It has all been said before...When Microsoft puts out a new version the active comunity gets divided. There are the ones who will stick with what they got and the ones who will que outside there local software store the night before the release. I have allways been a part of the later camp, eager too get my hands on the latest version and the latest development. By the time the new X version hits the market I have spent some 2500 USD or more on FS9, incl. graphiccards and adons. I have now come to the conclussion that getting to the top of the line with X will by a chance take me 12 month or more and what do i exactly get for spending an additional 2500 USD on that. Attached i have included a two pictures that should, at least, give you a hint on my subject.Mattias SjolundActive sience 1997...

PS...Attachment 1 is FS9Attachment 2 is FSX/m

You are exactly right, it has all been said before...hundreds of times in fact.

Crank up the settings for the FSX shot, mine looks different. So the point of your post is that you are not impressed with FSX? I don't understand the point of posts like this, kinda like boycotting the new product, makes no sense as you have a choice.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Quite the contrary...I like the invention of a new, or rather updated product and i am sure the team behind it has made a splendid job. I just made a simple statement that for me a new heavy personal investment is not worth while, again for me, due to the fact that i do not think I

It's the old chicken and egg arguement. Which comes first, the software, or the hardware to run it? It gets a little frustrating, but there seems to be no perfect answer. I tend to fall on the side of the fence that likes the fact that FS can be improved in appearance and operation as the hardware improves. I always embrace the new version even though it doesn't run as well as I like on my current machine. In the case of FSX, it appears that the current "state of the art" computer will satisfy more people than has been the case with previous versions. However, I'm guessing that a lot of casual buyers that read the minimum system requirements on the box will be quite disappointed in the apperance and performance. Most of them will not take the time to try tweaking for best results....but take a glance at the default settings and abandon it.

Juliana is "one" place. Compare EVERYTHING else FSX has to offer...moving traffic, birds, water (VFR flight), shadows, etc., etc., and there will be no comparison. Wait til you see the rest of the FSX world. I, for one, am looking forward to a new adventure. Stan

>In the>case of FSX, it appears that the current "state of the art">computer will satisfy more people than has been the case with>previous versions. How do you say that Arch? I can understand if you cannot pull all the sliders to the right with today's computers provided you can do that with what is expected a year or two from today.There is only multi cores in the horizon. The Processor speed (The brute force that MS FSim needs) seem to be in a plataeu. I have not heard that Intel or AMD is working on processors that would give a jump in raw speed the way it was in the past.To me, it looks like there is a divergence in the paths between H/W progress and Flight sim architecture. They don't seem to coincide.I am not blaming anyone..but just looking at the situation.1. No 64 bit processor support2. Negligible utilization of multi core processor or HT (other than what the OS can use)IF you take the fastest processor available today and you get 20FPS and you turn on a feature like "Bloom" effect and that takes 4 FPS off... Its very high price to pay. FPS is the currency with which we pay for addons. And there are no surplus currencies left.,,,even if you move the sliders to the position that looks like the default FS9.MannyPS: Payware vendors cannot consume any FPS at this situation. If the payware consumes as much as 2 FPS, it becomes a no go. Unless they build a product outside flight sim that runs on the second (or third of fourth) core taking processor cycle from that surplus.It would be interesting to hear the perspective from payware vendors on this. How do they plan to sell us a 747 when we only have a 3,500 feet runway at our home airport? ;)

Manny, How could you forget DX10? THATS the new flagship. Thats where FSX is flying to. It actually doesn't matter much about anything else. FS9 is going nowhere now. The all-new API will be the make-or-break of the product, not comparisons with a heavily tricked-up FS9. It's a MS API, supporting an MS product. It's a new yardstick for developers, it's a technology demonstrator. Actually, it's THE technology demonstrator. It will be a bigger upgrade than any previous patch, update or bug fix. It won't have great impact in the aftermarket for a while, simply because it takes time to come to terms with the potential, and then make it happen, but by then FS9 will be a distant memory anyway.And there is the plain and simple fact that payware vendors will not support product development for two different platforms. There's not enough money in the market. When the market goes FSX, the developers go FSX, which means the market goes FSX. Allcott

