See thishttp://leesystems.no-ip.com/wordpress/Didn't try myself :)

>So once I upgrade to Vista and DX10 any game specifically not>designed for DX10 will no longer work?No... When you upgrade to Vista and a DX10 card...*DX10 Capable games will run in DX10.*DX9 capable games will continue to run under DX9L, the compatibility layer. No loss of functionality!-Greg

I'll try to get a few screenies up tonight when I get home. I'm at work right now. However, I don't think that frame rate counts will prove anything one way or another. If I get 30fps using FSX/WinXP with constant slide show but only 20fps with smooth flight using FSX/Vista, what does that prove?Still, it will be interesting to see what the counts are. I'll give more detail about my settings and hardware as well.You guys and gals have a nice day.

Thanks

>I'll try to get a few screenies up tonight when I get home.>I'm at work right now. However, I don't think that frame rate>counts will prove anything one way or another. If I get 30fps>using FSX/WinXP with constant slide show but only 20fps with>smooth flight using FSX/Vista, what does that prove?>>Still, it will be interesting to see what the counts are. I'll>give more detail about my settings and hardware as well.>>You guys and gals have a nice day.>Well it would prove that Vista will NOT provide the increased overheads to enable the practical use of complex addons. In fact, any loss of performance is a cause for concern if you had actually PAID for Vista to get it. The thought of paying MORE money for LESS performance is an alien concept to me. Just call me old fashioned, but when I pay more I get more ;) Allcott

I believe that it's too soon to access if Vista will provide a loss or gain in performance. At least over here I'm using two drivers that are everything except solid: Nvidia and Creative. In fact Creative drive is the XP one and I can see some big frame fluctuation with sound off and on, since Vista is radically different in Sound, it is expected that sound drivers will take some time to settle. I

>"and given the work involved for this second `update` after>the main FSX one it might not be free."> Just my opinion, but if they don't make any updates fixing>the original faulty, yes I said faulty, program, I'm afraid>they will lose a lot of new and old FS customers. Yes, "faulty" pretty much hits it on the head.If a piece of software is killed by DEP, then it is actually a *bug* in the software and should be fixed free of charge. It is really that simple. People who understand how DEP works and what it tries to achieve, should agree here. There is absolutely no need to violate the rules which are required to run a program under a DEP enabled OS *on purpose*. On other platforms, DEP-alike mechanisms are standard for many years and never broke ANY software.Thats a fact and there is no excuse for a developer to tell you that it needs a "major rewrite" or whatever big changes and "unfortunately, it is too much work to release it as a free patch". It's not more than cleaning up the code and fixing the bug which causes the DEP violation.

"Thats a fact and there is no excuse for a developer to tell you that it needs a "major rewrite" or whatever big changes and "unfortunately, it is too much work to release it as a free patch"."As a developer we've said we are not testing or building for Vista at this point in time and we will not until a stable "street release" is available along with some better hardware. No excuses, just facts.

Good point Jose. Windows Vista has basic drivers for my Creative sound card. With WinXP I had simular problems with the Creative drivers taking up so much proc time intermittently.Well, here are the screenshots showing my frame rates using FSX with Vista Ultimate. I now see why others are concerned with the frame rate results. My target FPS was locked at the default 20fps. During taxi and regular flight my fps would fluctuate between a low of 5fps and a high of 14-15 fps. Very rarely would I experience the slightest pause or lack of smoothness. Even at a steady 11fps the sim was smooth as silk and transitions in scenery while turning was smooth with an occassional pause. I was really pleased with my short test flight. I expect my fps to increase to the 20fps locked setting with a few tweaks such as the fiberframe setting and deleting the default autogen .xml.I think the focus on fps is not the key to smooth flight. I'm not sure what's at play here but I will look closer later.So, I did a completely fresh install of Windows Vista Ultimate (thanks Mike T for the heads up about MSDN) on my PC (3GHz H/T, 2GB RAM, ATI Radeon X1300 PCI-E/512MB, ATI Beta Vista Drivers). The only application installed was Office 2007. I then installed FSX and after activation flew the following flight without a single modification to the sim.The following screens are from a short touch-and-go flight at KSAT, my home base.Takeoff cockpit viewhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162026.jpgTakeoff locked spot viewhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162027.jpgWheels uphttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162028.jpgRollouthttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162029.jpgHeaded downtownhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162030.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162031.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162032.jpgShort Finalhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162033.jpgThreshold in sighthttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162034.jpgTouchdownhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162035.jpg

HiAs no one else seems to have pointed it out, your graphics card is doing you no favours at all, its hard to recommend one for fsx but it is the weak point in your computer. I'm surprised you get fsx to run as well as you do. Also the screenshots look very blurry to me, could be the compression to post them but my sim looks a lot crisper.I did misunderstand your original post by the way, i hope the final version of vista is better.

