we don't have a Vista OS based machine running the latest DX10 vid card. I see it repeated often that FSx is "optimised" for these - but also stated that it will run on existing machines. Seeing as how most of our existing machines are running XP as the OS and most have either DX8 or DX9 vid cards, I am wondering just what "exactly" will be dependent on Vista and DX10.Personally, I have reached a stage where my machine does everything I need it to do - including running FS9 just fine. I really can't see me having the need to build a complete new machine including a new OS for a couple of thousand dollars just to gain some unspecified (at this time)benefits of FXs.I guess I will just have to wait and see - I am quite happy to purchase the new Sim as I am sure it will be an evolutionary improvement over FS9 - but not a new machine with a new untested OS. Any ideas?Barry

Instead of building a new machine, couldnt you dual boot XP/Vista and just get a new video card?

Well, err, not really!The point is that FSx will apparently run on existing XP based machines with current DirectX compliant vid cards. Both Vista and DirectX cards won't appear for quite some time yet. It seems to me that ,by the time these are out and stable, with all bugs fixed (and we DO know about bugs ,don't we?), it will be just about time for a new version of FS.Anyway, I am still asking the question - what will we specifically NOT get with FSx using current systems. Barry

At IFC Denver the MS guys were "suggesting" that with DX10 will have far move vivid graphics but they also talked about using video cards with "many times the power of your current cards".I suspect we will all try it under DX9 on XP and how much we want to move to Vista & DX10 will require some complex math...How great the screenies look divided by how much money can I slip out of the household budget without the wife going ballistic equals can I get there from here. ;)

There's not much doubt about the graphical improvements seen in DX10 games.Take a search around for some videos of "Crysis". It's a game that's being developed from the guys who made Far Cry, and some of the clips moving around the internet are absolutely astounding.But that's what you are going to get. Better graphics. Probably denser, more reactive environments.Better particle, lighting and shader effects.

I just spend half a day looking into what will come with FSX by scouring the ACES Blogs. Here's what I've learned regarding Vista, DX10 and FSX by reading those blogs:1) Vista is not *necessary* to run FSX, period.2) The one big thing that Vista supports that XP does not is DX10.3) The big difference that DX10 brings to the table is Shader 4.04) There is NO video card in existence, not even a prototype, that really takes advantage of Shader 4.0!!!!!!!!!!!5) The above means that you can get the same graphics you see in FSX screenshots while running XP.So what's the difference, *really*???Video RAM... gobs and gobs of it!!!!FSX will be making a lot more use of the video card's GPU, even under DX9, and this means that the GPU will be ravenously hungry for RAM. I read one post where testers had run FSX at high detail settings and ran out of Vid RAM on high end 256 cards. Video card manufacturers have done a great job of making GPU's a practical, and useful, reality... as software begins to make use of this ability, we'll see more and more cards with larger amounts of on-board RAM.Other things that Vista will do?FS9 and FSX are both nulti-threaded. This means that threads can be assigned to individual processors in dual processor machines... which is really what a dual core machine is. XP can do this now but Vista will do it better and faster.However, if you don't have a dual core processor then you may not notice. There may be other areas where Vista will improve performance, but I'm mainly hearing a lot about DX10 / Shader 4.0 and improved multi-thread suport.Long and short version: Until video cards that can support Shader 4.0 come out then I'll be placing my emphasys on Video RAM, Sys RAM and a butt kicking processor... and staying with DX9 on XP.Vista's day *is* coming... but it's not around the corner just yet. The hardware needs to catch up. Funny, usually it's the other way around.Scott / Vorlin

And rest assured..Nvidia and ATI will not let *gamers* wait too long once Vista is out (hopefully Jan 07)

> 3) The big difference that DX10 brings to the table is Shader 4.0Part of this is the new 'geometry shader' which will allow animations (ie. waves) to run properly without killing your system. > 4) There is NO video card in existence, not even a prototype, that really takes advantage of Shader 4.0!!!!!!!!!!!Actually one of the readers on the other forum claimed to be testing a DX10 card with FS9 amd posted screenshots.> FS9 and FSX are both nulti-threaded.FS9 is not multi threaded, but FSX apparently will be. If the code is optimized for DX10 (with the patch) then having multi core may not make much difference anyway. Why? The CPU will be needed alot Less, and the graphics card alot more.

>> 4) There is NO video card in existence, not even a>prototype, that really takes advantage of Shader>4.0!!!!!!!!!!!>>Actually one of the readers on the other forum claimed to be>testing a DX10 card with FS9 amd posted screenshots.>And as with people claiming to be beta testers for FS versions you can rest assured that the real testers are not talking because they're under strict NDAs.>> FS9 and FSX are both nulti-threaded.>>FS9 is not multi threaded, but FSX apparently will be. >It is multithreaded, but not multiprocessor/multicore capable.

From my reading, the dx10 chips have only recently taped out. They might now be in pre-production at the chip plants. August is the expected timeframe for first prototypes of both the the R600 (ATI) and G80 (Nvidia) cards. Maybe the MS DX10 team will see cards soon therafter, ACES will un doubtedly be in the first wafe of developers after that- with mature silicon and cards. That's Sept. or so.I suspect that the cards are due in retail around January, but that laregely depens on Vista's launch. Who'll buy before thre is any DX10 software out there?Tim

DX10 = bump mapping and better performance than DX9...What you won't get in DX9 is bump mapping, better than DX9 frame rates, and a few more things. There is a good article around about DX10 and I've seen pics (of other proggies) with motion blur, basic 3D mesh models with extra detail extruded through the use of bump maps and much more...http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1982034,00.aspHope the above artcile helps

There is no reason you can't have bump mapping with DX9, most other titles have it and I am pretty sure you can see it in some of the shots. from what Jason (MSFS) has said, there is still a lot of life left in DX9 that hasn't been tapped into yet. Look at the link you posted, it states the Crysis shots that we are all ohhing and ahhing about are indeed DX9.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

How does anyone KNOW what FSX will be like with this 'shader 4' technology, if it can only be run on cards which don't yet exist? How is all of this tested? Rick

>How does anyone KNOW what FSX will be like with this 'shader>4' technology, if it can only be run on cards which don't yet>exist? How is all of this tested? It is tested using "software rendering," i.e., a software routine that replicates the DX10 Shader 4.0 effects. We're talking frames-per-minute though, nothing that's usable in real time... ;)

"How great the screenies look divided by how much money can I slip out of the household budget without the wife going ballistic equals can I get there from here."That's what it all boils down to; I'm with you on that one man!RH