I bought FS9 and the the clouds were the show stopper's for me,I upgraded like you did and bought a 3GHz p4 system with a Geforce 6800 GT ...big improvement but it still struggled with clouds, and even with this PC I was still getting single figure FPS at a very busy HeathrowFast forward to FSX, tried the demo,it ran ok I then upgraded my PC (not through choice but because of hardware failure) and bought the best that is around now, bought FSX, end result Is I have My FPS locked at 30FPS and i,m getting that 99% of the time (EGPF/EGLL in the default 737 even in dense multi layer cloud.At the same very busy Heathrow In FSX I'm getting at least 24FPS sitting on the runway after finding this site http://www.world-of-ai.com and it looks much better than FS9I,m not running at 100% ,and you know something in many cases I dont want to , autogen at sparse works for me, also using 1x water..dittoBut looking at what I got from upgrading my PC for FSX ,I got a bigger kick in performance than I did for FS9.E6600@ 3.22 Gig corsair 800mhz memoryGeforce 7900 GTO 512 memoryAll the bestJohn

What I keep reading is how ACES had no idea what hardware would be like now, this doesn't make any sense as Falcon 4 was written with multi-core support when it was released how many years ago..Anyhow, after endless hours of tweaking I am enjoying FSX...

>You know what's funny? Take a look in this forum at posts>beginning around August 2003 and going forward for a few>months. You could substitute FSX for FS9 in the posts and>change the dates and you'd think you were reading current>posts. You'll see the same ####, the same moaning, and the>same dire predictions that the new version of FS will never be>as good as the last. From clouds to autogen to addon>compatability, posts galore about how the new version just>doesn't meet the mark.I remember the same thing. Seems like history is repeating it'self. :D

>this doesn't make any sense as Falcon 4 was written with multi-core >support when it was released how many years ago..Are you referring to the high fidelity FM that your got if you had a 486DX ,Falcon 4 used the Coprocessor in the DX to good advantage if I remember right?..Happy memories ,great sim getting shot down so many times was never so much fun:).John

>Can you point me to several examples, where FS9 was bashed>like FSX....I'll leave that you to search if you think I'm blowing hot air, but here is one example literally taken at random from a search done a few minutes ago. You can search on a number of criteria and probably get all kinds of threads.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...topic_id=139798 My point isn't that the level of vitriole is better or worse, or that more people complained, only that threads like the one above sound a lot like what's being posted now, and people need to have a little perspective. You may disagree with me, and that's fine too. Just remember that clock speed is not the only difference with newer processors, and isn't the only determining factor. Things like FSB and cache play a role as well, as do other factors. If clock speed was the only determining factor, then my 550 P4 3.4 GHz would always beat out AMD or Conroe chips clocked at much lower speed. Many tests show that's not the case.

Then, poor the Aces team are hard at work on SP1 for nothing. Obviously there is no performance issue and all we need is a patch for a few small visual things and we're good to go right?Why not save the Aces team the time and effort working on performance patches when all this is, is typical release doom and gloom and indeed Aces should scrap SP1 and get to work on the DX-10 conversion, et al and forget all this silly performance / dual-core nonsense.

AVSIM FSX forum is becoming a, more and more, hostile environment.Mike, perhaps, it takes longer for things to sink-in for some of us, since we all may not be as smart as you. I didn't mean for any of my comments to be taken as an insult. If you didn't take them as an insult, and you were truely amazed, then I am very pleased that I could amuse you. But anyway..The "spectacular" DX10 artist rendering, that you mention, was not just a picture found on internet. It was released BY ACES to create expectations for FSX under DX10! If in addition to the patch, they have to re-write the entire software to create their own artist's rendition, the people in charge of releasing that picture should be fired. Really, I just can't imagine that much stupidity otherwise. Ironically, ACES has gone through great pains to reduce our expectations regarding performance benefit of DX10. So if we are led to beleive that the patch is not for improvement in performance and that it is not for better visuals, what is the DX10 patch for? If the only benefit of the DX10 patch, for FSX, is better performance, (ACES denials withholding) and FSX is, strictly, a DX9 software, then any patch can be written for all existing DX9 software (including FS9) to improve performance. Right?