>Hi>>As no one else seems to have pointed it out, your graphics>card is doing you no favours at all, its hard to recommend one>for fsx but it is the weak point in your computer. I'm>surprised you get fsx to run as well as you do. Also the>screenshots look very blurry to me, could be the compression>to post them but my sim looks a lot crisper.>>I did misunderstand your original post by the way, i hope the>final version of vista is better.In other words, spend even more money. I don't get the logic? FPS is not defined by the GC, but by the CPU. WHy would anyone advise the purchase of a new video card when the problem can be partially solved by spending the same mnoey, but retaining XP? There's no need to update to Vista for FSX until the DX10 patch is out, proven to work, and offers either fantastic new visuals or double the fps (yeah, dream on :-lol)Accepting that Vista has a COST to most, the expenditure on a new graphics card and RETAINING XP would mean additional budget for the card. In actual fact it's the difference between buying a `reasonable` card now, and a new GF 8800GTS which is DX10-compatible for when ACES release the `miracle cure`. :-lolEither that, or increasing the amount of RAM as well as buying a new card.All we have here is proof that, with a deafult aitrcraft at a default airport, FSX offers lower fps under Vista than XP. Why is there even a need to discuss it further?Allcott

>>Hi>>>>As no one else seems to have pointed it out, your graphics>>card is doing you no favours at all, its hard to recommend>one>>for fsx but it is the weak point in your computer. I'm>>surprised you get fsx to run as well as you do. Also the>>screenshots look very blurry to me, could be the compression>>to post them but my sim looks a lot crisper.>>>>I did misunderstand your original post by the way, i hope>the>>final version of vista is better.>>In other words, spend even more money. I don't get the logic?>FPS is not defined by the GC, but by the CPU. WHy would anyone>advise the purchase of a new video card when the problem can>be partially solved by spending the same mnoey, but retaining>XP? There's no need to update to Vista for FSX until the DX10>patch is out, proven to work, and offers either fantastic new>visuals or double the fps (yeah, dream on :-lol)>>Accepting that Vista has a COST to most, the expenditure on a>new graphics card and RETAINING XP would mean additional>budget for the card. In actual fact it's the difference>between buying a `reasonable` card now, and a new GF 8800GTS>which is DX10-compatible for when ACES release the `miracle>cure`. :-lol>Either that, or increasing the amount of RAM as well as buying>a new card.>All we have here is proof that, with a deafult aitrcraft at a>default airport, FSX offers lower fps under Vista than XP. Why>is there even a need to discuss it further?>>>Allcottoohh!! excuse me for speaking

>>oohh!! excuse me for speaking>Until you can offer some beneficial advice. You are excused. Advising ANYONE to upgrade their graphics card for Vista and FSX is an absolute nonsense. There will be no benefits to a new card for FSX under Vista until after the DX10 patch, so why pay cutting-edge prices NOW, when the patch - the need - may be twelve months away? If the upgrade is part of an overall package to suit Vista, then that's a different issue - but one which still leads to the same answer. Right now, the ONLY thing available for Vista that runs under DX10 is aero glass. Well, whoopie-do. Drivers are likely to be problematic for some time, while optimisation continues. So why be a guinea-pig when the only effect is to reduce frame rates? The problem with FSX and Vista is soundly defined by FSX, and Vista, not graphics cards. There's no need to look for a hardware solution in the graphics, when there isn't one. Vista runs FSX under DX9, just like XP. So like-for-like, spending MORE money on upgrading hardware to run FSX under XP makes a lot more sense, when the first ACES patch is intended to deal with those performance issues will be around months before anything DX10-orientated. While we can accept empirical claims of improved smoothness of the sim under Vista, there simply is no logic to upgrading only to obtain lowerfps, and your card advice will not benefit fps one jot. Allcott