Yes exactly! During the demo period, I had a five year old computer, that just could not do much with FSX, and I didn't expect it to. The day I bought my new CPU two weeks ago, I ordered X-Plane with seven global scenery disk's, because I already know it runs fluid smooth, and the global disk's contain some realistic mountain topography mesh that fit's my type of flying.I figured that if FSX didn't work out, then X-Plane, some FS9, and a bit of FSX on this CPU would do the job.Yesterday, I loaded up the final retail FSX, and flew a bit last night. But in the last hour, I took a flight in the default Lear out of KSLC, a Class B airport 10 miles from my home, and headed eastward towards Denver. I have my fps target set at 30. Water is off, because the lakes look great without it. Auto-gen is off for the moment too, as I'm not at pine tree level.Takeoff at KSLC, in which the terminal buildings and tower still show up without auto-gen, as well as the vehicles on the highway;was just as smooth as it gets. I didn't see the fps drop below 25. In fact, it didn't drop below 25 the entire flight! It was more at 30 fps than not.And speaking of frame rates, not only was the complete flight from takeoff to landing, buttery smooth, but not one inkling of a stutter!Stutters have plauged MSFS in varying forms for the last several releases. But with my settings, which BTW, are almost all maxxed for scenery mesh, it was stutterless period!And what else caught my eye, was the photo like glossy look of the mountain textures & subdivisions below, not to mention the sparkling waxxed look of the Lear exterior.I never made it to Denver, but flew a good flight a few hundred miles out, and then returned to KSLC, where the landing was again very smooth & most of all, fluid!In summary, I've heard all of the gripes, the praises; but I wondered how this was going to work for me, and where I like to fly. I fly around these mountainous areas a lot in real life, and FSX has nailed it right out of the box, and that's what counts! The feel and look of "flight" is superb! I will not have to depend on other simulations for what FSX might be lacking. Sure, it's not going to fill everyones exact taste, but it sure does here!Considering the smoothness & texture look, I just may never bother loading FS9 onto the new CPU. This is where it stands, and I just thought I'd let you know. The glass is much fuller than I expected!L.Adamson-- Athlon 64 3800 2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32

That was a very welcome good news story.Now imagine where your glass will be in a couple of years when the add on developers have been busy with simconnect and the available hardware is further developed.:)

after a week of playing fsx i loaded fs9 last night... oh man, never again (and there's hardly a top quality scenery add-on i wouldn't have installed):-lolyou're absolutely right about the "look and feel of flight". i realized at one point that my memory synapses are firing like they never did for any other sim--subliminal comparisons to real flight are popping up every minutejust check out that distance haze!ps. my hardware is similar to yours. do not fear autogen. those dense forests are stunning, the countryside very real--and both steady above 20 fps

Yes me too and I had mentioned this in other threads that I was getting attached to the scenery without autogen. It really is great. I do understand the bush pilots though because it is about as flat as it gets without the AG scenery at lower levels. It would be nice if the frame hit on autogen can be fixed and like Geoff said, it would be the ultimate if AG could be bled in when you reach a lower altitude of xxx.Bob

Thanks for posting Larry!There may be a few people complaining that you don't have UT, FSGenesis, ActiveSky, etc. installed and that it cannot look nearly as good as FS9 with those add-ons.And, perhaps a couple more may label you as a "psuedo-GA simmer who flies a non-commercial private jet once in a while only at Salt Lake city where of course the FPS will be higher", but it all comes down to this -Fly FS9 where and how you like!Fly FSX where and how you like!If you get frustrated, don't fly!JerryG

The smoothness of FSX is because of me. (LOL) :)Early this year, I sent a suggestion to tell_fs @ suggestion box. And all I said in the message was:"If you do nothing else with FSX, make it smooth and fluid."Seriously, though...15 fps in FSX is waaay smoother than 15 fps is FS2004.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Hi Larry,I'm hoping for a similar experience once I load mine up. I plan to buy it this weekend.After running the demo, I feel a bit confident I'll like what I see also based upon the type of flying I do in real life. I do plan some computer upgrades, but I'm not sure the direction I plan on going.Right Now, 2gb ram, ATI 9600xt 256mb o/c, Athlon xp 3000+ o/c slightly to 2.403.I plan on a dual install, FS9 and FSX, so I can keep flying my favorites, and then I'll see which ones I want to migrate over.Good to hear it works for ya, I'm hoping for the same next week.Regards,Joe

Well, picked up my copy today. 1st flight out of KABE, with 30 set as frame limitation, Autogen normal, Scenery Dense, car traffic at 30, water at 2.0 mid level, Real Weather (and it was pouring down here at KABE, and we had a good cloud layer), my frames stayed close to 30 all the way. Perhaps some dips into mid-twenties, but rarely.Used the Maule and the Cessna. Went to KSEA and same settings stayed in the 20's, and a few dips into the high teens. Everything was smooth and no stuttering. I did set my TEXTURE MULTI BANDWIDTH at 200, from the default 37 before I fired up the sim, however. I'm a believer in that tweak.I'll play around some more...because my computer is only 2 days old, and my software only half a day old. Lots of adjustments remain to make my "half full glass" one that is BRIMMING over.