FSX resource requirements

Since many developers nowadays concentrate on FSX so FS9 is gradually abandoned, I'd like to get an overview of how you deal with the hardware requirements of FSX and what your perspectives for the next couple of months are.I write this because of my latest disappointment with FSX and SP1 which caused me to uninstall the sim completely:Not being a GA flyer or user of the default planes, I almost exclusively use payware airliners. The only serious plane for FSX that I have is the Maddog 2006.After fiddling with FSX, I reached a state where the sim yields about 24 FPS on my more lower end Athlon 3400+/Radeon 9800 system (which, besides, serves me well when running FS9). To get this performance, all sliders are set to minimum or medium positions, so the visuals are not very impressing (and no comparison to what I see in FS9).Then, after loading the Maddog 2006, I suddenly saw me confronted with a mere 8 FPS! That's simply unusable, and given the fact that my visuals are reduced already, there's no discussion about lowering some sliders even further.The Maddog 2006 is a complex plane, but not as complex as something like AirlinerXP's A320 or PMDG's MD-11 I guess. So, if I get such low performance with this plane, I wonder how low FPS would drop with one of the complexer aircraft. And when I consider using add-ons like Active Sky and higher resolution terrain mesh together with such a plane, I'd even bet that I'd break the records with an average of a fraction of 1 FPS!Hardware is just about starting to get developped for DirectX 10 (which isn't available yet, by the way), and I guess it will take a considerable amount of time until graphics adapters will be available which have a reasonable performance to make use of DX10 features. Just look how long it took until great high end DX9 adapters were ready and in the stores!Same goes for processors, I think: it's questionable when AMD quad cores will be available for instance, and the high end processors these days have high end prices as well, so it would take a considerable amount of time until prices drop to affordable levels too.I can hardly imagine that it would be possible to run FSX with all sliders maxed when running AirlinerXP's great product together with Active Sky X and the highest resolution mesh there is, maybe even a custom airport from FlyTampa, and getting FPS well above 24 without stutters in the next 6 or 8 months at least.When I see the hardware requirements of FSX on one hand as well as my expectation of hardware incapable of coping with these, and the commitment of developers to write solely for FSX, I question how big the audience of users can be who will be able to run all these add-ons the way they're supposed to be without being disappointed by the low frame rates or stutters or the likes.Is it really so that all of you who switch to FSX either fly the default planes only and tweak FSX so it runs satisfactory and have no plans to buy add-ons (let alone complex airliners or weather generators) or run and purchase ultra-power PCs and graphics adapters which will soon be outdated and superseded by even more powerful hardware when Vista and the DX10 lane begins to get enough drive?I for my part are one of the unlucky which absolutely see no chance of having FSX and any of these great things to come on their old hardware, and buying new hardware is a matter of money and how things develop in the hardware arena.How many of you are confident that they'll having a great time with the MD-11 for instance when it's released by PMDG? Am I the only one with such a minimum system out there? What are your thoughts?Andreas