Correct, flight sim is the most CPU hungry game out there! Here's some more info from the DX10 fact sheet:New features in DirectX 10 maximize the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU), allowing games to more efficiently use powerful modern video cards to their fullest potential, while freeing up the central processing unit (CPU) for improved artificial intelligence in games and bigger game worlds. Shader Model 4.0 includes a stringent specification designed to simplify development, with features such as 32-bit color depth precision. Support for longer unified shaders creates more flexibility for developers and allows programmers to use the GPU for features such as physics calculations and audio processing. The features in Shader Model 4.0 make DirectX 10 more effective for audiences such as CAD/CAM designers or creators of Hollywood special effects. Improved scheduling means that developers can implement high-quality streaming video within applications, with better memory management. Geometry shaders allow developers to move beyond simple vertex operations and implement features such as soft, realistic shadows for every character and more realistic facial animation. Developers can manipulate complex primitives, creating operations on complete triangles instead of just vertex points. Developers can crank up the fur, fin and fire effects without slowing down frame-rates, resulting in applications with more realistic animations. Streaming operations allow programmers to add more detail without having to re-render the entire pipeline.

Unfortunately, there is no DirectX 10 hardware out there, so MS can't yet utilize it for FSX. That is probably why FSX won't be a DirectX 10 based product. The question remains is that will we have to wait for FSXI for such technology to be implimented, or will a patch be available over the internet to enable us to have a DirectX 10 version of FSX?RH

>>At the end of the day your *perception* of performance will be>a function of what you ask your computer to do (via content>and settings) and what it can adequately handle. This is true>of all computer programs. Flight Sim provides you so many ways>to overtax your machine that many people simply loose sight of>this as they tweak and experiment trying to discover the>hidden secret of unlimited frame rates. Ask Ponce de Leon>about his similar pursuit. ;)>I use FS since FS 95.The best performance in the history of Microsoft FS was FS98 When Microsoft released FS98 I went to shop and build computer with the best motherboard, and processor etcNo problem with performance - , excellent Since FS2000 we started to see new terminology on forums ---stuttering People where buying the best machines and had problems with running without stuttering The general question to Microsoft .....Is FX 10 will run very smooth with sliders to the maximum without any add-ons using the best computer with most recent components?What was easy to notice that the best thing to do was always wait about 8 months after Microsoft released the FS and buy the most recent chip and mobo etc.But

> Unfortunately, there is no DirectX 10 hardware out there, so MS can't yet utilize it for FSX.Sorry thats wrong. The DX10 software interfaces are already defined, so it is possible to develop the code now for DX10 hardware. When the cards become available then it can be tested.

Neither would amazing scenery running at 6 fps.;-)

True, but the several seconds per frame performance of the software rasterizer make development exceeding painful. If we were a Vista-only game we might consider it but it doesn't make sense to waste devs time when they could be coding DX9 features for both WinXP and Vista.

I wouldn't be so sure. We are on version 10, after all. ;)

>>while now. It is quite acceptable to expect some>improvements>>in an updated version of a consumer product. >>Your expectations should be directed at hardware>manufacturers, they are the ones that will give you better>FPS.>Although the hardware manufacturers and add-on developers do play an important role in this, they alone cannot provide for better FPS. During the development time of a program, (years in some cases), developers make use of existing platforms available at a specific point in time. I think the problem lies in the feasibility of synchronizing the efforts of both hardware and software developers. >>edge technology that is available to us today. I would like>to>>meet at a halfway point by taking full advantage of today

>internet download, ONE FINAL update for purchase within the>first year of shipment. That would perhaps be helpful in>providing a time window in which to iron out hardware issues.Again, you are assuming that such update could change something for those with the latest hardware. I personally don't think it is the case. Once an FS?? is released it may very well be optimized for the next 2-3 years and whatever hardware upgrades happen in the interim may be of little consequence. Well written software can adjust itself to more memory, higher AGP bandwith, etc.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

:-xxrotflmaoThomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's

It's more likely that whatever it would take to "take advantage" would be too significant for an update. Keep in mind that shipping any sort of update takes people away from working on the next version.

Um maybe its time to read the FAQ again or watch the videos from CES at Gamespot. Theres some guy there talking up FSX running on next gen hardware and DX10 :) Thats the one we are waiting for.

Um, that's me. ;)

Yep we know, thats my point :)

Plural of forum.