoyment for me.I have concerns for FSX as well, since the demo runs a bit rough, BUT I'll wait till the final version to address my concerns. I have left FS for periods of time out of sheer frustration, when I have intense games such as BF2, DOOM3, Ghost Recon that default to the highest settings and I have to compromise with FS, just ain't right.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/ambanner.jpg

well the thing that disappoints me on the DEMO is that an ATI x1900XT cannot handle the Graphics of FS:X i get smooth frames in FS9 with max custom AI. but on FSX all sliders maxed out 6fps ... common guys.. if thats what Microsoft is gonna present us everyone needs to upgrade their computers to have at least a decent flying experience..and setting autogen to 0 doesnt make the entire situation any better..i mean having one of the fastes graphic cards available atm and beeing not able to have at least some sort of enjoyment at the FSX demo is imo not what i thought.I mean FSX looks real nice but what interests me most is which computer they used to capture the videos they did...one suggestion Dells Quad Sli system.. but paying that much money for all sliders at max cant be it.or its just a lack of driver support by the demo.Microsoft definatly needs to work on the performance of FSX.as it doesnt really have a lot more features than FS9 except for lightning, water and ground detail...the jump from FS2002 to 2004 wasnt this big FPS wise.imo FS9 runs even better than FS2002 but from CoF to FS X its like ages in performance although FSX supports DX10.

>>I don't think you can run FS9 with all sliders maxed and>get>>20 fps at the airports you mentioned.:)>>I do with no weather. I run a 4800+/2 gig Corsair/850XTPE 256>and FS9 does very well, have it locked at 30 and only goes>down in real weather.>>I am one of those that installs a version or the demo and>cranks it all full, since there is no other way to enjoy it.>Each option I have to knock down a notch in FSX will be less>of an enjoyment for me.>>I have concerns for FSX as well, since the demo runs a bit>rough, BUT I'll wait till the final version to address my>concerns. I have left FS for periods of time out of sheer>frustration, when I have intense games such as BF2, DOOM3,>Ghost Recon that default to the highest settings and I have to>compromise with FS, just ain't right.>>Regards, Michael>KDFW>>http://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/ambanner.jpgDitto!I just don't see the point in "Just tweak (lower) your graphics settings". Well, "tweaking" the graphics settings negates the purpose of FSX, which is to have better graphics then FS9. LOL Granted, the Demo is not optomized, but after it is optimized...will it really have that much more performance?I guess we'll just have to wait and see. :)

Here's an odd question, why are some arguing about FS9 like it's another companies software. Isn't FSX a progression of FS9? All the "I'm staying with FS9 and FSX looks like FS9?" seems counterproductive. I would hope FSX looks like FS9, FS9 can be a thing of beauty at times especially with the hard work of all the add-on developers.And as has been also stressed, is the question how good will FSX look after all these add-ons are ported over and enhanced? The base platform has been upgraded to allow for things not possible in FS9 and irregardless of how the demo works or whether it's XP or vista makes not one shred of difference. If someone buys it now or waits for Vista is there own personal decision and should not matter to anyone else. (unless they come blasting on the forum with arumentative, derogatory statements, in which case, your beggin for a response from somebody). For me, it's something new, it'll be a fresh start and from using the demo it looks like something I will be enjoying for the next couple years, as much as, if not more than FS9.Ian.

Now I'm really laughing. It wasn't two weeks ago that there were endless complaints about ACES updating nothing but the "eye-candy". Here we are with the demo now complaining that if you can't max the sliders, you can't look at all the "eye-candy". There just isn't really a balance, is there? It's a wonder that software developers aren't all alcoholics. :-rollAs for getting "slide shows", I'm running the demo just fine...minus the known bugs...with the sliders on or about high settings. The graphics look just fine to me, I feel it's an improvement on FS9, and I'll be glad to buy the full product on the release date. If you are still having hardware difficulties, you might want to check your setup and your system. Perhaps a reformat is in order, or a backround process is bogging down your system. If you still have trouble, it might just be time to upgrade your computer system. That's your decision to make. Hopefully it turns out to be a simple issue that you've overlooked, and you can correct it easily.-Ivan

>Here's an odd question, why are some arguing about FS9 like>it's another companies software. Isn't FSX a progression of>FS9? All the "I'm staying with FS9 and FSX looks like FS9?">seems counterproductive. I would hope FSX looks like FS9, FS9>can be a thing of beauty at times especially with the hard>work of all the add-on developers.What?Why would you hope an updated, supposedly graphically superior, product looks like it's predecessor? Of course there will be similaritites, but one of the MAJOR drawning points of FSX is the improved terrain, water, etc.. If hardly anybody can actually use these options, what's the point in FSX right now? FS9 is a thing of beauty. If we are required to make FSX look like FS9 in order to be able to run FSX well, why buy FSX?So far, FSX looks pretty darn close to FS9 with FE, GE, and FSG. That doesn't seem so new or fresh.I'm still looking forward to FSX, but not "quite" as much as I was before. I still have faith that the full version will come through performance wise and whatnot though (since the others have for me).

3 Years ago I Bought fs2004, was Impressed with changes from 2002It was a slide show , so I upgraded to the best PC at that timeResult was massive change in peformance smooth FPS and thats with all the payware and project AI could do:).FS2004 was transformed for me by buying a leading edge computer 1 week After I bought it.I hope the trend continuesJohn

Nice to see someone gets the picture. That is why I answered simply "no".

Well said and I'll second that.Randall