At this point,It look's like I will have to stay with CF9,This is insanity,I cannot afford $3000,00 for a new system. It look's like vista will be a bloated rotten dog,and you all expect fsx to run good on that?

Manny...I'm thinking about a strategy too. Here's mine.1. Buy a new Core 2 and pretty decent video card. Load it with both sims, and the add-on's for FS9 only. Fly as per desired, such as FS9 for landings, and FX for flying where stutters are not acceptable. Don't put too much money into this machine or add-on's.2. Wait for Vista and DX-10, and go strictly to FSX with another new but really "high-end" machine.3. Give the Core 2 to my wife, who while a computer junkie in general, is way less demanding for high end hardware. Her machine is getting a little old, and ready for a major crash at some point.4. Use my current machine for a back up for both of us until the Vista machine comes along.Bob (Las Cruces NM)

No-that isn't what I was saying.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Yes, it looks like I will also leave this rich man's hobby, because I will not settle for bland scenery and studders.I somehow have the feeling that we are being taken for a ride in a shell type game of incessant upgrading to get acceptable performance.I just can not deal with the cost and excessive time it takes to tweek any longer.I have spent too much time and money getting CF9 up to an acceptable standard,So this is it for me.

>Maybe at some point I'll take a screen shot of the skeleton>remains I'm left with once I can get off the ground without>juttering to death.There's no need for a screen shot, simply save your current configuration and post here. Here is one of my 'test' configurations. I'm currently getting a solid 20fps with these:[GRAPHICS]TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=512NUM_LIGHTS=8AIRCRAFT_SHADOWS=1AIRCRAFT_REFLECTIONS=1COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=1LANDING_LIGHTS=1AC_SELF_SHADOW=1EFFECTS_QUALITY=2GROUND_SHADOWS=0[sCENERY]LENSFLARE=0DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=3[DISPLAY]BLOOM_EFFECTS=0SKINNED_ANIMATIONS=1TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=80UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=20[PANELS]QUICKTIPS=1PANEL_OPACITY=100[TERRAIN]LOD_RADIUS=3.500000MESH_COMPLEXITY=70MESH_RESOLUTION=19TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=24AUTOGEN_DENSITY=2DETAIL_TEXTURE=1WATER_EFFECTS=3[WEATHER]CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=3DETAILED_CLOUDS=1CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=6THERMAL_VISUALS=0DownloadWindsAloft=1DisableTurbulence=0[TrafficManager]AirlineDensity=10GADensity=10FreewayDensity=10ShipsAndFerriesDensity=30LeisureBoatsDensity=30IFROnly=0AIRPORT_SCENERY_DENSITY=2

>Manny...>>I'm thinking about a strategy too. Here's mine.>>1. Buy a new Core 2 and pretty decent video card. Load it>with both sims, and the add-on's for FS9 only. Fly as per>desired, such as FS9 for landings, and FX for flying where>stutters are not acceptable. Don't put too much money into>this machine or add-on's.>2. Wait for Vista and DX-10, and go strictly to FSX with>another new but really "high-end" machine.>3. Give the Core 2 to my wife, who while a computer junkie in>general, is way less demanding for high end hardware. Her>machine is getting a little old, and ready for a major crash>at some point.>4. Use my current machine for a back up for both of us until>the Vista machine comes along.>>>Bob (Las Cruces NM)>>Everything looks good Bob except Item 2. "new but really "high-end" machine".Which one do you have on mind? :(Manny

Yup.. It is getting to be a Rich persons hobby. When you have to spend $3000 every year or every two years. Its not a joke.I can see that.And FS9 with addons is far far superior to FSX dumbed down. FSX was to be eyecandy. FSX dumbed down is not worth it. When you can fly FS9+Addons.FSX on a hot shot machine is very good. Far better than FS9. FSX + AI + fly tampa's airports + PMDG 747.... No clue..what machine would run that.Manny

Jerry, theres a huge difference between FSX and the demo version since the demo contains about 90% water. When you load FSX at a city location your fps will be cut by at least 60%. My machine is about 1 year old: AMD dual core, 7800gtx, corsair ram etc, but FSX makes a total mockery out of it! Even with the sliders scaled back I can't get more than 8 or 9 fps flying over cities - so I am reduced to bush flying. Although I have a slideshow feature in my camera, I don't need it in flight sim!

For me! It's better and very enjoyable.I get higher frames rates and so on and so forth.No complaints for me.

> If you have been flying since the commodore 64 (as I also have) then you must remember at maximum you got 1-2 fps on fs1Every flight sim ran at 2 fps back then, but now its 20 years later. I have a dual core with 7800 gtx and flight sims like Lomac or Pacific Fighters run perfectly. In FSX I can get 5-8 fps!!! This is the problem.

I'd have to agree with payware being a waste of money with fsx, atleast until the hardware is available and somewhat affordable to run fsx well at default.Andrew

I'm with you JS. I'll buy FSX but I won't spend one dollar on hardware. If I can't run it, fine. Then I'll stick with FS9. I've had a bad feeling about the direction MS took with FSX for months now and what I've read in the past couple of days just reinforces that feeling. I've bought new hardware for every release of MSFS since FS95 and I'm not going through all that again. And I refuse to spend all my available time tweaking instead of flying. I'm not quite to the point that Bob finally got to but I'm close. Just one more push from MS and I think I'm done too.DougP4 3.2E @ 3.680 (1.385 vCore - 230 FSB)Asus P4C800-E Deluxe (BIOS 1019)2 x 512MB Corsair TWINX CXM3700 (3-4-4-8)1.5 TB of WD HDDATI X850XT PEA-Open 1648 AAP RipperPlextor 708A WriterEnermax 431W PSUInwin CaseEdited 'cause I can't spel

I have a hunch Vista and/or DX-10 will initially be late and/or initially flawed. Also DX-10 cards may be "off the charts" price wise at the start. So I think we may be a year or more out before a choice has to be made. AMD prices are in a total free fall right now (see tigerdirect.com). They can't stand that for very long and survive. I'm hoping they will "blow the socks off" Intel again by then, or Intel we be more cautious this time in falling so badly behind.That is the way I will probably play it.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

Back in the day I bought FS2000 as a first timer that wanted to get into flight simming. I had a pretty hot rig at the time and it never even entered my mind that it wouldn't run the game. Well I installed FS2000 and loaded up a flight and got like 15fps and my jaw hit the floor in disgust. I never touched it after that and it sits in its cd case to this day. I picked up FS2004 a few years after it was released so the hardware had time to mature and it runs great in 3840x1024 split across 3 monitors with every setting maxed out and tons of addons. The beta of FSX runs pretty decent on this machine in 3840x1024 as i average about 20-25fps with sliders on medium. I am a little scared to install the final version, as the beta is definitely playable and i dont want to take a step back.I was absolutely about to build a new pc for this game but i think ill just wait for quad core now so that i can be ready for alan wake and vista/dx10 since many of you guys with core2's are still getting slow fps. I need 30+ fps with everything maxed or its not worth my money or time to upgrade as 20-25fps at 3840x1024 is good enough for now.

>FSX on a hot shot machine is very good. Far better than FS9.>FSX + AI + fly tampa's airports + PMDG 747.... No clue..what>machine would run that.>Agree totally..