Aloctt,Maybe I am missing something here. What is DX10 going to do for FSX?I thought its going to make the textures and stuff like that look better. A far better water texture and what not.But the weak link in this chain right now, is the core process cycles with not only today's CPU's but also of the immediate future. Forget about CPUs 3 years from now. The Product life of a Flight sim seems to be 3 years. So what the CPU technology that is projected in a year or a year and half? Thats it.. Thats how far into the future you can pull from to rationalize anything. Its simple economics. The Flight sim architecture or just the nature of flight sim itself (not conducive for multile threads) does not mesh (no pun) with where Intel and AMD are going with their CPU architecture.Manny

>Manny, >>How could you forget DX10? >>THATS the new flagship. Thats where FSX is flying to. It>actually doesn't matter much about anything else. FS9 is going>nowhere now. The all-new API will be the make-or-break of the>product, not comparisons with a heavily tricked-up FS9. It's a>MS API, supporting an MS product. It's a new yardstick for>developers, it's a technology demonstrator. Actually, it's THE>technology demonstrator. It will be a bigger upgrade than any>previous patch, update or bug fix. It won't have great impact>in the aftermarket for a while, simply because it takes time>to come to terms with the potential, and then make it happen,>but by then FS9 will be a distant memory anyway.>>And there is the plain and simple fact that payware vendors>will not support product development for two different>platforms. There's not enough money in the market. When the>market goes FSX, the developers go FSX, which means the market>goes FSX. >>>>> >AllcottUhhh ... DX10 will make virtually no difference to FSX! Here's a quote from Tdragger:".... the issue has caused so much confusion over the past few months I wince when I see DX10 used. Wink Truth is we designed FSX for DX9 'cause that's all we had to work with. When DX10 cards are ready only then will be *start* thinking about what to do with them."FSX was designed for DX9. Unless they release a major patch there will be no significant improvements. BTW, those screenshots of FSX in DX10 were "artist impressions".

I love the pictures, Mattias, many thanks.Since you are flying in that area, could you please take a look at the difference between the FS 9 and FS X versions of: - Tortola - Jost Van Dyke - Virgin Gorda - St. Barts - Sabajust to name a few. I would be interested to know whether you notice any worthwhile changes.Best regards.Luis

I think, the main problem is that people compare screenshots made with a fully tweaked FS9 + major addons like AS, GE etc. with shots taken in a default FSX install.We all know what a big difference these add-ons can make in FS9 and for a really comparison we should either wait until these addons are available for FSX or compare current FSX shots with shots taken on a default FS9 install.

>>In the>>case of FSX, it appears that the current "state of the art">>computer will satisfy more people than has been the case>with>>previous versions. >>How do you say that Arch? I can understand if you cannot pull>all the sliders to the right with today's computers provided>you can do that with what is expected a year or two from>today.>Manny:Sorry...I could have stated it a little more clearly. My case is that most people with a good computer will be satisfied with FSX at the inception, as opposed to the hardware/software gap that existed with the release of previous versions. I certainly didn't mean to imply that any current system would give good results with the sliders pulled full right. I would define "satisfactory" for a new release as:1. FPS at a playable level.2. More features (Living World, Missions, etc.)3. Better visuals (Improved scenery and autogen..more detailed airports)Things like Bloom and max AI and Max autogen and max water might have to wait.All of that being said...I share your disappointment that your new system cannot completely crush FSX. I am still crossing my fingers that the right combination of hardware/software tweaks has not been discovered yet.

My thoughts EXACTLY! Another divergence, in H/W progress, that you should add to your list: No utilization of multi GPU units such as SLI or Cross-Fire! When I got FS9 about 3 years ago, there were computers that could run it nicely! And I bought one: a 3.4 ghz system with 9800 pro (2 months after FS9 was released). It allowed me to yank most sliders all the way to the right and still add Ultimate Traffic! As money was no object for me then, it isn't either now. But there is no hardware on the horrizon that allows the same for FSX! NONE whatsoever! ZIP! Let them bring 8 core CPUs and Quad-SLI. It won't do anything for FSX! And assume they DID bump the Conroe 6700's clock speed from 2.6 GHZ to 3.4 ghz. (That is a 30 percent increase in clock speed) Does one think, that, with all sliders to the right, in a dense area with lots of traffic, a 35% increase in clock speed would bump the FPS from a slide show of say 8 FPS to 20 FPS? (150% increase). I don't think so! I am begining to think that ACES miscalculated the direction and rate of hard ware advances!