I agree. And I think that unless someone finds a way out of this performance mess we'll never see a useable PMDG 744 nor an LDS 763 with FSX. Doug

From FSInsider.com:"Most people consider 15-20 fps a bare minimum for creating an enjoyable and believable experience in Flight Simulator. At anything below 15 fps, you

To quote from the latest FSInsider page:"Most people consider 15-20 fps a bare minimum for creating an enjoyable and believable experience in Flight Simulator."'Nuff said!Doug

> I agree. And I think that unless someone finds a way out>of this performance mess we'll never see a useable PMDG 744>nor an LDS 763 with FSX. >>DougOh my god... that is such a 'flat earth' statement. Things need to move forward... When FS9 came out, the high end processor was a P4 3.2, and the graphics card was a Radeon X800. My dual 7800 GTXs are like 10 times faster than that, and my 4600+ 64 X2 is way faster than that processor.The next few years will see uber fast processor and quad-sli GPU setups becoming standard.I would love to use my PMDG 744 with FSX- I agree it would probably run slow, but I can turn the graphics down. For now I'll have fun flying GA, and maybe do a cross country flight with my brother using the shared skies feature.FSX is a HUGE improvement in many areas, and I for one don't want to go back... Now we just need the hardware to catch up a little.

>The next few years will see uber fast processor and quad-sli>GPU setups becoming standard.>>Do you know something we don't?Manny

When FS9 came out, the high end>processor was a P4 3.2, and the graphics card was a Radeon>X800. My dual 7800 GTXs are like 10 times faster than that,>and my 4600+ 64 X2 is way faster than that processor.Question... I'm running your compare setup a P4 3.6 ATI X850XT 256mb, and I'm interested if your 'ten times faster' GPU and 'way faster' CPU is helping in FS-X. From what I've seen it would not offer much more?

Indeed.Unless I'm misreading, FSX is coded to utilise neither dual core nor SLI - so much for those. That leaves 3rd party devs optimising their code for the new sim and promised gains with Vista/DX10 down the road. We may be surprised yet with the upgraded and new airliners coming up. regards,Markhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

AllI am running an fx-57 amd oc'd 10%, 2 gig of dual channel ddr mem, 2 7800 gtx oc'd 491,131- using Antialiasing mode (which does work by the way), with 2 10k rpm sata drives in raid(0).This is not a middle of the road box. Even with the texture and mesh turned down (using 76m) and Low 2 water and cruising around KSEA the FPS to me at 12 -17 is not acceptable. I guess some would say they would love to have that FPS. I agree much of this is relative. The question is, what do I need to buy to get the FPS I have in FS9, which by the way has all the great $add-ons? By the way again I have mentioned that the Sim with autogen off, the photo textures are outstanding. I really do believe that unless you are a bush pilot, you can really get used to just the photo scenery if you give it some time. It does grow on you.Bob

I think 10 is worse case scenerio for the "bucket" performance of your PC! FSX measures your system configuragtion and assigns a default configuration. 10 FPS is the lowest for that configuration. If you slide the sliders slightly back from that assigned default, then you surely will get higher FPS!

Nice processor, but wonder why you didn't bump your video card higher~!

I read on Maximum PC magazine that both Intel and AMD are working on a"reverse hyper threading" technology that allows the two cores to be "seen" as a super core. And that would really help with single core applications.