All I can say is I'm happy with both FS9 and FSX. Maybe I'm lucky eveything seems to work pretty well on both sims for me.FSX is my dream bush flying Sim FS9 is my ever thing I want to fly Sim.Oh and yes I can fly anywhere I want in FSX. I just use the sliders.I do hope for you guy's that are having problems with FSX we or somebody can help you with them. The only thing is you gotto try them and us some sense with the sliders. The guy's on this forum can only help you if you try to help yourself. I have had great results with just a few tweaks that have come off this forum.

I thought this was a thread about XFX, the video card company.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (91.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Hi again.Well I am wrong again,but duel core CPU,are not produced to improve The FPS they may a bit on systems that are short of ram ,They were produced to assist in CPU dependent programs,sli was produced to increase Frame rates,FSX can not use either of them.and when we come to run FSX on Vista it will require more CPU power.But maybe they will have sorted it by then,Regards.Rex

Hi RhettHow observant of you to find my unfortuneate mistake,I hope it has given you grate plesure.Regards.Rex

They did "screw the pooch" as far as I'm concerned. They should have made it for todays hardware with full compatibility. Then start a NEW, from scratch, with full SLI and multi core support and with compatability not a concern. This way we have neither. It's ridiculous !I'm very disappointed to say the least. I bought mine to support the franchise, not because I liked the demo. Although I do think there is plenty of things to like about FSX. Really I do !!I also believe the pilots that frequent these forums when they say, this version is the closest to the experience of real flight thus far.I will for the time being use both FS9 and FSX. I'll try not to dwell on the negative and hope it all sorts itself out.

Well all.This thread is turning into a knock the author thread.So this is my last comment.Constuctive criticism is good and accepable. But that only comes from sensible responsible people.All the Best Rex.

said like the truth, I been using FS2004 the last four days with allmy add-ons. Looks better runs better high frame rates. Just say noto microsoft and play FS2004 and get some good add-ons and enjoy!!

>>Absolutely. Mike the Avsim reviewer has nailed it on the head.>This IS different from any other incarnation. Find his>postings they are enlightening and dead on.Mike's a good guy, but as far as I'm concerned, it's still just opinion. Considering that FSX has to do so much, it's easy to dwell on the negatives to make a point. Same way in politics.L.Adamson

> There is nothing in the new version that>will benefit the a real world pilot

I'm not one prone to piling on here - but I have to agree with the original poster. They had three years to get this right, yet they seem to have really missed the technology boat...I've installed the sim, which did not run well on my dual core AMD system, with a 7900GS, good ASUS mother board and 2 gigs of ram - it ran like a pig. Installed the tweaks, got the frames up, but the trade offs made it look like crud, and the performance was still poor vs fs9. I've uninstalled it and gone back to FS9 - where I get rocket frames with complex aircraft over complex scenery add-ons like GEPro - and it looks great. FSX is a dud - its another FS2000 which was a real dud - I flew Fly2K exclusively in those years, and I guess I will be flying FS9 for a long time. Sad, really. They had three years, and this is what we got? Colin WarePortland Oregon

>>Yes I am bitter at microsoft,for not fullfilling what they promist,but it is still a very good sim and I am enjoying it,and the pc is a wizz at everything else.<

They did "screw the pooch" as far as I'm concerned. They should have made it for todays hardware with full compatibility.Then start a NEW, from scratch, with full SLI and multi core support and with compatability not a concern.This way we have neither. It's ridiculous !I'm very disappointed to say the least. I bought mine to support the franchise, not because I liked the demo. Although I do think there is plenty of things to like about FSX. Really I do !!I also believe the pilots that frequent these forums when they say, this version is the closest to the experience of real flight thus far.I will for the time being use both FS9 and FSX.Agree. FSX is schizophrenic. On the one hand it flies like a dog in the city. I've given up heavy iron in FSX with its default 15% traffic. When the sliders are turned to the left (default or less), no autogen and poor traffic then it's just not worth it. Looks poor and flies with stutters. I can go to FS9 for the heavy iron with PMDG 747, Ultimate Terrain (with that yet to be equaled night lighting), fsg 38m mesh, 80%+ traffic with MyTraffic, sliders full right, Active Sky 2005, Flight Envirnment and great frames.However, FSX you can fly rather nicely with sliders almost full right (scenery that is, though autogen and scenery complexity around dense) and full right water. Beautiful looking for bush flying. Here you don't have to worry about the impact of city textures, land and sea traffic, ai traffic, autogen, etc. etc., those things that make FSX unique but unworkable in their current incarnation for city to city flying.P4 3.6 GHz HT 1 gig ddr ram, ATI X800XT 256mb PCIe video

