I'm kinda of a hardware nut and have been doing some reading on the future of Direct X and video cards. I will hold judgement about FSX performance issues when Vista and the first generation DX10 cards come out. I have a feeling that ACES was planning for a simultaneous release of FSX and Vista. However, when Vista got delayed, it forced them to release only on XP. I think ACES designed this game with the new video cards in mind. Unified Shaders, lower DirectX overhead, and much, much larger memory built into these cards. Direct X 10 will reduce the amount of overhead tremendously which will free up more CPU cycles for other tasks. Larger memory video cards will be able to display photorealistic scenery quicker and faster. Here a couple of articles that I have read to elaborate on the new features of Direct X 10 and the new video cards. NVidia Direct X 10 cardshttp://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4441http://www.elite######s.com/cms/index.php...=1&limitstart=0I think we should all be patient and wait for Vista and Direct X 10 before we start complaining. Just my two cents worth,John

I am certainly excited about the potential these new DX-10 cards have. Even though Vista presents allot more overhead graphically than XP does, I think we will still see allot of additional performance out of these cards.I just hope they will be in my price range!Bryan

But the problem is that the vast majority of the potential buyers of FSX will not have Vista. In fact, some studies I've seen suggest that 60+% of the worlds desktops are AGP-based and, therefore, will never be able to use DX10 at all. The migration from DX9 to DX10 is going to take a much longer time than previous versions due to the Vista-only nature of DX10. And I doubt that there are going to be many "average" folks who will scrap their existing machines just to upgrade to Vista. So, it seems to me, that FSX has left behind the vast majority of the potential user base as far as performance is concerned. Time will tell...Doug

Doug, that is why I am baffeled people are upgrading computers now! Why people??? Just so you can enjoy FSX for 4-6 months?? Wait until Vista hardware comes out, nevermind Vista itself!

I don't think it's terrible to upgrade certain components of you computer now, but definitely not a wise choice to upgrade graphics cards. I think the Core 2 Duo will run Vista fine. Later,John

I don't understand it either. Why not wait until FSX has been out a couple of months and we've had a chance to look at the first generation of DX10 cards? Moot point for me though as there is no way I'm going to Vista for at least a year (of then). So, gotta find a way to make FSX run on Old Reliable with DX9.Doug

Vista is supposed to be released in about a month. I don't know what the timeframe is for the Dells and HPs to start preloading it on their boxes, but it won't be that long before people start getting Vista. Maybe they will give an option of OS, but I bet MS will be pushing hard to make Vista the only option.I wonder what pct of Vista users will also have DX10 graphics cards? Maybe not even 20%, at least for a while. How important is DX10 compared to, say, MCE-like capabilities?Now, if it works out that FSX on current hardware runs about 10-15% slower with Vista compared to XP, that will probably put the brakes on some Vista upgrades, until the DX10 situation shakes out.scott s..

>Vista is supposed to be released in about a month.Not to consumers though. The corporate edition is supposed to be released this year.Consumer editions won't be ready before next year, see the first paragraph on http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/default.mspxRegards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

It isn't clear what, if anything, is going to change before the Geenral Availability, or whatever they are going to call it. Or maybe that's when the final DX10 code goes in?scott s..

"It's just that 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."...

The Taildragger quote seems diametrically opposed to the assertions made on numerous occasions that FSX was `designed for Vista`. Which also would not have been available to them in anything like a release candidate version?So, IF FSX is designed for Vista and DX9, it's going to have to buck the trend of the other - and more significant - MS statement, that games run 10-15% slower under Vista.There is simply no way that FSX can run 10-15% slower under Vista/DX9 and still retain any credibility whatsoever.And that would seem to be the only marketing link that could provide a giddy-up to simmers looking to make the change as an intermediate step. If it runs like syrup under XP, flows like a river under the early release Vista with DX9, but finally finds its true legs with DX10, then you have a clear upgrade strategy. If you remove the middle link, then Vista becomes irrelevant to simmers for at least a year or two. And FSX still runs like syrup under XP.Allcott

I will have vista premium the day it is released to consumers next month because of where i work and our relationship to microsoft. I have been testing it for months in our lab for compatibility with our enterprise, so i will have access to it on day 1. I plan on installing it and checking the performance of my games. If the performance is lower then that will be the end of vista for me as a personal OS. It has alot of great features, but none of them that would override the fact if it makes my games run slower. I will stand for nothing more than 3-5% loss in frames or it's out of there. Even 5% is pushing it.Also as far as dx10 cards are concerned: Good luck being able to score one of those when they are released. Nvidia is the one releasing them in time for vista's launch next month and every Tom, Dick and Harry will be trying to get one. It will be weeks to months before they are readily available anywhere online. ATI/AMD once again is missing the party as their dx10 cards aren't scheduled for release until q2 '07.

Hi AllcottI really enjoyed the writing style and humorous but descriptive graphical examples in the above post much more than the occasional "Shootout at the OK Corral" type; here's hoping to see more of the new 'graphical user interface' variety of posts in the future!:-) BTW, do you or anyone else here know whether Vista will include the option for using the Windows "Classic" user interface, and to turn off all the 3D, transparency and other multimedia bells and whistles effects which one might expect to reduce the hit on one's computer system?One might also wonder just how many non-GUI related features and internal processes/services can be actually be turned off by the user in Vista to make it "lean and mean", and if one does manage to turn all the superfluous crap off, whether the remaing core OS performance will still be a worthy contender for gaming and flight simming, or whether it will be another "Edsel" GUI in OS history like Microsoft "Bob" was.GaryGB

> It has alot of great>features, but none of them that would override the fact if it>makes my games run slower. I will stand for nothing more than>3-5% loss in frames or it's out of there. Even 5% is pushing>it.>We have to remember that the underlying OS runs with Direct X 10 in mind. Direct X 9 will be an additional layer on top of the OS, so for all practical purposes I suspect people will be dissappointed with Vista and DX9, but there should appreciable performance increase with DX10 cards.

yeah im hoping that will be the case, but even if its not then we wont have much of a choice if we want to play dx10 games...ill probably just dual boot until the hardware catches up.