I have been checking the forums and other threads pretty well thank you. Obviously you are, yourself, a newbie on these forums. Welcome to our community. I wouldn't call it proof, but it is from horses own mouth, read on: http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/200...patibility.aspxBy the way, in case you don't know, the author was the project manager for FSX.Its funny that I just read the following from John Thout on Flightsim:"some of the responses that people make seem to be as though they are taking it as a personal attack on them. One that I'm going to quote here as a matter of fact is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, that someone could not run FSX decently and couldn't afford an upgrade. Someone simply responded, "How sad. Perhaps you should have let Microsoft know you can't afford a new PC. I'm sure it would have delayed the release until you could afford one."

I agree. I bought my 3.4 ghz system with 9800 pro 3 years ago and it ran FS9 just fine.

smarti05 strikes again.

Len, Please define your understanding of running FSX "efficiently" Your system specs and config settings might also enlighten the readers. Thanks, Craig

I read the article and I must say I now have a better understanding of the challenges ACES faces to move things along.I was very impressed with the explanation and decision making process applied by the Project Manager for FSX.I wonder if any hardcore gamers can dispute the comparison aspect between games like Half Life, etc. He is correct, this simulation game (it is simulation to me) pushes the processor, graphics card, memory, to their limits.I do now have a much better understanding after reading that blog.Thanks for the great thread!Barry

"How sad. Perhaps you should have let Microsoft know you can't afford a new PC. I'm sure it would have delayed the release until you could afford one":-roll

I've got to thank you Phil, for your valuable insight and advice, you've helped me realise why my FSX instalation has given me such problems.I've had my copy of FSX for more than four weeks now, and in that time the instalation has crashed so many times I've lost count, I've reinstalled FSX and Windows nearly as many times, and I've wondered long and hard why I've had so many problems. After following the advice on the support site I finally had some luck turning the sliders all the way to the left, but still my rig would crash after 15 or 20 minutes flying.After reading your post it occured to me that my CPU core temperature might be too high, and after each crash when I rebooted I took note of the temperature and sure enough it was well over 70 C. I've since cleaned my fan and the heat sink which was clogged with dust, and I've got an external fan pointed at the vents on the side of my box. So far it seems to have done the trick, and I've started moving the sliders to the right. Fantastic!Anyone else with system crashes after half an hour of flight should consider temperature problems.Thanks Phil.Mike.

smarti05 strikes again.If you mean trying to cut through the bs and waffle you're dead right.It is the redesign of the grapchics engine in FSX that has made most computers obsolete for itAs i understand it, tdragger has left the project and i'm afraid that blog is just full of fud. (makes me wonder why he suddenly 'left')If you did search you would find the post on here by the new ACES team leader that explains things a lot better than that and you obviously havent searched the forums (or if you have you're very bad at it) because there are people with just about the latest cpus, graphics cards and memory money can buy struggling to run fsx so i'm afraid you are wrong its still using the old rubbish engine relying on cpu grunt.They appear to have spent the whole of their resources updating the scenery engine to include a better mesh and the cars on roads and missed the obvious - hills in the middle of rivers and desert terrain in the whole world. Now if they cant get simple things like this correct, what makes you think they can get stuff like flight modelling right. To make the uk look ok i have to specify summer for the middle of winter - what a joke.Lets face it, this has turned into a badly written cheaply produced arcade game, trying to gain mass appeal.

>Lets face it, this has turned into a badly written cheaply>produced arcade game, trying to gain mass appeal.Why don't you buy xplane and leave us to discuss the great FSX here then?I am stunned how realistically I can fly over UK photo scenery at 1m resolution. I do so fluidly too. I also am stunned at the accuracy of the 5m mesh I am displkaying that came with the photo scenery - I can 'drive' an aircraft along the roads in my town, and see the terrain exactly as I see in real life!I am very happy with the more realistic atmosphere and the effect this has on the aircraft. I flew in the real world recently on quite a choppy day - it was quite difficult to maintain altitude. The aircraft would gain altitude one minute and lose it the next - FSX gives me the same challenge.I have my UK VFR chart with a Pooley Flight Guide - I can follow the correct procedures for any UK airfield and navigate around ground features.Some of you have systems that don't appear to be running FSX too well, but my experience is superb. I applied the poolsize settings but my machine just stutters - far better without it when using the VFR scenery.Upgrade your PC (plenty of memory makes a huge difference), try the tweaks and be realistic with your sliders.Ray Keattch.

