FAQ of FSX problems?

Is there a FAQ of FSX problems. I didn't find one. I was given a copy of FSX Deluxe (via a developers conference I was attending), I wasn't planning to get FSX based on the demo, however, a free copy is a free copy.So far what I've noticed:1. Golden Gate bridge stands out when in clouds. Also has a rectangle overlay that appears on the other side of my AC that should be blocking the view of the bridge (external).2. My AC shadow is a rectangle also.3. After much graphics tweaking, I'm unable to remove texture speckles/grain and shimmering (same problem FS9 had where the solution was to reduce bitmap detail).4. Frame rates are low of 7 fps to a high of 20 fps (locked at 20) - basic C172 running 1920 x 1200 all details at max on a 3.9Ghz X6800 with FSB at 1500Mhz on 2GB RAM with ATI X1950XTX.5. Flight dynamics feel too twitchy (at least in the 172) and ground acceleration is too quick but then drops off rapidly to what appears to be excessive drag? Not sure what this is about, flight model is on Hard. FS9 172 feels more realistic.6. Clouds/weather seems no different than FS9 and is considerably less real that products such as ActiveSky.7. Mysterious brown desert patches of land in what should be populated urban areas.8. Land/urban texture appears to be photo realistic but does NOT represent the true buildings/geography of the area.9. Water appears to stand out and not blend at all with surrounding coast.10. Texture sets don't appear to blend with other texture sets when an urban set will suddenly stop and be diagonally truncated into a industrial texture set.11. Airports seem to stand out and don't blend with surrounding area, transition is very abrupt.This is after only 2 hours with the product. Glad I didn't actually pay for this version of FS.On a positive note, my CH pedals worked well in FSX (not so with FS9), and ATC is more clear.I did expect a more polished product over the Demo. Also, I'd like to know who actually has the hardware to run FSX at 1920 x 1200 with all details on max and get at least 20-40 fps? But even so, it still doesn't feel or look more real than FS9. I see Microsoft dropped "as real as it gets".I'll get a full review up on my web site with screen shots of both FS9 and FSX so folks can compare, perhaps even a short AVI/video for a flight in each. I'll also get up some screen shots of the image problems with Golden Gate bridge and clouds and AC.Rob.