Frankla:I'm not being hostile toward you, or flaming you, so don't take it as such, but you are making incorrect assumptions.The fact remains that Aces has stated repeatedly that FSX was made for DX9 only. Secondly, the patch that Aces is working on right now (SP1) has nothing to do with DX10, it is being done so that they can identify immediate changes that will help boost performance right now. Are you confusing the SP1 patch with the further out DX10 and proposed Dual-Core patches? Again, the SP1 patch is for performnace. The DX10 patch is for DX10 compatibility which will boost visuals and afford the inherent performance built into DX10 titles. FYI the artists rendering has nothing to do with what FSX WILL look like, rather what it COULD look like. Simply changing the Shaders to 4.0 will not do this. What FSX will look like under DX10 remains to be seen.

24 FPS at heathrow is, indeed, very impressive. I guess the problem with FSX is that people are getting wildly different results with brand new high end systems. We had a guy in this forum who posted shots (with FPS counter on) at SFO that showed 11 FPS. His system? Extreme Core Duo (E6800) (over clocked to 3.9 mhz) and a brand new DX10 8800GTX card. I really hope that your experience is more typical though. It makes me more hopefull.

Please all you "we've seen this all before" posters think of this: Unlike the FS9 era, PC hardware is going a different direction (more cores than MHz improvement and SLI GPUs) than what FSX will take advantage of. Hopefully the upcoming SP1 will bring FS back on the hardware track, otherwise history will certainly repeat itself - FSX will gain infamy like FS2000 did by never getting to realise its full potential before the next version came out.Gary

> FSX will gain infamy like>FS2000 did by never getting to realise its full potential>before the next version came out.>On the FS9 forum, I already mentioned many of the vast improvements in FS2000 over the lackluster FS98. There were many of them, such as real world topography & navigation data-bases which actually took MSFS from being just a game, to an actual simulator of use for real world piloting. I find it quite interesting, that FS2000 is being used as the example of where FSX shouldn't be going.I personally did not have much effection for FS98, and chose to use Pro-Pilot. FS98's lack of real world elevations limited the sim, to thousands of less airports, than it has today. FS2000 made MSFS finally worthwhile.L.Adamson

Thanks Mike. I was refering to DX10 patch, not SP1. Would the patch boost the visuals, as you say, if the visual improvements for DX10 were not coded into FSX to beign with? If you don't need a DX10 coded software, but only a patch to boost visuals and performance, can't the same thing be done with any other pure DX9 titles such as FS9? I am not challenging you with these questions. I am looking for clarification.If what you are saying about the artist's rendering is true, MSshould not have put FSX logo on that artist's rendition. Why couldn't they show us a drawing that showed us what DX10 could do, without refering to FSX in it? Why create such an expectation if they were not going to code DX10 abled visuals in FSX? As I said before, if true, this is an unbelievable blunder. (am being more polite this time and not call them stupid :)

Multi core has been optimized in Allied Force.. I just can't understand what they were thingking, I mean we all knew what Hyper Threading was and take a look at the AMD chips... Its a no brainer...I hope the SP1 patch can solve some of the issues with performance, I have removed my Default.XML file, downloaded all of the available performance enducing files and I am able to get good performance out of FSX, but I can't help but feel that I am missing something with the sim the way it is currently.I am anxious to try an FSX 3rd party aircraft, not a port from FS9.. I think the ones ported from FS9 cause a great deal of ptoblems with the FPS... So, I fly default planes.. Though these default planes are better than FS2004's I am still left wanting more.. I do love the Maule though!

Performance, not functionality, was the context in which I made this statement. I should have made that clearer.Gary

You know, if you want really good quality in this world ... be it in food, wine, automobiles, jewelry, and computer-based flight simulation ... you need to spend a few dollars.I was taught as a child that I could not have "it" both ways: I could not have money and have what money buys at the same time (can't have my cake and eat it too).If you want to see FSX run pretty well, find your true passion in life first, then follow it to make lots of money; and then, buy yourself a super PC (because you will not worry about money), and enjoy your life.I am from a dirt-poor beginning, but now could not imagine waiting with baited breath for 5fps.