All I ask is that you don't post to say you don't care, don't waste everyones time just pass on by... Any constructive input is always more than welcome after all these forums are just our opinions :)The real question for me is this:Towards the time when FSX was being released, the past year really with with FS9 we have JUST seen the H/W configurations and development advances necessary to fly planes like the PMDG, LVL-D, PSS etc... into our amazing add-on sceneries using all sorts of other programs running simultaneously enhancing our FS experience. The truth of the matter is that it took quite a while to get to this point, it was not like this at the output of FS9. However, with the invent of things like ATC in FS9 that is the same as FSX but never available in 2k2 there were reasons you "could never go back" to 2k2 after you installed FS9. If you are a die hard heavy fan with all your add-on sceneries, mesh, UT and your PMDG, LVL-D and PSS with FS2Crew, can you really "not go back" to fs9 after FSX? It is a bit different this time around. But read on, FSX still has its uses...Along the same lines with people struggling for default FS performance and achieving necessary performance only after tweaking with default FSX, how long are we today from being able to run our great add-on planes and sceneries with FSX and get any type of acceptable performance? My concern is this, has FSX become SO resource intensive, I am hearing of anywhere from 1-2.5 gigs of memory usage that we are beyond the ability to even run our add-ons even with the lates hardware available today? Just speculating based on early observations and knowing the resources our add-ons added to FS9. So here is the real question, how far away from the "glory days" of FSX are we really? If we are worrying about default FSX performance, how many sliders are we going to have to turn down to get acceptable performance with one of the great add-on planes and an amazing airport scenery such as EGLL? (I wont even get into the whole scenery redesign issues) Once we get the add-ons, who will be able to run them if we are so border line with FSX performance now? Could we really be 2-3 years away the same amount of time FS9 took to really mature?Maybe for now I am destined to retain FS9 for my add-on heavies and my wonderful sceneries which from the sound and read of things are going to be very difficult to replicate in FSX due to fundemental changes in the architecture of the program and use FSX for a more VFR type of flying. But until I can get an add-on heavy with FS2Crew and an add-on scenery to run on FSX and get acceptable performance I am going to be going both ways ;)I am bi-simulational and I am proud of it!!!Not really a complaint or an FSX bash at all, just an observation on the usefulness of BOTH versions of FS simultaneously until FSX add-ons and the HW to run them catch up to the "glory days" of FS9 :)Cheers from NY everyone,-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledAMD FX-57 @ 3 gigsAsus A8NSLI-Premium2 gigs Corsair XMS PC3500LL 2 3 2 6 1TXFX 7900 GTX 690/1750XFX 7800 GTX 515/135024 inch Widescreen LCDDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1khttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159549.jpgBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7800 GTX 515/1350 Raid-0

Hi Paul!It's interesting, but we're really in the glory days of FS9 right now and have been for perhaps the last year or so. This is the time when the program matures. It seems that at the time that the hardware catches up with FS software, there's a new release. FSX will likely reach it's maturity...uh...shortly before FS11 hits the shelves.I've spent a nice chunk of time over the last 3 years or so tweaking FS9, etc., and it's where I want it now. I will certaily get to FSX, but not till I feel that FS9 doesn't thrill anymore and FSX reaches some maturity.Ed Lin, D.O.S.

Paul it looks like a dejavu and history repeats itself...As for now running both and I will do for a long time to come (just for a certain 767 lol)Same arguments and reactions as with all the previous introductions of FS series...I'm at this point ready for the add-on stuff...But it took a lot of effort with my high-end system...FPS wise I

Hi Ed!I guess we are on the same page...Everything else aside, from a Heavy Long Haul IFR perspective with add-on airports I am CONTENT with FS9 right now. I like some of the visuals for FSX from a low and slow perspective but I load up FS9 right now and my biggest decision is what amazing plane to fly between which two amazing sceneries LOLTry doing that with FSX for the next few months (or years for that matter) and there just isn't any mind blowing feature in FSX that I can't live without in FS9so like I said, it is Bi-simulational for me, sticking with 9 for what I love about it and will play with X for my VFR flying and until X matures to the point 9 is at now...How ironic is that, we have to wait for FSX to mature to the point of FS9 LOL Cheers Ed,-Paul