Why can't you run any third party aircraft? I'm running the Aeroworx Super King Air and Eaglesoft Citation X with no apparent problems.

>As i understand it, tdragger has left the project and i'm>afraid that blog is just full of fud. (makes me wonder why he>suddenly 'left')He didn't go too far; still in the same office...>>They appear to have spent the whole of their resources>updating the scenery engine to include a better mesh and the>cars on roads and missed the obvious - hills in the middle of>rivers and desert terrain in the whole world. Now if they cant>get simple things like this correct, what makes you think they>can get stuff like flight modelling right. To make the uk look>ok i have to specify summer for the middle of winter - what a>joke.Some deserts got screwed, some UK got screwed, and I got a bunch of terrain/landclass data that was missing in FS9, along with corrections, and much improved textures. Win some, loose some! The total world won't be correct for everyone. It's just what happens when you must pick between new data-bases. Search the forums, and see why. And don't bother making worthless generalizations on flight dynamics; it's a waste of my time reading, and means nothing. I've flown quite a variety of GA and twins, and I know what works and what doesn't. If I'm looking for some particular flight dynamic, I can go third party, and most likely will be able to do the same for FSX. Will ALL flight dynamics ever be accurate, and especially out of the box? Of course NOT! Some improve, some get ruined, some get fixed by others, etc. It's the same with X-Plane and every other desktop sim. DON'T GENERALIZE!>Lets face it, this has turned into a badly written cheaply>produced arcade game, trying to gain mass appeal. Aces must have done something right, as I have no interest in arcade games; however, I've found that FSX can do a mighty fine job in creating a virtual reality of flight in numerous situations. Will FSX appeal to everyone for every occassion? Of couese not! Be realistic, as none of the other flight simulations do either. I've owned them all. But most of all, don't generalize statements. So worthless! :-hmmm L.Adamson

>Lets face it, this has turned into a badly written cheaply>produced arcade game, trying to gain mass appeal. Pretty soon there'll be bombing missions and the like, oh there already is. >Some deserts got screwed, some UK got screwed, Make that the whole of europe, or at least the bit that isn't desert anyway and if you bothered reading or taking notice of any other peoples opinions you would find that most of north America is afflicted in the same way.WRT flight modelling are you saying you have flown the real thing and find the fsx response accurate or are you just talking bs...If fsx is accurate then fair enough and why the need for add-ons, you're just not making any sense. Anyway generally the whole of the winter ground textures have been done completely incorrectly and generally all the rivers have great big lumps of mud sticking out of them, oh and generally what's the point of having an effect (light bloom) that should be totally done on the graphics card, being totally done on the cpu to the extent that no one can use it, oh and one more generalisation, no one can run autogen or water on high out of the box either, so what revolutionary new programming have they done right apart from sticking a few dodgy looking cars on the roads and a few boats in the water.

Once again, personal attacks bring a thread to its knees. I am cautioning those guilty of the practice, we are running out of patience will start pruning accounts without warning if it continues.

>>WRT flight modelling are you saying you have flown the real>thing and find the fsx response accurate or are you just>talking bs...>>If fsx is accurate then fair enough and why the need for>add-ons, you're just not making any sense. >Again, a generalized question! "IS FSX's response accurate?" What on earth are we asking here? Does this mean taking every type and make of aircraft, and every flight parameter, and every possible manuver in all flight envelopes.........And then asking something like........IS FSX's response accurate? And if it is, why the need for addon's?This question is so ludicrus and obvious, that I won't even respond!L.Adamsonedit: tamed a bit...