Just a sipmle thought from a simple "simmer".

[Guest kingairvols]

I am in know way a "savey" with PC's, editing the con-fig files, However wanted to ask if it is possible that once (MS Vista OS) is out ((and hopping that its de-bugged quickly)) is there a chance that it will enable better performace along with what ever DX 10 is. I have read in the Dec issue "Computer Pilot" enough "well to realizr I have a bunch to learn".Bottom line if Vista and DX 10 do not get it done better, (better is releavant, I guess I am thinking where most can use it with out tjis that and the other tweek being used) well will there be a patch of sorts from MS or else that allows FS X to run on PC's in the near future, ((future is the reference I keep reading around the Forums that it will take 2 - 3 years for the average affordable PC to run FS X w/o special tweeks)).I am in no way angrey or wanting to vent any hostility, I am just hoping some people who where involved in the testing stages may be allowed to commint or that others knowledgable can comment. Thank you.Mark.System:OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM Radeon X1600 Pro 512MB running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB running a NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel

[Guest emkramer]

Hi Mark,I have no idea what you were saying, and I mean no offense by that, but I have a nearly identical system to yours, and I run FSX with no tweaks, and it looks and plays far better than FS9 did. Just so you know... :)Earl

[Guest kingairvols]

Agian,I mean no offence in any way to any one.I am asknig about the probability of the add on's as mentioned above. Also, is Vista and DX 10 (once de-bugged, hey all new software has growing pains) going to make FS X more efficents for PC's?Agian I am the worst CP Savey person around here, so if any terminology is not used correctly then I offer my appologies. Thank you.Mark.System:OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM Radeon X1600 Pro 512MB running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB running a NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel

[Mace 1,927]

I am not sure what you are asking.The DX10 update won't be out for quite a few months, probably no earlier than August if I had to make an educated guess.The performance patch will be out sooner, probably sometime in la primavera.Your sys should be able to run FSX ok. The 5200 cards have known problems with the program though.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Paul J 349]

Hey Mark; DirectX10 shouldn't make much - if any - difference to FSX, because FSX is made for DirectX9. IF FSX is patched to be DirectX10-compliant THEN you may see a difference - but not likely much. The BIG difference will come with the FSX performance patch - probably released in the next two - three months, I would think. There may be some small improvement with FSX running on Vista, as the core Operating System code will be more efficient (we hope), over XP. Given that FSX is not constructed to take advantage of dual or multi-core processors - I believe it will be FS"XI" before we see significant performance changes - and then watch out!Regards,pj. . and, by the way - EVERYBODY here was a "simple simmer" at one time!! OK? :-beerchug

[Guest Stoopy]

> The BIG difference will come with the FSX performance>patch - probably released in the next two - three months, I>would think. >> There may be some small improvement with FSX running>on Vista, as the core Operating System code will be more>efficient (we hope), over XP. >Very likely WAY too early to tell which of the respective, hopefully-upcoming patches will make what level of difference.I don't believe that anywhere, ACES has yet committed to what the scope of improvement will really be with the much-anticipated "performance patch", which I believe is a term generated here and not by them. So, saying there will be a BIG difference is pinning a LOT of promise on something that has yet to be seen or proven.True, we can anticipate full well that there will be some improvement for most users of course, but there will surely remain a certain number of core users who may not be entirely satisfied that any improvement will also gaurantee sufficient performance overhead so they can also run their add-ons and Level-D PMDG airliner what-have-you-thingies and get the same performance as the previous version. In that regard, any "performance patch" might likely meet with the same level of controversy as the FSX release did.

[Paul J 349]

Hi Stoopy; When I said "BIG" - I meant relative to the existing FSX out of the box. I would predict they will produce a patch which will give the simmer more or less equivalent to what they're getting at this moment with a "tweaked" FSX. Microsoft has the capability, and they do respond to their clients. I don't expect that it would include new code for dual-core, because of the code module interdepedencies: even if it is a partial re-write for dual-core - it's not going to make the majority happy. Those that have the "money and power" will be ecstatic, and those without it will be placated in some degree only. The discontent will still continue to fester.Re your last paragraph, I think you're entirely correct. After the patch and into the future - we still have to have headroom for addons; it still has to have "legs" - and here I'm guessing it can only be about a year to 18 months, because I believe the proper solution is most probably a re-write of the complete sim, incorporating the technology benefits derived from their/our experiences with FSX, and their recognition, now - of what makes a good sim, based upon what they've gleaned from these (FS9 and 10) posts here and elsewhere.I will bet money that FSXI is on the horizon at Microsoft, and already may well be the subject of a feasiblity study.