Hey Andre,Great feedback as always :)Hope you and the family are well. I agree, it is history repeats itself minus the fact that even an out of the box FS9 was far superior to a tweaked FS2k2. Like you said, without the add-ons, FSX just isn't the same as FS9 despite the improvements. We can and will go back for some time and that is where history actually does not repea0 itself and highlights that there are no show stopping enhancements to keep you away from a tweaked version of 9. We all know it took a long time and a lot of h/w to get there though :)Cheers to ACES for delivering the next platform for the next few years. It just needs the FS add-ons and HW to catch up to it...I saw you had built another system, what are the new specs? You went Intel right...I am holding off on the h/w for Q2 of next year. See what the next gen of everything brings but I think I could tweak this bird to at least 3.3 on the liquid and throw a 7950 in with my 7900 just to hold me over. Only cost would be the video. Sorry for the tangent LOL.Go to sleep Andre!-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledAMD FX-57 @ 3 gigsAsus A8NSLI-Premium2 gigs Corsair XMS PC3500LL 2 3 2 6 1TXFX 7900 GTX 690/1750XFX 7800 GTX 515/135024 inch Widescreen LCDDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1khttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.html http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159549.jpgBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7800 GTX 515/1350 Raid-0

How far away are we from the hardware capable of running BOTH FSX and the complex addons that developers will be bringing to the new sim? About 18 months, or sooner if you have more money.The uncertainty is not whether FSX performance will catch up with FS9, but only by how big a margin FSX will outperform FS9 with four times the effective texture resolution, twice the mesh detail, god-knows-how-many times the autogen and all the new features we have not had before - and the potential for expansion these bring to the party.While I've no doubt that Windows Vista will open a new chapter in simming, the concern remains that no-one has seen equivalent tests run on equivalent hardware to prove it, and that's under DX9. And given that FSX is designed for Vista (it's right there in black & white in the readme.rtf file in the FSX folder) that still worries me. If the advantage is there, it should be relatively easy for MS to prove it. And prove it THEY must, because the new retrictive licnsing effectively now reinforces the offence for a simmer to install the sim to two arms of a dual boot system in order to carry out such a test.There should also be no doubt that DX10 will be a revelation in what is possible in sim-dom as much as gaming generally. But the question remains: AT WHAT COST? And I don't just mean money.Then there is going to be the problem for developers finding beta testers available to put their systems `at risk` for the sake of testing a product that will be made commercially available. I don't mind risking an XP reinstall as that only takes 45 minutes of my time, and the reactivation is automatic, but if there is even the remotest possibility that beta software might bring my computer down and I have to buy a replacement license to get it back up and running, then thank you and goodnight, my beta testing days are over.Off the back of the slowdown in commercial releases that follow any new release of the prime software this could be a serious problem for FSX in the months to come - trying to get software to work on 3 Operating Systems (XP, Vista/DX9 and Vista/DX10) and with all the different versions of that Vista softare (15, I think I read), the absence of a large team of beta testers is going to impact severely on delivery timescales. And thats before you think about the extra programming necessary to explore the new capabilities of the product.There are some huge obstacles standing between FSX and continued sales success, and I don't think MS have done themselves, or their ACES team, any favours with Vista, no matter what the performance increase might be.In the meantime, a mature FS9 continues to out-perform a basic FSX in many areas, and continues to hold the attention of many simmers. Now that is different from previous versions, because previously the transition was only ever `onward, upward`. I am not surprised at the mumber of diehard simmers who have already made the conscious choice to stick with FS9.But like I said, lets see 18 months from now just how many are still flitting around in FS9. :)Allcott

All ok how is it at your end?Paul I can't remember my last Intel system, maybe 286 or 386 systems lolBut I have to say I'm really satisfied and it's real fast :-) Trippled my AMD system lolCore 2 Duo E6600 running @ 2,7 and temps Idle 34 full load 47 which is great compared to AMD :-lolAlso very satisfied with the new XFX 7950GT/570/1500 default speeds lol and silent it's fast and great picture and finally I don't have the simmer and rolling taxi lines anymore TSAA is great...Always had a love / hate experience with my ATI9800Pro and the 6800GT...(do you remember the rolling taxi lines :-lol)My guess based on experience (but we are both IT guys lol) is that indeed the second or thirth quarter next year is better to look serious at Vista (and hoping the 1e sp will be out else I stay with XP) and of cours a DX10 GPU...Tested with several vista builds that we of course received what's your experience?With FSX it's important to have at least 512 mb on the GPU :-)Have at least room for two great Flightsims on my system lolMultiplayer is fun too...Speak to ya laterAndr

