I should be taking delivery of a new PC today (E6600, 2 gig, 7900GS) mainly for a racing game, GTR2. As I've been waiting for it to arrive, I'm surprising myself with the amount of interest I'm developing for FSX. I've been on a few boards trying to get some info and I'm becoming addicted by the whole thing! But I'll tell you what, it doesn't sound that easy for a beginner to get involved. First, FSX is obviously a resource hog. I would think that this new system should run just about anything with high graphic settings. Obviously, that isn't the case with FSX. That's the main topic in the forums. Then add-ons...it's very overwhelming for sure. Since I live in So. Cal, I saw Megascenery v2 and thought that would be a great addition to start with. Too bad it's not FSX ready. Add-on traffic programs? Tons of other stuff! And the amount of planes! I wouldn't even know what to look for. Some allow certain features (the ability to use auto-pilot?) some don't. Textures....Seems like there's tons available at different resolutions.Anyway, you guys know a lot more about this stuff than I do. I'm curious if you just get FSX Deluxe, load it with no add-ons (to start), and have a very enjoyable flight experience. Of course I'd want it too look good and feel good. It does sound excellent if you can get it to run decently.Todd

Buy FS9 instead.It already has three years worth of addons, it'll run like stink on your new setup, there's plenty of expertise arouhd to help you with it - and Megascenery works with it NOW! Allcott

FSX Looks good out of the box. The key is to spend the time necessary to get your fsx.cfg file setup properly for your system (which should run it pretty well), and get your system running as best as possible (overclocked but stable). The default scenery in fsx is very nice imo, and a lot better than fs9 (without addons). Also, if you end up addicted to it, fsx is where future development is headed so you will be set to enjoy a nice, and long, growth period.Good luck,Sammie

>Anyway, you guys know a lot more about this stuff than I do.>I'm curious if you just get FSX Deluxe, load it with no>add-ons (to start), and have a very enjoyable flight>experience. Of course I'd want it too look good and feel good.>It does sound excellent if you can get it to run decently.>Out-of-the-box it will not be that great. You need to spend about 30 minutes doing some things to get it running properly. On your new machine, it won't take much.If you do get FSX, I would advise you to follow the advice given on this site: http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41as a start.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

Thanks for the info guys. I've seen the debate over FS9 and FSX raging on, and I decided that FSX is the way to go. No doubt that FSX is the future, and as someone who knows nothing about the FS series, it seems to me to be a good thing that MS is pushing the performance threshold with this title. The newest and best always demands the fastest hardware, as it should. Rhett, I've seen many of your posts here and they have been very helpful in 1) Getting me addicted! ;-) and 2) giving me a little bit better understanding of FS and it's nuances. I'll certainly check out that site for advice. I have no problem adjusting the necessary config files to maximize performance. Been adjusting them on my racing sims forever and always listen to those more knowledgeable than myself, almost always with great results.Thank again!Todd

It is better than FS9 in many respects already beaten to death. It is a good compromise with the present but not a creative step toward the future.The future is obviously somewhere else, toward Google Earth, or the like, for scenery, toward mathematical elegance for the rest.Most current discussions of what lies ahead (OS, vid card, CPU etc...) remind me of the pre-jet attempts at increasing speed by increasing the size/number of engines.It is also the first time in my long history with flight simulators that I see posted (i.e. buchner) actual screenshots that are hands down better than even the artistic impressions of the latest edition.

I play gtr2 as well and bought it the day it was released. It ran just as good on my old 3.6 p4 as it does on my new e6600 system and is not nearly as hard on hardware as fsx will be. I wholeheartedly agree that if your system is setup correctly and you spend the time tweaking the fsx file and autogen files that you will get stellar results with your new box. I spent many hours last weekend overclocking my machine and testing it for stability and the gains i received by overclocking from 2.4ghz to 3.2ghz are about 8fps which is nothing short of phenomenal. I can fly in just about any major city now at 30fps and get glass smooth flying. Fsx can run very good if you have a good system and are willing to take the time to make it work at its peak performance. People with core2 machines who say this game runs poorly either a) dont know how to build and configure machines :( are pushing every slider to max including water which just isnt possible on current hardware or c) are lying and trying to stir the hate pot.Granted this game has many problems and annoyances, but overall i love it and cant wait for some 3rd party aircraft and scenery to come along. When run on a proper matrox triplehead setup it is nothing short of amazing at times when i look down from my chopper and would swear that i was actually flying :) Btw, gtr2 also looks pretty great on the triplehead and with trackir it adds even more to the realism.

