Just wondering if anyone is running on x64 edition and if it's worth bothering? I have a spare HD and a copy of x64Edition laying around that I'm not using and was thinking that it might be worth it to set it up and use it as a dedicated "clean" FSX environment, and the 64bit OS would allow the sim to use the full 4GB RAM I have.Any opinions? Hardware Config:AMD 4800+X2 (AM2)Asus M2N32SLI Deluxe4 GB Corsair DDR2-800 Cas 4 EPP MemoryDual XFX GF7900GT video cards in SLI4 Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA2 drives in RAID52 36GB WD Raptors (this is where I'd set up the dual boot to x64 Edition + FSX)Belkin Nostromo n52 speedpadCH Yoke + Pedals (USB)Planning to get:TrackIR4ProCH Throttle QuadI know there are drivers for all of this. Just wondering if it is worth it to have the dedicated OS environment and 64 bit nature or not for FSX.--2002cbr600f4i

Unfortunately, to be able to use more than 2GB ram, both the software and the operating system must be 64bit. FSX is still 32bit, so it is limited to 2GB. Howver, hopefully windows can assign the rest of the memory to other applications.It's a pity that ACES couldn't convert FSX to 64bit, but it is understandable. It would take more than just recompiling it in a 64bit environment. In fact, my guess is that most of the code in FSX is inherited from older versions, even as old as FS98 and can't be easily take advantage of newer hardware. Hopefully Microsoft will consider multi-core and 64bit for the next version, but it would mean that a lot of code has to be started from scratch. That means a longer developing path and thus more expensive. Also, new code means even more debugging, and new, fresh bugs to haunt us. If MS decides to go multicore/64bit on FS11, I would be surprised if it would be ready before 2010.Allard.

Yup, runs just as well as FS9 did. Noticibly, x64 has very little stutters as scenery loads from the HD compared to 32-bit. Same FPS problems as everyone else here though. Start with the default (recommended) sliders. Use the FIber_frame and AutoGen_Max_LOD variables in the fsx.cfg file. .23, 600, & 900 respectivly. The only texture change I've done so far is Matt Fox's Autogen replacements to lower the number of differnet trees and the rooftops file. AutoGen slider on Normal, Scenery_radius_LOD slider = SMALL, Scenery_density = very dense, clouds-detail=max, Global textures = max. No shadows, special afects is maxed, and animations checkd. Terrain is 19m and texture is 2m (this is about where max FS9 was). 5% AI across the board with cars set to 0%. FPS locked @ 25. Change "lockedframerate" to "averageframerate" in 4 places in fsx.cfg file to see average FPS with cntrl-Z. In game AA off and Trillinear. Nvida 91.31 control panel set to 4xAA, 8xAF, Quality, Sumpersampling, & clamp LOD. I just added (browsed to) the fsx.exe file to add it to the existing FS9(2004) Nvidia profile. Therefore, I have both FS9.exe and FSX.exe using the same profile settings in the control panel.Regional airports `averaging` the lock-rate (25) and large detailed airports are 15 to 20. But, it's fluid, no stutters, good lighting tranistions throughout the day, etc... Very flyable...Added FSUIPC4 and WideFS7 (registered) and currently beta testing RCv4.3. ASv6 connects and updates but make sure you uncheck update FS9 plan in the options as it destroys the plan for FSX. Use both FSCUPC4 and CH Control manager (in mapped mode) with calibration n both as well as the asignment of all axis (axis cleared in FSX) using FSUPIC4 produce very smooth controls.Also, if you don't already have it, get Raxco PerfectDisk v8 and defrag the livin' crap out of your FSX partition. Set its options to "aggressive" and "smart defrag". FS works better in its own partition as the files can be sorted amongst only its own files and don't have to be crammed among other non-fs files. I honestly think scerny texture files load extremely well when setup like this.