well after reading the comments, here is my $0.02 worth:- my pc specs are:AMD 2400 2gig1 gig RAMGeForce 6600GT 128mb vid card3 year old mobo, case, etc etcI play most games on Medium settings at 1024x768. Sure I'd like an E6600 d/core 2.4gig PC with 2 gig Corsair ram blah blah blah..but unfortunately most of my time and $$ goes to the family.As you can see, my pc specs are pretty old and lame compared to some of the specs on this post but I still run it at around 10fps (busy areas) and 15-20 fps otherwise and I'm perfectly happy. However, I absolutely LOVE FSX. I've had EVERY version of FS since it came out and will probably buy every version as well.I'm one of those simmers who have a passion for the game, not for the eye candy. I don't mind running it at 10fps if I'm enjoying the experience (sure the stutters are a pain but fk it, its FSX!!). FS is an 'acquired taste' in genres. If you don't like it, then return it or sell it on Ebay. However, my advice is - DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE YOU BUY A GAME. I was on this forum for a while constantly reading player's experiences esp those with fancy new systems and therefore I set myself up for FSX not even being able to run on my system, however I was pleasantly surprised!! Maybe if you dropped your expectations of running at everything maxed out and found the most optimal level, you might actually enjoy FSX like the rest of us.

>"Look at FS9, look at FS2002 and every release before and you>see the same threads and the same loaded questions.">>I don't believe that at all. I've been around since the days>of FS98, and I've seen the release of FS2000, FS2002, FS2004. >There have always been negative comments, but the sheer>magnitude of the negative comments are MUCH higher this time>around. Only FS2000 came close to the negative vibes we are>seeing today.Personally I believe there's a reason for that which cannot be blamed on FSX alone.It seems like the last couple of years have been a unique time in the world of PC gaming hardware because we've seen such a rapid rise in more sophisticated desktop hardware. Dual core PC's have caught on quickly with the mass market, we've seen the arrival of mainstream 512mb video cards, along with SLI and the common practice of having 2 graphics cards running in tandem. Then you have large LCD monitors that cost a small fortune, and the costs of the higher-end video cards are almost obscene. None of these components and configurations come cheaply, and I think in general, serious (and even not-so-serious) PC gamers and flightsim junkies are spending more these days on keeping their PC's ahead of the software curve.That being said, when a highly-anticipated title like FSX comes out which promises to redefine the virtual world of flying with incredible graphics and realism, we all start salivating, and probably shell out insane amounts of money to make sure we have adequate hardware to play it on. And let's face it, most of us with a family and a mortgage aren't exactly buying a new PC every 3 months. So most of us dump a ton of money into a PC that we think should hold us over for awhile, then lo and behold, the game is released, and playing the game is like watching a PowerPoint slideshow. We spent all that money, and we're not able to play a game that we've been so anxiously awaiting for so long. It's like being kicked in the groin....twice! Now we're expected to believe that Vista and DX10 cards are going to save the day? And exactly how much MORE money will that cost us all??Now can anyone sit here and honestly tell me that there was this much anticipation and consequently, disappointment, over FS2000 or FS98? I've been in this since the earliest days of MS Jet (anyone know that one?) and the first Flight Simulator, and I can confidently answer "No way" to that question. And what was the big technology that everyone was shelling out money for in anticipation of FS98....at best, a 3DFX Voodoo card with MMX? Give me a break. In my opinion, there's never been this much complaining and gnashing of the teeth because no version of FS has ever promised to deliver as realistic a flying experience as FSX has, and none have compelled us to leap on all these recent PC hardware trends (and more on the way) so quickly just to be able to enjoy what we thought would be a ground-breaking simulation. The letdown seems greater for a variety of reasons, but not because of the content of FSX or this version missing expectations. I think it has everything to do with the technology required to run it, and our profound dismay at learning that the vast majority of us don't have what it takes to enjoy this sim in its full glory. My 2 cents.GG

Speaking of "Jet" (it was sublogic-not ms if I recall)-I bought a brand new Amiga at the time-quite expensive-all so I could see runway threshold markings-was a big step in reality at the time...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg