Sorry if I've missed this topic previously....I had the pleasure (and great opportunity) to spend several hours flying the Boeing 777 and 747 Level D simulators at UAL's training center recently. One of the huge differences between FS9 and the "real thing" is that the scenery, while in general is less detailed than that with add-on packages for Flight Simulator, presents the airport -- runways, VASI, approach lighting, etc. as rock solid. When you think about it, that's really what's important for a pilot -- being able to land, not whether the bay at KSFO has whitecaps on the water. Which leads me to suggest possibly a priority setting in FSX? If graphics requirements are really high, use a setting to shed the "eye candy" but keep the airport top quality if you are interested in flight training. Maybe in FSX one can select low resolution default scenery but high resolution airports to eliminate the artifacts that we've all seen in FS9, but....Thoughts?

Jon, I hear what you're saying but you might feel better at home with Elite:http://www.flyelite.com/software.php?product_id=5http://www.flyelite.com/images/screens/seneca.jpgCarmine http://forums.avsim.net/images/wave.gifhttp://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7118/phoenixtp8mg.jpg

Actually, Tdragger from MS made a comment that there was the ability to tweak performance in FS10 by changing some parameters while IN the sim, not having to go to the menu bar. This is a nice feature, but I havent read nor heard anymore of it lately.

I reckon DX10 will make complex FSX airports have fast FPS and no popups.