Loaded up the stock FS9 today onto the new CPU. With all settings maxxed, it runs like a scalded dog & no hesitations or stutters. Just plain smooth! Default 2D panels were hitting in the 70 fps range, and VC's in the upper 30's constantly!Runs great and I know that the megaton of addons will add to the simulation. I have a vast amount of payware scenery/mesh enhancements from the old CPU, which I can get transferred over.I like flying out of Salt Lake City Ut, and why not! :) I live here and we have surrounding mountain ranges that film makers often use as standins for the Alps. The backside of these mountain ranges resemble what you'd find in Alaska. I'll just say that this area is particually good for photo opts, as you get city scapes combined with quickly rising mountain peaks, as well as lots of lakes and rivers within a minute of leaving the airport to the east. Now, after a good flight across the hills in "default" FS9, while remembering what all the enhancements still can add; I exited FS9 & clicked on FSX. Climbing out of KSLC in the default FSX Lear, one thing is very apparent. For an addon-less sim, and auto-gen off, the city scape & mountain textures are far higher in detail and resolution. They are more of a gloss photo look than not. FSX's photo like city tiles are far more impressive! I've always been a 50/50 eye candy, flight dynamics simmer, and I do prefer the new texture format of FSX. Bare in mind, that my frame rate target in FSX is set at 30. Around 30 fps works well for a sense of fluid flight. FSX also runs on my CPU as a stutterless and fluid look. At this point, I'm well aware that FS9 would have the edge when flying into highly detailed airport areas when it comes to keeping the frame rates in check. And at this point in time, it's a good reason to run FS9 in addition to FSX.As anyone who has stuck with FSX for any reasonable amount of time, knows, FSX is a real improvement in simulating the movement of air mass. It was quite amazing to get up drafts and down drafts while traversing the mountain ranges that add very much to the simulation.Chaulk that up as a great improvement to flight simulation.So where am I flight sim wise? It's simple. At this point, I'll use "three" flight simulations. FS9, FSX, and X-Plane. All three offer a varity of variations that you won't find in just one. IMO, it's out of place to tell someone what they should be using, when everyone could have so many different preferences. It doesn't hurt to point out differences, and truths, but I don't need anyone telling me that I must run auto-gen and water effects "on" in FSX, when in so many cases, they look better off, and add a good 10 fps.As to overall look and feel, while climbing out of KSLC, I do lean towards FSX out of all three. This is where "I'm" personally flying out of, and FSX does very well in imitating real life. And I'm sure it will even be better with a mesh add-on which I'll get in the near future. I just can't get past the high resolution textures and general feel of flying in a moving air mass that comes with FSX. As for others who want detailed airports with lot's of air and ground traffic, then go for FS9. That's probably what I'd do.L.Adamson

I agree FSX is much more fluid and impressive than FS9. I love the high res textures, and currently I too turn autogen off. Maybe Ill get around to tweaking soon. Have a look at Cloud9's xClass landclass enhancement for FSX. Just fantastic!http://www.fscloud9.com/php/products.php?lang=EN&id=166Before too long everyone else will have forgotten about FS9 :)

Hey L.I was at KSLC the day the story broke about the liquid stuff in the UK and boy, LOL, what a madhouse it was, but they seemed to have thier act together lots better than Atlanta, for sure.I spent 4 days in Salt Lake City and really loved it. I have a friend who has a Porsche shop there and is restoring a race car for a friend which I built back in the 90's. Can't wait till spring when we take it out to the new track in Salt Lake.I'll let you know, perhaps we can have a cold one then.Best, Clayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

>I'll let you know, perhaps we can have a cold one then.>SureL.Adamson

What are your computer specs?

Athlon 64 3800/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 250gig HD/1600*1200*32 res.21"CRT monitor

Thanks for posting this -"IMO, it's out of place to tell someone what they should be using, when everyone could have so many different preferences. It doesn't hurt to point out differences, and truths, but I don't need anyone telling me that I must run auto-gen and water effects "on" in FSX, when in so many cases, they look better off, and add a good 10 fps."I flew the soaring mission yesterday. That was an outstanding example of the thermals, up/down drafts and the fun of finding the best places in a glider.JerryG

Agreed!!! Craig