Wow, gotta be honest, hadn't even thought of the whole Beta and re-installation issue.great Post Allcott and I hope it is really 18 months:) By the time the 787 is released by Boeing FSX will be able to handle it!Paul

Paul:An excellent and valid post you have there. For the first time in MSFS history a clear and unyeilding computer hardware and software upgrade path is defined and absolutely necessary to reach a point where we are with FS9. For FS9 the upgrade path was nebulous, ergo, add more memory, add the latest drivers, tweak the fs9.cfg, sacrifice a suckling calf on the 2nd Sunday of the month. After three years, here we are; FS9, all sliders to the right and grinning like idiots in our hyperdetailed 747 at 50 FPS with full autogen.However, with FSX, the lines are drawn and unequivocable. 1 - You need Vista2 - You need DX10 (DX 9L will NOT run on XP)3 - You need a DX10 Videocard4 - A DX10 'Patch' for FSX (isn't that a large rewrite of code?)Other upgrades that might be necessary1 - No less that 2 MB of RAM2 - Larger powersupply to support new DX10 Video Card3 - Fastest CPU avaliable 4 - Another suckling calf to sacrifice on the 2nd Sunday of the monthLikewise the forthcoming costs will be painful, for many, even for the necessities. $700 minimum price of admission to start pushing FSX sliders to the right.SO, timewise, my prediction is Q1-2 2007 Vista, Q4 2007 DX-10 Videocards that really adds true performance at a price that does not force one into part-time prostitution to pay for it. Q3 2007 - Q2 2008 for DX10 'Patch' for FSX.No doubt, By Q4 of 2008 I fully expect to have all sliders pushed to the right and grinning like an idiot like I am now in FS9. On average this is no different that the performance cycle of any other. But there is one large caviat. If DX10 doesn't live up to the Messiah-like expections of many, then we will have to rely on a order of magnitude increase in either GPU or CPU power. Right now there is nothing tangible on the horizon that will give that much of an increase ergo the stopgap releases of multi-core processors and SLI videocard capabilities. BUT, since FSX doesn't take advantage of DualCore or SLI technologies then depending on those tehnologies is simply a waste of times because that's what we have now and we are screaming bloody murder.So add another year or so which pushes us into 2009 and the imminent release of FX11. And here we go, slideshow city and headbanging all over again.At the end of the day, FSX is no different than any other release in referenced to its 'timeline to hardware/software equilibrium.' However, FSX is dealing with more unknowns that any other release in the history of MSFS.In three years, MS will probably have released Windows Vienna (aka Blackcomb - the impending replacement to Vista...can you say Windows ME de'ja vu!), and FS11 'may' require another OS dump to get FS11 up to speed by 2011.Look, we still don't have flying cars, robots driving us to work, houses on the moon, or intelligent computers. Eventually MS will start learning to maximize the NOW and upgrade for the future instead of maximizing the future and minimizing the now...if that is not the cart before the horse, I don't know what is.-Diatribe mode off-Thanks for listening

Mike, great post and I want to respond in detail because I really agree but it is the Giants vs Cowboys on Monday Night Football right now after all. Really great points though.Nice to have a good discussion with some of the others who I recognize from way back when on the forums...Great night everyone,-Paul

Mike T...You are a black sheep. A man akin to my own heart. :) Good on 'ya.Best,Jim

I'm getting great FSX performance from a "lowly" P4 3GHz machine with 1G of RAM. That's actually not great for a machine of today's standards whichever way you paint it.In a year technology will be much better and cheaper than it is nowadays and I'm fairly certain FSX will run on those systems like a dream. So in answer to your question it will take no more than a year for FSX to reach full maturity.James

>I'm getting great FSX performance from a "lowly" P4 3GHz>machine with 1G of RAM. That's actually not great for a>machine of today's standards whichever way you paint it.The problem with FS-X is that it doesn't scale well. The performance you have now with maybe 1-2 fps and a bit more shine because 1 -3 sliders are moved to the right thats the current outlook.My AMD XP 2700, 1 GB mem, NVidia 6200 wasn't that much slower with FS-X then my top of the line X2 4400+, 2 GB mem, ATI X800XL. I guess that you expect that a machine with double the performance will double the fun and features in FS-X and thats just not so...

