Well, perhaps I can shed some light on this subject, but then again, perhaps not.FSX in its current iteration is a behomoth of a program that is taxing on even the newest machines. I want to take a somewhat indepth look at what you can expect from FSX, and if those match your expectations.PerformanceFirst and foremost, we know FSX can run very poorly, however great work is and has already been done in regards to making the situation better. From my experience, every FS launch has taxed my top of the line hardware and tweaking had to be accomplished to get the best performance for the currently technology. FSX is no different. On the other hand, FS9 has been on the market for several years and the technology has caught up with the program, allowing for significantly high framerates.Let me give you a small example of how my system is currently rigged to run FSX.* AMD 3500+ Venice Core (Bus speed 220MHz x 11 multiplier = 2.42 GHz.) Yes, she is overclocked.* 1 GIG Xerox PC-3200 DDR RAM running at 220MHz with standard timings of 2.5,3,3,7.* ATI Radeon 1900XTX with 512 Video RAM. Sure, it is bottlenecked but I still have much love for my new card and WAS forced to buy a new one when my Nvidia blew.I maintain the 15-17FPS in major cities and airports (I run my benchmarks at Seatac), and 30+ FPS outside such areas with the following settings:*1152x864*AA Quality and AF 8x as set by my video card drivers, NOT FSX.*Frame rates set to unlimited*Water Effects Low 2.x*Aircraft Shadows Enabled*Level of Detail Radius set to Medium*Mesh Complexity 32M*Texture Resolution 2M*Autogen to Normal*Scenery Complexity to Very Dense*Scenery Ground Shadows OFFThe following tweaks have been applied:PoolSize=10000000FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=.20TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40That is it. No texture resizing, no DXT conversions. I get very little blurries, but I attribute that to my video card mainly.Performance can be broken into several sections, but for the ease of this article I think it is best to keep it somewhat simplified. Looking on my FSX box I notice no mention of dual core support, nor anywhere in the documentation provided by the ACES team. From what I have gathered, FSX WILL utilize 100% of your first core while utilizing another 20% of your second, mainly for menial tasks background OS functions. Will this increase performance? Sure, but don't expect a significant difference by having a dual core processor. ACES has stated that they plan to look further into the issue, but until then, to get the game to run smoothly you need to understand a few key issues about the limitations of the software. I would recommend no less than 2GHz RAM (even if I only have 1 myself), and preferably not a basic PC-3200 stick. If you have an AMD chip, specifically 939 socket, ensure that you have your ram divided evenly into 1 gig sticks on your motherboard. You can contact your mobo manufacturer to understand how to set this up correctly, but this will improve the speed at which your RAM can transfer data significantly. From what I have gathered, FSX will eats RAM for breakfast. Your first GB of RAM will easily be utilized to full capacity, while the second GB will run anywhere from 20%-60% utilization under full load. Increasing RAM will help remove blurries and stutters and you "may" gain a few extra frames per a second as well, but I wouldn't count on it.The biggest key factor is going to be the actual raw processing power of your CPU. Floating points, MHz, cache size, and a plethora of other factors will currently determine how well the program is run. Since FSX is so CPU intensive, naturally having a powerful single core (or dual core if you go that route) will be imperative. Like mentioned, don't expect large increases with multiple cores, instead focus on getting as much raw power and bang for your buck. In the end it will provide the best results, while saving you a ton of cash. Focus your buying search on benchmarks and MHz.Naturally the next step is to look at the GPU. I wouldn't recommend less than 256MB video cards, and I certainly would recommend anything at or above 512MB. It may be costly, but if you have no other alternative you will see some major improvements by moving up so to speak. Remember, DX10 is just around the corner and DX10 cards are already on the market.. while I myself will be waiting for the second generation of cards to appear, perhaps you are in a better position to give this technology a shot. Do not go into this technology with cash in hand believing that you will see vast improvements otherwise you may be disappointed. Everything must be taken in balance. I HIGHLY recommend PCI-E video cards with an accompanying motherboard that supports the technology. PCI-E has proven to be reliable and shown significant improvements over the aging AGP architecture.A lot of people forget about the quality of your motherboard as well as the hard drive. You can have the fastest GPU and CPU on the market but your bus speed and hard drive speed could be going at a snails pace, limiting your actual ability to garner performance. I would recommend a SATA, any size. The technology on SATA has come to fruition and it is relatively cheap. If you don't plan on using 200GB, just get a 120GB drive. Also, consider the bus speed and on board capabilities as well as future upgrades. While you may not be enthusiastic about dual core support now, it wouldn't be silly to purchase a motherboard that does support the technology. Generally speaking, the more money you spend on a motherboard the better quality they will be. Another factor when purchasing a mobo is its overclocking potential if you decide to travel down that path. You can find more about this on PCStats, and I recommend you become an informed