hehe, ok: "I now think FSX's performance is just fine"My system is: "Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 at 2.66, 4GB mem, and ATI X1950 Crossfire cards" .And you're getting a whopping 20-30FPS.my vote: YES for that new graphics engine.Note: That's 20-30 in the densest part of the sim note what I'm getting elsewhere!!

As one of my favorite wrestling characters used to say,"OH #### YEAH!"Vista?Dont want it!Dont need it!Dont care!!!!>YES: Rewrite the core graphics engine, minimal backwards>compatibility will be OK.>NO: Keep the current one, just patch it up for FS11 with the>new features.

by the way that #### isn't what you think lol, I didn't know this thing censored, sorry. (Hint: it's where Mr. Applegate lives)

Say what?! I didn't censure anything-should I have? Glad to meet you too....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

you can only vote "YES" or "NO", #### Yeah! doesn't count!!

YES

I tried the TnL setting also, in did improve performance a little, but not much, I run at 1920 x 1200 - you didn't list your AA and AF settings and what resolution you run FSX in.However, this setting drastically reduced eye candy quality so I'm not sure the trade-off is worth it for me.FYI, TnL was available in FS9 also.

I don't think anyone except you, knows what you are talking about. :)RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Hi Matt.When SLI first came on the open market I started getting problems with FS9.After quite a few months with help from AVSIM members and a fellow over in Irland who for month used to alway recomend a clean install of windows it was realized then the the engine used in FS9 was not up to the video technology that was in use then, and to use that same engine in FSX needs a post like this to suggest to microsoft that mabe they should consider a change next time.RegardsRex

Ugh! I read things like this and all I can do is shake my head, no wonder FSX is what it is. Please someone get some of the real developers in from the Ace's team to read/discuss in this forum, not the PMs.Since DX10 is created by Microsoft and I hope and have to assume that the Ace's team were well involved in the DX10 project and would expect them to have access to early builds of DX10 so they could optimize FSX -- obviously that didn't happen in current release.However, it is clear that DX10 does provide facilities that would help a from scratch rewrite of the FSX engine. I'm sure some of these features will be leveraged in a DX10 version of FSX or FS11 or whatever comes out next.FSX doesn't really have a "engine" in terms of something that is generic enough to be sold/provided to 3rd parties. It probably would be more appropriate to say re-write the core taking into account today's multi-core CPU and multi-GPU technology. Since it is clear that hardware is not moving up in terms of Ghz, but sideways in terms of more cores (both CPU and GPU), then code for more cores is clearly the path to take. In fact, it should be scaleable, meaning the more cores you add, the more benefits you'll see (as in the code will thread out more). But we're back to where I suggest FSX should be a long time ago.IMHO, the various PMs of FSX have not really listened to the community at any truely meaningful level. What they have done is listened ONLY if the request is something easy to do and fits within their commitments and profitability restrictions. Fair enough I guess, not how I would like to see their game technology demo progress (especially with Microsoft's push for PC games recently).Rob.

Yes the way it looks and it performs in Win XP, but I think I'll wait for Vista and DX10 before I make up my mind.CBrand

YES 10000000 million times (even though it only counts as 1)

>12 or 6 months ago, had you suggested sacrificing backward>compatibilty, it would have been met with screams of>indignation by hundreds of your fellow forum denizens. >>I find it interesting, not to mention ludicrous, that now,>just a short one month or so after product release, that there>are those of you that would sacrifice backward compatibility.>>>Where was this "poll" a year or more ago? Why did the majority>not encourage dropping the backward compatibility when it>really counted; during the design phase? To take a "poll" now,>after the concrete has set, so to speak, seems to me a waste>of energy and bandwidth. >>I would suggest that long before the next release enters>design, that the community have some serious discussions about>the "sacred cows" such as backward compatibility, that we seem>to hold so close to our hearts. Maybe by doing so, we'll free>up MS/ACES to do what they really would like to do; unleash>the next great flight simulator.Tom, It looks as if "The community" already has started serious discussions about "the sacred cows":) I have seen more gripes about FSX being a hog than any other version. If you never flew Flight Sim and bought it for the first time, loaded it up on your AMD 4000 with 1 gb of memory and a Nvidia 7600 128 mb card and found it to be virtually unflyable, what kind of impression would you get of Flight Sim? So you look at the box and the requirements and think I have more horsepower than what is recommended let alone required. It would leave a bad taste in your mouth. I am all for the next great flight simulator that can run maxed out on current hardware FLAWLESSLY with plenty of room to spare. If backwards compatability has to be sacrificed then MS/ACES should invite payware and freeware developers in from the begining so they can provide addons at the time of release. I really appreciated the way MS/Aces cooperated with the FS community on this release. If the performance issues can be worked out so a 3ghz processor and a gig of ram with a 256 mb pcie video card can run FSX with all settings maxed out and have plenty of horsepower left for addons, you will see it fly off the shelves and everybody, OK almost everybody in Flight Sim Heaven.

Yes!

YES!It needs a total re-write, multiple CPU and GPU's are the future. I really hoped FSX would use this hardware to its fullest, hope FS11 does and I don't mind if there is no backward compatibility for older add-ons.