I will say hardware is turning left, FSX is going straight - the problem is purely down to the fact it is hard to write games to use multiple processors/cores easilly, without actually degrading performance. I won't get into too many technicalities (cause I already did in another thread! LOL), but I'm a software engineer, and while these new processor technologies are great for business systems and servers, they don't (currently) add a lot of benefit for games users, just because games are inherently linear/series type applications - that is, everything has to run synchronized with everything else. Trying to split parts of a game to different processors is very tricky, since contention problems between each thread are hard to deal with without slowing it down and you seeing way less than 100% on each proc/core, and overall less CPU usage when you add it up.But rest assured, the gaming industry will no doubt find ways to leverage these new technologies more in the future, but it takes time, especially when you have to consider these companies have invested a lot of time and man hours into their current graphics engines, and total re-writes, rather than just upgrading it for their next game is a massive investment.Personally I do love FSX, it's a great step forward, and I can get about 20-30FPS while flying (I fly heavies mainly) and about 15-20 on the ground (depending on airport), complete with a decent amount of AI traffic, working jetways, and the ground vehicles at airports. But it is a trade off - while scenery complexity is set to very dense, I had to turn down the texture quality settings so I don't get blurries and have very little autogen (though it still looks better than FS9 IMO, and I've done a direct comparison), and sacrifice things like moving vehicles on roads (which honestly I rarely ever see anyway unless sitting at an airport gate!) and no ships/ferries etc.

>Like all statements (either good or bad) on performance that>is a matter of opinion rather than fact. Victor, I'm not going to get involved in arguments over FSX (that's for each individual to decide for himself) but Allcott is correct in relation to hardware. If you look at the roadmaps of Intel/AMD for the foreseeable future you can see that all the CPU developments are going in a different direction than FSX - MS has already admitted they got that bit wrong. So, no matter what way you look at it and unlike the situation with all previous versions of FS, there is nothing on the horizon that will have any of the ingredients to make a major difference to FSX or, indeed, any other game developers who got the future wrong.I know that may be hard to swallow because over the years we've got so used to knowing that the hardware was just around the corner and would wait patiently for it. Unfortunately, this time it is not going to happen.If you don't agree with this assessment I would be very happy for you to point me in the direction of the information you possess which makes the future brighter for FSX but please don't include either Vista or DX10 as I already know about those.

Hi John,Are you getting 3GHZ on that E6600 CPU with stock cooling?I have mine currently at 2.8GHZ, I'm scared to push it much further !!!

I guess we can have that now. Not sure where the snapshot was taken. You should get close to that without the building shadows. The photo is really to small to see all the detail so there maybe some I'm missing.

I'm sorry it's not working well on your system. It's working very well on mine!James

I wouldn't worry Tingoose is just trolling. The last thing he needs is a feed.James

That's your opinion and you're well entitled to it. Others have different opinions and I guess we'll find out who was right in due course.If a program is developed for DX10 you'll get a 7x increase in texture and shader rendering performance, so you won't see a dramatic increase in performance unless Aces actually rewrites the shader instructions to take advantage of DX10 hardware. They may well do that.When you take other things into account, such as the CPU bottleneck that exists in providing the vertices etc, then you can probably count on a 50% increase in performance once the software is rewritten in DX10 and run on DX10 hardware.The reality is no-one really knows what's going to happen, and you can't really pretend to know for sure.Honestly, I'm happy the way it is on my system right now, and if I do get good improvements when I upgrade next year, that'll be a bonus!James

Well I don't know what drugs you're on but I notice a MASSIVE difference between the feel of turbulence etc with FSX (without AS6) than I was getting with FS9 with AS6. Unless you don't actually have FSX and you're simply conjecturing? And AS6 does not simulate thermals that well (no-where near as well as FSX) and also does not simulate ridge-lift and ridge-turbulence or wave-lift and associated turbulence.James

Well thanks for the counseling session. Clearly you've got a PhD in Psychology, either that or you've read my mind!TrollJames

Allcott, you obviously didn't have the privledge of owning FS 2000. I still have ulcers from that one. Besides that, FSX is a beautiful piece of work. Hats off to the ACES team.jja

that picture you posted is misleading and deceptive conduct, misleading the consumers as i have yet to see anyone post a picture like this on their own personal pc with msfx running.

While yes alot of things stated are opinions on performance the fact is , we were led to beleive that right out of the box , we would have all these great features and a whole new level of simulation. Thats not the case I don't care what you say. Its completely rediculous that after 4 years of development we are led back to the same road we've been down. And its also rediculaous that the developer openly admits that they created a game , sim, product whatever for hardware in the future and not the near future a couple years down the road future. And john pretty much summed the whole #### thing up when he said " Hey I went out and bought a new system and it works fine!" Well john thats a nice 2000 dollar game ya got there which still doesn't run as stated and how much of your new purchase went right back into microsofts pocket? Makes alot of sense!......................... for microsoft.

"And john pretty much summed the whole #### thing up when he said " Hey I went out and bought a new system and it works fine!"All I did was went out and bought a new Sim and it works fine. :) The only problem I have found in this Sim is New York. Thats it so far and I can fly in New York if I do a few things in VC just have your point of view just a little above the panel or look of to the right or left of the most dense scenery. Once you clear the runway your fine. Same thing for landing. Its a simple but useful trick.

***Stands and APPLAUDS***Ditto.

Look, whether one loves FSX or not really doesn't matter becasue everything is subjective and a work of art to one is not a work of art to another. BUT, here is what I don't understand.You said: "Personally I do love FSX, it's a great step forward"Then you said: "I had to turn down the texture quality settings so I don't get blurries and have very little autogen (though it still looks better than FS9 IMO, and I've done a direct comparison), and sacrifice things like moving vehicles on roads.."Again, those who say it is a step forward...do you guys know what it means to take a step forward?Let's sum up. You are saying you took a step forward at the compromise of taking a few steps back to take that step forward. That is insanity!!!! What you accomplished is NOT a net step foward. At most you ended up in the same place! At worse you are further back from where you started!!!The ONLY way to say you took a step forward is to enable everything you had in FS9 AND with all the same features enabled in FSX you added MORE and did not subtract and are able to get very little penalty (read: frame rate hit). THIS is my pet peeve with the "FSX is a great step forward" argument. It makes absolutely no sense within the confines of the physics of this known universe.Look, again, love FSX or hate FSX, that's subjective but as Clint Eastwood once said: don't p*ss down my back and tell me it's raining.FSX is no "great step forward". Ask the folks who rushed out and bought the new CaptainSim 757 for FSX (which doesn't even HAVE all the bells and whistles yet) as the auger around the unfriendly skies at 5 FPS. Nonesense, absolute, nonesense.