>2. DX10 will not work unless I upgrade to a DX10 card (that is>already assuming that I have a motherboard that can support>PCI Express- if I dont there is another $100, so lets say>Well, for starters, PCI-E has been on motherboards for the last 2 years, which is an eternity in hardware time. If I am running a motherboard that's 4 years old, I wouldn't expect to have it capable with the latest and greatest.That's the way computers have been since the beginning...>3. Ok so now it will work but there goes the 20% because my>CPU is nearly 2 years old (AMD3800 core duo), so i have to buy>a new CPU thats another $300 atleast for a decent one.>It doesn't matter what cpu you have. Re-read the blog post.>So far I have spent 1200 to move to an unstable unsupported OS>(which is a fact for HP users when thinking about things like>printers and so on) to gain possibly 20% performance and what>is really Slight IMHO graphical improvements. And the cockpit>thing, some user mentioned Test Drive Unlimited and they>implemented amazing incockpit shadows without evening>mentioning DX10.>20% here, and 20% there, and pretty soon, you're talkin 'bout real fps. >>Really, Really sad day for true longterm committed hardcore>simmer fans.On the contrary, I thought it was a great day for longterm true committed sim fans.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Ya Phil, I think that backward compatibility thing from version to version was a bad choice to begin with. Like you said - I would forget about supporting previous versions. It just creates to much work, confusion, and frustration for developers (both the people developing add-ons and designing the sim). As long as you make sure in each newer version there is a good SDK so people can relearn the development process with ease you should be fine. Stuff designed for fs9 should stay in fs9 and stuff designed for fsx should stay in fsx. It really is not that hard to learn the new ways of a new SDK anyways.

DX9 performance is essentially the same as it was in SP1. DX10 performance with bloom and water turned up is around 20% better than in DX9.

Hi Ed,I have been following this thread.Even though I have gone back to FS9, because my present system can handle all that FS9 throws at it, it would be plain silly to stop updating my knowing of what is happening in the FSX world. That is why I still enjoy reading and viewing the FSX forum. You don't cut off your nose to spite your face, (smile)!I respectively say the following;It is clearly stated, that you can have the SP2 after the expansion pack is marketed. That will be free.I do think that M.S. has delivered 'add-on' and extra content in this release and so **does deserve** to charge for what you are getting, and being offered.It is no different with M.S. asking $30.00 for this product than if this product was delivered by a third-party for the same asking price.IMO, Acceleration is not a patch, but NEW CONTENT---along with the patch thrown in.If you do not want these added new features and options to the original FSX RTM, then you don't have to buy the add-on, but just wait for the SP2 free-standing update a few weeks later.I wasn't happy with FSX performance and 'look', but truly, to say that ACCEL is a 'patch' to FSX is unfair. It IS a veritable add-on and enhancement for sure. The content of it speaks for itself.In my opinion, they (M.S.) priced it very fairly. M.S. pays people to code this stuff! :) $30.00 is no rip-off for what Phil says is coming with it.Hey Phil...how 'bout an ACCEL for FS9? (very large grin) OK...I won't hold my breath....lol.Cheers,Mitch

Flying with light bloom and water on 2high is pretty impressive now, especially early in the morning.

Are there any performance gains with bloom and water not turned up?

>Hey Phil...how 'bout an ACCEL for FS9? (very large grin)>OK...I won't hold my breath....lol.>That's a interesting concept, looking at the file library and 3rd party offerings of late, a MS addon for FS9 just might out sell one for FSX.In fact I think it would, not a knock on FSX but I think the vast user base of FS9 are happy with older PC's that just dont run FSX well, but they still use FS9 enough to enjoy buying new addons.That will change over time...

Hah, I was just trying to figure out how to word the same question. What are we comparing as far as performance gain?I'm assuming DX9 bloom and water on is 20% slower than DX10 bloom and water on.I guess the question would be is there any increase in performance between DX9 and DX10 without bloom and water?

>Hey Phil...how 'bout an ACCEL for FS9? (very large grin)>OK...I won't hold my breath....lol.>That's a interesting concept, looking at the file library and 3rd party offerings of late, a MS addon for FS9 just might out sell one for FSX.In fact I think it would, not a knock on FSX but I think the vast user base of FS9 are happy with older PC's that just dont run FSX well, but they still use FS9 enough to enjoy buying new addons.That will change over time...---------------------------------------------------------Jack, even though I don't think it would happen...if they 'updated' FS9 (and please, somebody NOT say that that was FSX, lol) with something along the FSX ACCEL deal, I know that I would be certainly quick to whip out the wallet.I mean, why not? They could easily (I think...) create missions and such, add the aircraft (working) carrier, etc. Wow...on my present machine, that content would be welcome and would SCREAM along...:)Hey Phil....ah Phil....do you have a spare week or three? (smile).

Well, with either one on you will see some improvement. Only those 2 things, though, work specifically better in dx10.

So is there any performance improvement outside of those two things (bloom and water)?

All the things you said about SP2 seem pretty good, but do you have any plans about the Mediterranean coastlines and specifically, those of Greece?Regards, Panos.-

It would appear not.I feel bad for those who invested in DX10 hardware and Vista mainly for FSX.It's the price you can sometimes pay for being an early adopter.....Glenn

>I'm assuming DX9 bloom and water on is 20% slower than DX10>bloom and water on.This increase sounds nice but if you turn on bloom and high water NOW and lose 25% of performance, this 20% gain will only mean you can turn on bloom and high water and... still lose fps...? I mean, a 20% gain could still result on an fps that is LOWER that FSX WITHOUT bloom and high water. Right?

I guess I missed the SP-2 to be a free release after the box version, I stand corrected.The time and resources spent on Accel should have been used to "correct" FSX. Then release an addon. Hats off to Phil & Crew for patching what they have. Thanks.This is MY OPIONION.ed