As I said before, FSX runs reasonably fine if you have the following system as a minimum.3.2 Intel2 GIGs RAM9800 video cardWin XP Pro SP2 on adedicated hard drive so thataccess is via dualbootand nothing else loading but FSX on that driveI get frame rates of 20-30 withAutogen slider at 50% andthe flights are smooth. Certainlymoresmooth than FS9 at the samelower frame rate.

We know that,..but how many do you think has a system like that?I am also thinking of all laptop simmers, who can not even think of getting FSX to run at all. ;-)http://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifFSX..:-hmmm...nah.. Still happy without it!! :-hahMy specs are:Dell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HDMy work:http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

Run perfectly fine on laptops: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=244662&page=

I wouldnt see why most people dont have at least that system by now. Not to insult the man but that video card is about 4 yrs old, and the processor is cheap by now. FSX runs great on my system but I dont see what all they hype is. My FS9 and all my addons BLOW FSX out of the water. Not even a competition. I find FSX so far.......cartoonie. If there is such a word. oh wellJack

With my system here I get around 20-25 FPS, Autogen is set at Sparse other then that most settings are maxed. I have light bloom off and aircraft casting shadows on itself off becuase for me they both kill FPS. Other then that I am pretty happy.

>Run perfectly fine on laptops:>http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=244662&page=On the beta yes,...but I heard that the retail version is a completely different story. :-rollhttp://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifFSX..:-hmmm...nah.. Still happy without it!! :-hahMy specs are:Dell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HDMy work:http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

I (well - my wife)paid $69.82(Can)for the deluxe version. 18 months ago I purchased an Intel 3.2 with a gig, a 9600XT, followed by a 1600XT Pro to run FS9. Last Monday I purchased an Intel Conroe Core 2 Duo66oo, 2 gig (at $220 a gig) and an X1950XTX card (+ m/b and 530w power supply) so that I could run FSX. This is not a mediocre system, but Seattle and a Cessna will bring it to 21 fps at a setting that I need it to be at in order to replace FS9 with the add-ons I have. Fly Tampa airports, the two Flight Scenery products, Holger's Washington areas, the Flight Ontario sceneries (I'm Canadian), Boston, the Megascenery series, FS Nav, ASv6, Flight Deck Companion, FS Crew, etc., have enhanced my FS9 to the degree that it makes FSX look pretty poor. Now the good bit: the new system runs FS9 with the highest settings, the most complex clouds, airports and aircraft, any angle, any speed at frame rates I only dreamed of, without so much as a quiver on the new system. I am ecstatic! I am so happy because it was FSX that has prompted me to upgrade. I've been following the posts, reading and noting, etc., and, between yesterday and today I played with FSX for about 18 hours. I believe the hardware needed to make this sim the equal of FS9 ain't out yet, so she's back in the box, guys. . at least, for another year or so. "Reasonable" doesn't cut it this time.