>All I ask is that you don't post to say you don't care, don't>waste everyones time just pass on by... Any constructive input>is always more than welcome after all these forums are just>our opinions :)>>The real question for me is this:>Towards the time when FSX was being released, the past year>really with with FS9 we have JUST seen the H/W configurations>and development advances necessary to fly planes like the>PMDG, LVL-D, PSS etc... into our amazing add-on sceneries>using all sorts of other programs running simultaneously>enhancing our FS experience. The truth of the matter is that>it took quite a while to get to this point, it was not like>this at the output of FS9. However, with the invent of things>like ATC in FS9 that is the same as FSX but never available in>2k2 there were reasons you "could never go back" to 2k2 after>you installed FS9. If you are a die hard heavy fan with all>your add-on sceneries, mesh, UT and your PMDG, LVL-D and PSS>with FS2Crew, can you really "not go back" to fs9 after FSX? >It is a bit different this time around. But read on, FSX>still has its uses...>>Along the same lines with people struggling for default FS>performance and achieving necessary performance only after>tweaking with default FSX, how long are we today from being>able to run our great add-on planes and sceneries with FSX and>get any type of acceptable performance? My concern is this,>has FSX become SO resource intensive, I am hearing of anywhere>from 1-2.5 gigs of memory usage that we are beyond the ability>to even run our add-ons even with the lates hardware available>today? Just speculating based on early observations and>knowing the resources our add-ons added to FS9. >>So here is the real question, how far away from the "glory>days" of FSX are we really? If we are worrying about default>FSX performance, how many sliders are we going to have to turn>down to get acceptable performance with one of the great>add-on planes and an amazing airport scenery such as EGLL? (I>wont even get into the whole scenery redesign issues) Once we>get the add-ons, who will be able to run them if we are so>border line with FSX performance now? Could we really be 2-3>years away the same amount of time FS9 took to really mature?>>Maybe for now I am destined to retain FS9 for my add-on>heavies and my wonderful sceneries which from the sound and>read of things are going to be very difficult to replicate in>FSX due to fundemental changes in the architecture of the>program and use FSX for a more VFR type of flying. But until>I can get an add-on heavy with FS2Crew and an add-on scenery>to run on FSX and get acceptable performance I am going to be>going both ways ;)I am bi-simulational and I am proud of>it!!!>>Not really a complaint or an FSX bash at all, just an>observation on the usefulness of BOTH versions of FS>simultaneously until FSX add-ons and the HW to run them catch>up to the "glory days" of FS9 :)>Cheers from NY everyone,>-Paul>>Primary Rig>Liquid Cooled>AMD FX-57 @ 3 gigs>Asus A8NSLI-Premium>2 gigs Corsair XMS PC3500LL 2 3 2 6 1T>XFX 7900 GTX 690/1750>XFX 7800 GTX 515/1350>24 inch Widescreen LCD>Dual 19 inch LCD's>Raid-0+1>PCPower and Cooling 1k>http://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.html>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159549.jpg>>Backup Rig>AMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.7>2 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2>XFX 7800 GTX 515/1350 >Raid-0>>>Paul my rig is same as your except i use a 7950 gtx card with 1 gb memory. What kind of frame rates are you getting without any optimizations? I have locked it to 30 and get that except in those 50 detailed airports? I am yet to try activesky 6.5 though. Also have you overclocked? I am planning to do that once the add-ons come about-I can oc upto 3.6 safely and believe fsx loves those addtional lock cycles.Let me know please.

I don't see it that dramatic, too... On my midrange system i really get good performance with FSX with most sliders to the right. I only have to put the autogen to a lower value, and uncheck light bloom, and voila - i get very good, stutterfree framerates.I don't think, that FSX isn't able to run well on todays systems. The autogen is the big performance hog. For now, i can live with it, to reduce it to a low value. But i'm sure that this will be fixed somehow in the future.Cheers, MichaelAsus A8N, AMD64 3800x2, 2GB RAM, geForce 7800GTX.