I am not a hard core simmer. Have had every version of MSFS since the inception. The sim helps me kill the bad weather days in Tennessee. My system is two years old and with most features turned way down I can get 20 FPS at 1280x1024 with FSX. I cannot see me buying a hot video card and 4 gig of memory to take this sim to higher levels. I have several great FS9 aircraft that I purchased and some scenery. I fly them both

>The purpose is: I wanted to know.>>It wasn't intended to start a war. I'm looking for opinions>and that is what the group is for. If you allow yourself to>get pulled into a war, then that's something you need to work>on.>I thought it was a pretty sensible question and I much>appreciate the helpful answers I've received.Some people have a short fuse when it comes to discussing something.....

I will buy it eventually, but will continue on with FS9 as I haven't seen enough yet to totally impress me. I might install it alongside FS9 and dink around with it as the mood strikes me.

That's what I'm doing Speedbyrd, fixing one thing at a time.....but I think I'm losing interest in starting all over from scratch every several years! http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

All you say is true I'm sure. I'm also not concerned with childish petty remarks. Those are of no interest to me. I'm grateful for the sensible and very helpful replies that gave me a better picture of the new flightsim. I'll dabble on it at a later time. For the moment, even though I have a new super Dell XPS system, I'm just as happy with FS9.

>"Even if you have the rig >FSX runs like a pig!" >>Thank you Very Much... :-hah >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

I agree with Larry, I have both, and sometimes if I want SUPER SMOOTH gameplay I go back to FS9, but if I want some extra features, and that warm fuzzy feeling when you play something that's new, then I go play some FSX...I spent plenty of time customizing FSX already though, for me, I don't mind it, some people have a fit if they have to tweak it out of the box.If you don't want to customize, I wouldn't buy it

Is this still going ?OK Listen,.....It's like a mountain. The guy at the top, who has already climbed it says to the guy at the bottom: "hey the view up here miles better than your view. I'm staying here."The thing is, 2 years later, when the guy at the bottom gets to the top, there will be a revolving restaraunt, theme park and hotel there.

That's probably what I'll do, I think. I might put a new video card in and an extra gig of memory. But that's suddenly gone cost me

Alex, here are a few shots with frame rates. The first four are high resolution photo-real (Horizon Simulations VFR England & Wales). I usually use 1280*1024 but these are 1024*768 to meet Avsim specs. I don't see any frame rate drop going to higher resolution. These are all medium scenery density and maximum autogen. Frame rates would be significantly higher with lower autogen.My system is P4 3.4 Ghz, 2 Gb RAMBest regards, Chris Snowdonia with autogen demo If you look carefully you can see Conway Castle.http://www.kline.demon.co.uk/VFR1.jpghttp://www.kline.demon.co.uk/VFR2.jpgHeathrow (16.4 FPS)http://www.kline.demon.co.uk/VFR3.jpgLondonhttp://www.kline.demon.co.uk/VFR4.jpgKIND http://www.kline.demon.co.uk/VFR5.jpghttp://www.kline.demon.co.uk/VFR6.jpg

>The Fine Print:>Performance may vary based on how many key features you wish>to turn off and how many unofficial tweaks you wish to try.If an FSX fix allowed every feature at it's best, such as everything in crisp clear high resolution, along with high frame rates, we'd all go into shock, and leave thousands of $$$ in FS9 addons behind. Hopefully, the "fix" won't be that good! :-hah Wouldn't want to have to spend another thousand dollars or so, to replace the multitude of addons that make FS9, what it can be today! L.Adamson -- FSX & FS9

For me I fly FSX full-time , it really is very good.You really do need to apply the patches from here though if you want to be able to have decent fluidness from the program :http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41I have an AMD 3700+ 1GB RAM Geforce 6800 rig (going on 1 year old now) and can run with the settings I want and really enjoy... have AI in there too and this was easy to bring across from FS9. I can't bring across aircraft like euroeings or PSS but FS9 is there if I need some of that drug...The sense of flight is definatley better. There's much better flight dynamics going on coupled with the weather physics too. x-wind landings are lots of fun. When you go from the CRJ to the 73 to the 'Bus you can feel it. I have to congratulate the ACES team for this.Depending on how you fly your FS9 and how PC geeky you are you'll either love or be frustrated with FSX. Just on one point (being the geek I am) I can't understand why ACES made the textures so huge as to affect performance so badly. Simply reducing the autogen (trees, buildings) and textures by using the tweaks from the site above made a huge difference.

"Frame rates would be significantly higher with lower autogen."I don't hardly see any autogen in these shots especially in that shot over the city (England I believe) and the last shot. For the frames your getting I'm not at all impressed (but I guess this has been beaten to death. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder).

In the London shots it is high resolution photo-real without autogen. But the first shot is photo real with autogen. Look carefully and you will see autogen trees reaching almost to the mountains on the horizon. This combination of photo real and autogen is stunning. Static photos simply don't do it justice.Best regards, Chris

>In the London shots it is high resolution photo-real without>autogen. But the first shot is photo real with autogen. Look>carefully and you will see autogen trees reaching almost to>the mountains on the horizon. This combination of photo real>and autogen is stunning. Static photos simply don't do it>justice.>IMO, autogen has it's place, and sometimes not. I'm including a few pics. The first one is FSX with a photo-real addon. Place auto-gen houses on this, and it takes away from the realism. The second is FS9 with some photo-real scenery. It looks very good with a bit of altitude, and again, auto-gen housing would distract from the look.The 3rd and last pic, is FS9 with the Portland airport addon. This type of scenery looks very good with auto-gen, as long as you don't dwell on the looks of individual suburb housing. Autogen adds very much to the feel of being there, while at low altitudes or on the ground.IMO, auto-gen certainly does not create "beauty". All depends, when and where it's used. With high resolution photo type scenery, where the textures come into focus quickly, it's "sometimes" better to leave autogen off. Just depends on the situation.BTW-- Screenshots sure look better on my 21" CRT, than my 19" LCD. The LCD is a bit washed out, and more pixelated. The "vegetation" on my CRT has much lusher greens.#1 -- FSX Photo-real -- no autogenhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165505.jpg#2 -- FS9 Photo-real -- no autogenhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165506.jpg#3 -- FS9 Portland Scenery (good place for autogen)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/165507.jpg