After having it collect dust on my shelf since November, I reinstalled FSX today in preparation for the release of SP1. I've been having so much fun with it (performance issues weren't nearly as bad as I remember) that I'm tempted to make the switch to FSX permanent.However, I am still having a few of issues that perhaps someone can help me resolve:1) I'm unable to get window reflections in VC in most cockpits. They appear in FSX's default helicopter and glider, but not in the Cessna 172, where I'd really like it.2) At a certain altitude (maybe 8,000 ft.) everything gets shrouded in a hazy, translucent white cloud cover, even if I've set the weather to clear. Is this normal?3) No scenery is visible in the top-down view. Just my plane, crosshairs, and a light blue screen.Any pointers would be appreciated.Thanks,Charlie

Hi Charlie,I am not sure about your issues as I don't have them. Could it be a video driver issue? I hope someone has an answer so you can continue with the fun. What video card do you have?-perhaps there is an answer there.I am curious though about your comment-"collecting dust since November" but now "having so much fun and performance issues not as bad as I remember."Just would be curious what is different this time around and maybe there is some helpful info as to what has changed your perspective?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Did you adjust any settings or just used whatever it gave you when you installed. If it's the latter it could explain the lack of detail and scenery as FSX tends to default to low settings, especially on AMD systems.Ian.

#3) video card driver.#2) never seen that behavior.And as many have said before, there is no rule against flying both FS9 and FSX. Have the best of both worlds! :)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

My laptop just squeaks by the minimum requirements listed on the FSX box. Suffice it to say, I was pretty disappointed when I fired it up for the first time. Even minimal autogen brought the sim to its knees, and as I only fly GA, autogen has always been a must. After trying a few reinstalls and applying loads of tweaks I gave up and stuck with FS9. Fs9 has kept me quite happy - especially with Flight Ontario's great scenery packages covering the area I'm from - but I feel it doesn't recreate the sensation of flight in the same way FSX does with autogen off.So as I say, I reinstalled it yesterday in preparation for SP1, just in case the service pack can give me enough headroom to add a little autogen, and I fired up the sim for kicks.I guess what's different this time around is that I've stopped worrying about whether I can apply autogen, and just enjoyed FSX for the game it is (or what it can be on my low-end machine). Another big difference is that Cam2Pan - which I started using for head tracking in FS9 two months ago - works brilliantly in FSX when paired with mouse look. It definitely takes FSX and the sensation of flight to another level.What's really made up my mind about FSX is the excellent tileproxy project, which has really transformed the sim experience. A quick hop in an ultralight over the Grand Canyon using tileproxy is all the convincing I need to stick with FSX.A computer upgrade will be out of the question for at least a couple of years, and while FSX is far from perfect on my machine, FSX+Cam2Pan+tileproxy add up to the most fun I've ever had simming. Charlie

> Fs9 has kept me quite>happy - especially with Flight Ontario's great scenery>packages covering the area I'm from - but I feel it doesn't>recreate the sensation of flight in the same way FSX does with>autogen off.>So as I say, I reinstalled it yesterday in preparation for>SP1, just in case the service pack can give me enough headroom>to add a little autogen, and I fired up the sim for kicks.>I guess what's different this time around is that I've stopped>worrying about whether I can apply autogen, and just enjoyed>FSX for the game it is (or what it can be on my low-end>machine).IMO, FSX does a much better job without autogen than FS9, due to the fact that the ground scenery is of higher resolution. In fact, some times the "cartoony" autogen houses seem to gum up the look of things. Things get sharp with a lot less altitude.However, there are definately airport sceneries for FS9, that I simply would not want to run without autogen. Two --- autogen-less examples. A new one of Glen Canyon Dam (Lake Powell), and one from Hawaiaan MegaScenery, that I've shown far too many times! :) Autogen houses make a mess out of this Oahu, Hawaii subdivision which looks photo-real, and has an excellent 3D effect of depth along the mountainous ridges. Fly FSX long enough, and you'll see this new look in three dimensional altitudes. FS9 just "doesn't"!What's interesting, is that certain screenshots may look crisper on my CRT monitor, or the LCD flat screen, and visa-versa. I prefer the green foilage areas on the CRT, and deserts on the LCD.L.Adamsonhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/170932.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/170933.jpg