consumer before traveling this path.In recap, to maximize performance of FSX you need a good motherboard, powerful CPU (MHz, not cores people!), a sizable amount of RAM, a good mobo/hard drive and a good GPU. You don't have to go overboard, but you certainly will have to make improvements in the near future if you would like to see FSX perform better. It is not a pipe dream folks, but you must be an informed consumer before approaching this battle. Throwing money at the situation might makes some things worse. Quad core processors are on the verge of becoming available for consumers but their actual clock speeds are generally lower than most current top of the line processors. Because of this you would actually see a decrease in performance in most applications comparatively. Are you willing to pay for technology that still as of yet is not being used properly by the gaming industry? And even if you do spend the money on it, when the technology comes around will your processor still hold up? I think we need to stop looking at core support and look at raw processing power for now, at least until developers get a better handle on how to work with this technology.Add-onsThis is another hotly debated subject, but I aim to tackle this head on with a very simplistic approach. FS9 stock looks like junk compared to FSX in the eyes of most people. FS9 modded looks great and can compare to FSX in the eyes of many people. Which looks better at this point is really up to the specific user depending upon their preferences and performance. I prefer FSX as I myself have not been a big fan of terrain add ons. That is just me however, and what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. I have seen some fairly impressive screenshots and videos of a modded FS9 which ran very smooth.Another interesting facet of this conversation is that FSX addons will run terribly, which is true. Think in retrospect on this, imagine running RealAir's Spitfire within weeks of release of FS9... do you think it would have run well? Probably not. I believe things will change over time, but don't expect FSX to have the quality add ons that you expected from the FS9 community just yet. It will take time and the technology will have to advance hardware wise before we start looking seriously at it.The last issue I want to bring up is rather what do yo plan to use FSX for? If you want a high end simulation of a 747 aircraft down to the finest of details, FSX might not yet be for you. Many people have complained that ACES shot these devolopers in the foot so to speak when it comes to add-on support. I don't think they frankly could be further from the truth. When FS9 was released, a whole new market was produced specifically for that software while dumping their support or at least downsizing it for FS8. The market for add ons in FSX is only now starting to be a reality as our favorite flight simulator webpages update daily with new add ons that are being created or converted to work with FSX. Will the future of add ons be as plentiful as they were for FS9? I think so, without a doubt. Do you agree? If not, then stick to FS9.FSX is a great simulator if you are a GA fan. Like all past reiterations of FS, the large jets get the shaft. If that doesn't bother you, then perhaps FSX stock will be a good purchase. I prefer GA aircraft myself, so there is no love loss for the lack of realistic modded jet aircraft.In conclusion, I guess you have to ask yourself whether a modded FS9 can perform the functions you want, or can you wait, or for that matter can the stock version of FSX keep you busy?Final ConclusionWhile there are a few things I didn't mention (activation among a few other things) FSX in general is the same old hat with a new felt covering. The advantages to FSX are many, depending on what you are looking for. I prefer the new airfiles in FSX and the feeling of a moving and accurate air mass as opposed to the roller coaster rides of FS9 (or at least my perceived feeling of a roller coaster ride.) The mission system is fantastic and gives you incentive to try aircraft you would not normally fly, as well as put yourself in predicaments you also would rarely find yourself in. Overall the mission system has made me a better pilot, both in the real and virtual world.FSX will only be better if you don't expect the program to be the end all be all. This is no different than hearing months of hype about a great movie, only to go watch it and be dissapointed. If you don't raise your expectations to unrealistic levels, I think you will find FSX to be a wonderful program with limitless possibilities. For me FSX is the best yet in the long line of FS releases. I have enjoyed FSX far more than any other single release and I cannot get enough of it, but that is me.Every incarnation of the FS series has made a shame of current top of the line computers and FSX is no different. Future hardware compared to the current design of the program leaves many to believe the future of FSX may be unstable. I would like to think optomistically on this going insofar as to say FSX will be no different than any other FS release and time will heal all wounds. Again, this is a personal thing, and you are left to decide if you can run the game without the sliders maxed and a screaming FPS.FSX is much like a hotly debated political problem. There are many issues, each of them having staunch supporters and attackers. What must be decided is how the software will work for you and your system, as well as your mindset going into the newest release by the ACES team. I hope you found what I said to be informative, but I believe it will have the potential to be flamed and/or debated. That is fine, I expected as much, but hopefully people will enter this debate with a little more knowledge and thought.

