>The>reason FSX didn't go back to the drawing board to take>advantage of the duo core system is cost.Let's say this is your own opinion which you are entitled to. But you offered absolutely zero convincing proof that this is really the case. Until you do you are simply blowing a lot of hot air, your 'programming' credentials are extremely poor and hardly make you an expert in the area of modern gaming architecture. Michael J.

But you offered absolutely zero convincing proof that this is really the case. Until you do you are simply blowing a lot of hot air, your 'programming' credentials are extremely poor and hardly make you an expert in the area of modern gaming architecture.Convincing proof of what? That FSX runs like a dog on my upper end HT system and doesn't take advantage of duo core achitecture? You're the epitome of the blind idolatry associated with this product.

>I think many of us flying this version can speculate without>having to be ridiculed. I paid for this bloody program ($79>for the Deluxe version) so I have every right to question and>wonder - layman or not.Len, what's good for the goose is good for the gander... quit ridiculing the nice folks at ACES by insulting their skills as professional programmers, and perhaps folks will quit ridiculing your posts...Like everyone else, you can make your points without resorting to ad hominem attacks against folks who - for the most part - don't have the option to speak out for themselves.

Like everyone else, you can make your points without resorting to ad hominem attacks against folks who - for the most part - don't have the option to speak out for themselves.BillNot resorting to ad hominens unless they're cast at me. Maybe you will look down historically on this thread and see how I was called a troll. One good turn deserves another.With respect to Aces - I can question and comment all I want to. And you know the license I have to do so - I pay their salaries by purchasing their product. And quite frankly, the comments have been justified.

>Convincing proof of what? That FSX runs like a dog on my upper>end HT system and doesn't take advantage of duo core>achitecture? You're the epitome of the blind idolatry>associated with this product.This from Len, who JUST complained about others ridiculing posts... Have you no sense of propriety at all, Len?

Len,So what you are saying is that Flight Simulator X should have been rewritten and optimised for Len's system? Sure. As soon as you pony up the development budget to pay for a 50+ man team to write code specifically for you and your lovely Intel Dual Core system, you will have every right to demand stellar performance from that code.Until that day, you'll be forced to deal with the fact that Flight Simulator is not written "for Len". The code is written for the vast majority of systems on the market right now, few of which still include Core 2 Duo CPUs. Sorry that your hardware is not adequately supported, but you had to have "the best". Thanks, by the way, for convincing me not to upgrade to an Intel dual-core processor...it was only by your brave sacrifice that I realized just how much my AMD processor would outperform the cream of the Intel line. I suppose that now you will go back to reviewing the benchmark test results and wondering how you were so badly misled by them. Maybe you can play some Doom 3 to console yourself. You certainly won't be playing any FSX with the framerates you're getting! But I really appreciate the effort...it probably saved the rest of us from making a costly mistake in our upgrades.As for the "bloated code", I suppose that add-on makers complaining loudly that none of their old methods of creating airports, aircraft, gauges, weather, or scenery will work anymore means that the same old code has been recycled again, right? We're using the same code, so that's why we won't see any payware packages for FSX for months? Or maybe, the code has been so thoroughly re-written, the 3rd party vendors are all now having to learn new ways of writing software for it. Could that possibly be the case? Huh, Len?-Ivan

>Not resorting to ad hominens unless they're cast at me. Maybe>you will look down historically on this thread and see how I>was called a troll. One good turn deserves another.If a spade is called a spade, should the spade feel insulted?>With respect to Aces - I can question and comment all I want>to. And you know the license I have to do so - I pay their>salaries by purchasing their product. And quite frankly, the>comments have been justified.There is absolutely no justification whatever for ill manners, boorish behavior or continued contumanacy. None.Since you know so much about the inner workings of FS in general, how about applying for a job? There are lot's of openings at ACES. I'm sure they'd appreciate someone with your undoubted skills joining their team!Oh, never mind...

There is absolutely no justification whatever for ill manners, boorish behavior or continued contumanacy. None.Since you know so much about the inner workings of FS in general, how about applying for a job? There are lot's of openings at ACES. I'm sure they'd appreciate someone with your undoubted skills joining their team!Look it Bill. Maybe you have a truncated version of the historical progression of this thread. That's fine. But leaving that aside, I've seen you be as boorish as the next person. I probably couldn't hold a candle to your boorish responses from time to time. That's why you have that little proviso at the bottom of your name. You know, the one that disassociates your responses from EagleSoft.Insofar as employment with MS...really clever response Bill. I would have expected more from you. Are you a Thomist by the way? Aquinas would have been so disappointed with you.:-)

This from Len, who JUST complained about others ridiculing posts..Oh yes, and the poster was the epitome of human kindness. Right Bill.

Len,You've posted numerous times now regarding your status with FSX.Of course, on your PC, FS9 runs MUCH smoother than FSX. No argument, this is fact.1. You cannot expect to run FSX with full max sliders on a PC that does not have a current video card, 2-3GB RAM, and very fast CPU. Does a machine exist today that can deliver this? Probably not in our price range.2. FSX is designed for the future - future new capabilities, enhancements, and will take advantage of faster PC systems.3. You __CAN__ run a reduced-slider FSX today on most systems. Certainly not in high density areas, and you'd need to apply tweaks.Sure, I think most of us would have liked all the new features of FSX running on our current systems. That was not the intent of FSX. To get all the new wiz-bang capabilities, we need more horsepower. If ACES "dumbed-down" FSX to perform better, I'd say most of us would not buy it. I won't get into the marketing aspects we've read about here in the posts if this was a good or bad decision. It is what it is.Here's the bottom line - don't get frustrated trying to run FSX if it won't perform in areas you fly with the sliders set to where you'd like them placed! Just don't get frustrated. Fly FS9! FS9 will not go away - it's on our PCs.I'll fly FSX for most of my entertainment, and I'll fly FSX as well for specific flight areas/types. I'll eventually move on completely to FSX, but the timing depends on PC requirements, any tuning/tweaks, etc.Enjoy either or both sims!JerryG

contumancy? LOL...gotta look that one up!B

Marketing sloguns can't be misunderstood as technical fact.

However...and I'm not savvy enough to know...if you are wrong and the "FS is not an FSP" song is correct...than the instance that fps is a valid comparison can be understood to be equally tiresome.I liked the op information because it had depth and technical description sufficient to be understandable and believable. Interesting dialogue debating the conclusion is here too. I like that also.I vote for more discourse on facts, less on emotion.

Thank goodness "it doesn't even have real lightning!" Imagine the ESD damage! Oh the humanity.....:-))B

By the way it works fine on my system. I'm loving it!James