That was my only point Rehtt That FSX did very well and that FS9 maxed could cause my computer problems. No Sim bashing no flaming just proof that some times things just need to be shown to try to get above it all seems like some dont even want that to be allowed. Makes me wonder why.I can understand some posters wanting FS9 and even it looks like some developers by their posting want FS9 to stay the king of the hill. I like FSX its an FSX fourm prefect place to post FSX stuff. :) Notice how I did not go over to the FS9 forum and say look what a dog FS9 is FSX runs so much better see see the FPS. You get the drift.;-)

Hello,There are a few things I'm wondering about. The textures look nicer in FSX, including the VC. However, I wonder why there seems to be some things missing in the FSX shots that are in the FS9 shots. These are all from Seattle? How come we don't see the hills/mountains in the FSX external view shot? In the FS9 shot it looks like you have jetways and and an ILS Station(i think that's what it is, the little red and white checkerboard shack) showing, I don't see them in the FSX shot. I will say that I can see more high rise buidlings way off in the distance in FSX(shot #5) than the FS9 shot(shot #1). But if your in Seattle in your FSX external view I have to say it looks more like Kansas to me compared to the FS9 external view shots. Perhaps you have more trees and buildings in FSX, a little hard for me to tell for sure from these particualr shots, but where are your jetways? Your probably like me, if I run FSX I turn on some tree/building autogen, but then I have to turn off the jetways or FPS tanks.FSX has some nice new features, no doubt about it. The feeling of flight is greatly improved, missions, ect. But to me there is no doubt that MSFS is always built for hardware of the future(compared to other games). And even that's a maybe with FSX's highly cpu dependent nature but no multi-core support(at this point in time). For instance, I can't even use my usual settings and run one of the Garmin 1000 equipped aircraft as the G1000 causes FPS to drop quite a bit. It's like trying to run a complex addon aircraft. Unless ACES works some performance miracle with a patch I will be convinced that indeed, every new version of MSFS is designed for hardware of the future, and I will always wait until a new version is released and purchase the previous version at that time. If I purchase FS11 when FS12 comes out I will figure(hope) that I can get good performance with FS11 with hardware that is available at that time.I guess it's like this with most all complex flight sims if you think about it though... LOMAC, Falcon 4.0, IL2 FB, ect. So the above goes for me for any new flight sim that might come out of the woodwork, I will wait at least a couple of years before I purchase it.I realize that some people like the fact you can enable features and turn sliders up over time as you purchase newer systems, but that's just not for me. It just seems kind of like a tease, especially since I only upgrade my system every few years and not every year.For right now, FSX is a Bush Flying Simulator for me, and FS9 is what I will use when I don't feel I want to avoid large cities and airports. I'm one of those people that feel that having no autogen just looks flat. sure the new 1m textures look great, I'm not denying that, but I refuse to deny myself some 3D feeling to the landscape. And I'd prefer to be able to fly like I do in FS9, not worry about where I'm flying to.. go anywhere in any aircraft at any time. That's just me.I agree that you should enjoy whatever it is that you like, FS9, FSX, autogen, no autogen, whatever. I've just come to the conclusion that personally, I will wait at least a couple of years from now on before purchasing new versions of flight sims. Of course I'll take that back if ACES performs a miracle(or a semi-miracle?) with a patch! ;)Cheers,Jim

Hi Jim I have no Ideal why the MT. are set the way there are in FSX They are there because I have mesh set to 19mm. It just seems ths in FSX there in a different place more to the right of the airport. Also the Jetways are there just more behind then in FS9 load up your copy you will see..

Here you go Jim for some reason FSX has no MT. in the front of Seattle Airport not sure if thats right or not.Front View heading to Seattle Skyline.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161816.jpgLeft View from airport MTs. in site.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161817.jpgRight View of Airport MTs. in sitehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161818.jpgClose up shot so you can see Jetways.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161819.jpgStill somebody that knows Seattle can tell us which is more correct in placing the Mmountains FS9 or FSX I have no ideal myself.:)

Hey thanks, I can see 'em now. Lookin' good. Hopefully FSX will improve with age, like fine wines and previous versions of FS. :)Enjoy,Jim

OK... but then we all knew ...that CPU speed would increase and it did. FPS went from 20FPS to 150FPS I get on my new PC Today (the default FS9)As per your logic, in 2-3 years.. CPU speed would increase to an extent that we would get 150FPS in FSX.But the future development is on dual core and quad core.Thank you for articulating to the rest of us...what the real issue is. And why FSX situation is so different.Manny