Please tell me where these 'hardware advances' are coming from and how they will improve FSX?As you rightly stated, FSX makes very little or no use of dual core technology. (or SLI / Crossfire for that matter)As the future roadmaps from Intel and AMD are for Quad Core processors with only small gains in Mhz per core, how is the hardware going to 'catch up' with FSX? The only thing that will improve FSX is a code adjustment or rewrite (read FS11) that will allow better use of dual and multi core technology. As it stands right now, FSX is waiting around for a 5-6Ghz single core CPU to make it run properly, just as it's design team had predicted would be available by 2007. Only problem is, they aren't available..........

Not so much a higher increase in MHz, but a more logical approach to how the processor is utilized. More floating points, bigger caches, etc, etc etc. Everyone was screaming about how the new AGP technology was the best new thing, then out of nowhere PCI-E came screaming in. I can't say for certain how things will pan out, but one of two things will happen.1) Developers will finally understand how to utilize 64 bit and dual core technology better, which could take years... or perhaps they will find a better way to streamline current coding for usage on single cores.. who knows?2) Chip designers will find another way around MHz rather than multiple cores. AMD has been competitive with Pentium and has always had lower clock speeds while maintaining comparable performance. There is a reason for this.

"2) Chip designers will find another way around MHz rather than multiple cores. AMD has been competitive with Pentium and has always had lower clock speeds while maintaining comparable performance. There is a reason for this."Obviously, it's the architecture.It's the same reason why a Core 2 Duo at 2.4Ghz outperforms a Pentium D at 3.6GhzAs Core 2 Duo is a brand new architecture which has taken years to develop, I'm not too optimistic of anything as groundbreaking as this again over the life cycle of FSX. (unless AMD really performs a miracle, but I doubt it after the delays we saw with the Athlon 64 launch)Glenn

I have little to no doubts that in 2-3 years when the next FS launch happens, we will have FSX running like a well oiled machine. There are already reports of "sliders right with 20FPS or better" people posting here. Time will tell all. If I am wrong, I will gladly eat my words, but I think there is a lot to be said for the way technology continues to find "out of the box" answers to hard problems.

>I have little to no doubts that in 2-3 years when the next FS>launch happens, we will have FSX running like a well oiled>machine. There are already reports of "sliders right with>20FPS or better" people posting here. Time will tell all. If I>am wrong, I will gladly eat my words, but I think there is a>lot to be said for the way technology continues to find "out>of the box" answers to hard problems.If we get a 'multi core' patch from MS, I agree with you. If we dont, then I can see the status quo remaining. There is nothing in any hardware manufacturers roadmaps that make me believe this will not be the case....Glenn

Like I said, only the test of time will tell for sure. With how hot the "multi core" debate is, and the customers having a good line of communication with a dev team that is attempting to provide answers, the outlook is somewhat good. I think we are going to have better answers when the ACES team talks to us about the ongoing performance investigation which they said would be around Thanksgiving time, give or take a few weeks.