>I'm a brand new FSX user. I came from Fly!II and few flights>in FS 2004. I'm trying to configure FSX and have some>dificulties.>>1. I cant see taxi lights. Is there any special>configuration?-SNIP->Thanks for any help>>Jo

Hi JoaoI dont think there are taxi lights, not sure thoughYou really need 2gb RAM and 512 of video for any acceptable performance in FSXI never used FLY! Does that model the whole world, or just a limited area?

Not true. In addition to allowing creation of better visuals, DX10 is designed to make gaming programing a lot more efficient. Theoratically, the DX10 titles should run at much faster frame rates (for the same visual quality.)There are two main tehcnologies in DX10 that make graphics writen for it more efficient. One is called unified shaders. Right now, in DX9, you have dedicated shaders that either process vertexes (geometry, mesh, polygons) or textues but not both. For example, if the frame processed is geometry intensive, the vertex shaders work at maximum capacity and the texture shaders sit and yawn. Massive number of transistors sit idle. In DX10 the same shaders can handle textues and vertexes. So if a view is texture intensive, the shaders that handle vertexes can pick up the work and process textures instead. This way maximum power of the GPU is tapped.The second technology that can make DX10 games faster is per following: Currently, when many object of the same type need to be shown in a frame (think trees and forrests in fsx), the cpu has to create each object individually. In DX10 one object is created by CPU and the GPU replicates them without going back to CPU! Not only GPU replicates the object, it can be programmed to slap different textures to each of the replicated objects so they all don't look like clones (perhaps this is why autogen in FSX brings your DX9 systems to their knees and that is why an autogen texture tweek is needed.)I have said it many times before; IMO DX10 seems to be made for a game like FSX. The technology fits it like a glove. I don't agree with people who say FSX is an DX9 only program. These people claim that the up-comming patch is just cosmetic only and gives FSX very marginal improvements. I think ACES does not want to promise much and are very silent about this (no more foots in their mouths), but they are expecting good performance improvements with DX10.Think about it, why would a game like Crysis be a DX10 title and not FSX? Do you think that Microsoft kept ACES in the dark about DX10? Nope.

G'day Joao,> My only concern related to Fly is that future hardware and >operating systems simply stop Fly to run.Relax mate! That's not going to happen anytime soon, and don't forget that Fly! Legacy is simmering on the backburner. Fs9 guys are in exactly the same boat.>Disappointed though. Microsoft would be more fair on its statements >regarding FSX requirements..... Yeah but that's typical of all sim's. Microsoft being no better/no worse than any other sim developer.Don't worry, just keep enjoying your simming with whichever sim you like. - that's my philosophy :-)Cheers,Roger

>You really need 2gb RAM and 512 of video for any acceptable>performance in FSX>I seem to do as well or better than many with 2Gig & 256mb for the video card. L.Adamson

Right.I second you, and lower too, will do.

Sir ,,Yes, Fly! models the whole world. There is a bunch of very very good add-ons developed by Fly! addicts.___ JJLobo ___55 19 38487822

Bob,I'm in a similar situation - minus the $2000 or $3000 that I don't have (and won't have until perhaps 2009). Tuition, room & board, car insurance, bills, etc, will take what $$ I have.So, my copy of FSX will be in its box until then. MS Flight Sim has been a casual hobby of mine for 22 years. I guess I'll take a break from it for a few years.Merry Christmas to all!David

About shuting down programs and services, about services what to keep running suppose and want to run multi player?

>>You really need 2gb RAM and 512 of video for any acceptable>>performance in FSX>>>I seem to do as well or better than many with 2Gig & 256mb for>the video card. >>L.AdamsonI'm doing ok with a 3.15 ghz P4 and a 128m 9800 pro.You *do not* have to have a monster ram video card ram to run ok. But....You do if you want to crank all the slidersto the right. With my 128m card, as long as I don't totally deplete the video ram, it's just fine. And I run about thesame as the other guy above with the AMD and 9800pro..Only the biggest airports drop me down to 10 or less.The vast majority I'm in the high teens or 20's. At mostmedium airports, I'm in the mid to high 20's. I cruisein the 20's, 30's, even 40's or higher. But.. I don't runreal high res.. Thats another thing with a lower ram card..Don't get carried away with the res, or you will regret it.I can run 1200x1078 fairly well, but 1600x1200 will slowit down a bit. Quite a bit if heavy wx and clouds, etc..BTW, I only have 1 gig of ram. So far, it's not been an issue.It might run slightly better with 2, but it does just fine with 1 so far.. Not much to spare though... :/ Whats weird is my fairly old box seems to do as well, or maybeeven better than some of the newer boxes listed.. But.. I think part of that is cockpit error in setting up the new machines.IE: some with E6???'s duo cores do well, others complain it'shalf dead.. MK

>I'm a brand new FSX user. I came from Fly!II and few flights>in FS 2004. I'm trying to configure FSX and have some>dificulties.>>1. I cant see taxi lights. Is there any special>configuration?>2. Having bildings complexity set to medium-high there is no>airport buildings. Setting ti to higher I cant fly it, the>performance is too low.>>I'm running a Pentium IV 2.0GHZ 512MB AGP 128MB. Is the>machine the problem? I've purchased FSX based on the box>mentioned requirements, that are smaller (processor 1GHZ,>256MB Ram).>>Thanks for any help>>Jo

I disagree.I do agree that, as I noted previously, 2 GB of ram is a must as far as I'm concerned.But you can do fine with a 128 MB graphics card. Heck, I'm running on a 64 MB graphics card on a 1.86 Pentium M and I have lots of trees and scenery. Granted I'm locked at 15 and fly mostly GA, but, to me, that's fine. And there's no good heavy iron available yet, anyway. I'd like faster, but I'm happy as is till I can upgrade.But then again, if you are happy with FlyII, stick with it.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180