Now that I finally have FSX, for me I will still use both:- FS9 for all heavy iron work and to keep using the addons that haven't made the jump to FSX yet (fspax and heavy iron for the most part)- FSX for the missions and GA or low level VFR flying (ala DC-3) in non-city areas. Hopefully SP1 will expand this repetoire to accommodate heavy iron and city flying without choking to death like it currently would.Gary

In response to Geof's birdstrike post, here is a link to an F-16 bird strike that was circulating around the net a few months back. So yes, it happens:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...rd+strike&hl=enIt would be cool if ATC could add bird flocks into multiplayer games as "traffic," like they can effect weather, and then broadcast their presence to the players as a sort of 'ATIS'...just a thought!http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

at the end of the XIXth century. Just 2 or 3 glitches to iron out and all would fall into place.

>>Oh come on...really? Good grief.....not buying that for one second. How good can the feel of flight be at 10-17 FPS....Air mass my *ss, gimme a break.<

Okay, so ends this topic.

>It sounds like for the first time ever the majority of us>will run BOTH FS9 and FSX into the forseeable future.>Regardless of all the subjective impressions, screenshots,>framerates, and hardware debates, you have to admit that that>says something about FSX. Time will tell. >What it say's, is that FSX is capable of running a much cleaner and crisper looking picture. This applies to the ground surface, panels, and aircraft exteriors. If you actually run and use FSX, you can't help but notice a definate improvement. And it's obviously "overhead", frame rate wise! If FSX was capable of running these higher resolution graphics at FS9 speeds, then it would be a no brainer to switch totally to FSX. But it can't at this point in time, and that becomes the compromise.And that's where I am. I run FSX with some lower slider settings because I prefer the higher resolution textures. FSX is much more capable of a photo look, even in default areas, compared to the more animated cartoon look of FS9. It's a must, that I keep FSX frame rates close to 25 fps for a fluid smoothness.I now consider FS9 "compromised", because in many flight areas, it's a "blurred look" compared to what FSX can produce. Outside of third party airport sceneries for FS9, some of which I really like, btw, I usually now prefer FSX. So yes, for the forseeable future, I'll be running both.L.Adamson