"I've seen the debate over FS9 and FSX raging on, and I decided that FSX is the way to go. No doubt that FSX is the future"It's very interesting the title of this thread and the final decision made by the poster here. Great advice has been given concerning FS9 and the 'daunting' nature of the two version (FSX vs FS9) yet it seems the poster has closed the door to a major piece of his 'daunting' dilemma.Surely FSX can't be 'daunting' because little or nothing works with it at present. Hardware isn't an issue either because nothing you'll buy will run the thing at a decent level (tweaking doesn't count as that should have been the developer's job). FS9 and the add-ons that go with it are the meat of this hobby and that's the 'daunting' challenge. What to buy for FS9??? FSX is basically a shell of what FS9 was and the whole reason it's selling is off the back of previous efforts in Flight Simulator's long running franchise. FSX wouldn't sell if it weren't for name recognition and what the series has accomplished over the years with this communities support. No new title coming out the gate performing at the level of FSX would sell. Any logical person would tell someone new to get the better performing sim, FS9. This is not about "MS pushing the performance threshold" as it's clearly obvious bad programing and negligent future foresight was the staple of FSX's development. The bottom line is I hate when people come in here asking for help when they're only willing to hear what they want to hear. There's nothing 'daunting' about FSX at this point short of the fact no matter what system you purchase FSX will still run like crap on it. If you want help be open to logical suggestions. You being new trying to jump on FSX it totally your decision but understand many people will try to steer you in better ways of spending your money. FSX is not the 'future' in it's present state, hopefully the patch corrects that problem. Getting a sim that's going to give you the best bang for your buck should be what your shooting for. If the issues in FSX don't get fixed then FS9 is the future until FS11 comes out. The goal is to be open because none of us know how this is going to work out. Of course if your like Geofa or LL then ducking cities and staying in the woods could be your thing. Most of us want the whole experience. We can help you with the 'daunting' decisions of what add-ons to buy for FS9, no problem. But if you want to stay with FSX understand only a hand full of products that work with it. You may barely break $100 buying them all, there's nothing 'daunting' about it.

"The bottom line is I hate when people come in here asking for help when they're only willing to hear what they want to hear."Some of you comments below .. that sound like someone who is only willing to hear or believe what they want to ..."FSX is basically a shell of what FS9 was and the whole reason it's selling is off the back of previous efforts in Flight Simulator's long running franchise.""There's nothing 'daunting' about FSX at this point short of the fact no matter what system you purchase FSX will still run like crap on it."Lots of folks have been able to tweak the sim .. to the point where performance out of the sim is exceptable.Regards,Vern

After having GTR2 destroy me time and time again (People keep telling me that I have to practice more, it could be that I'm just not as good of a driver as I think), I can't imagine how anything else could be considered daunting :(Best of luck with your decision.

Welcome Todd! I hope you will enjoy a lot of discoveries and most importantly have fun. You will find this place to be very helpful as you explore away.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Well, after some effort in optimizing (tweaking) your system and the sim, you are able to run FSX satisfying on todays hardware (maybe not above extremely dense ares like New York or Tokyo, but the world is big...). Here's a sample what is possible with an E6600 and a X1900XT both overclocked.That's my first video attempt and it contains a few micro stutters because i recorded full screen with Fraps. Those don't occur without recording.http://www.fs2004.com/downloads/index.php?dlid=1476If you like slide shows - here are some pics of our multiplayer World Tour:http://www.fs2004.com/downloads/index.php?dlid=1486It's rendered with wmv9 codec. If you get problems to view with an outdated Media Player, download this one:http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.htmlHave fun with FSX :-) !

> Of course if your like>Geofa or LL then ducking cities and staying in the woods could>be your thing. Most of us want the whole experience. >Who stays in the woods? Cities can often be the best part of FSX. They show off those excellent photo-type textures that FS9 could never do! :-hah But fear not, when flying over a heavily populated area such as New York City, I'll go back to FS9 and put up with it's low resolution city textures that even the addons can't help with!L.Adamson

"Lots of folks have been able to tweak the sim"Well hopefully after the patch 'tweaking' won't be of such critical concern as it is today (just to get past 5FPS over dense areas). :-roll

Dillon-I see you edited your post to put words in my mouth.Why?...again...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg