>It all depends on the users priorities, If the user intends to>continue to want to use the many FS9 aircraft available, and>has enough that makes fixing them takes up enough time to make>it impractical, then no matter how well SP2 performs it is>still a show stopper for them. If that's not a big priority>then I agree SP2 does make the overall performance of the sim>better. The main issue of backward compatibility is one of>timing. We all know we were going to lose it at some point,>but to do it in a patch release, is like changing the rules in>the middle of the game! It should have waited until FSXI RTM.Well, you do have a choice, simply stop at FSX SP1, and enjoy much of the 'backwards' compatibility you desire. Granted, there are still some aircraft I had for FS9 that still won't work in FSX/FSX SP1, like the Sibwings SAAB. Nobody is forcing anyone to move beyond FSX SP1, or even FS9; we are free to choose.That said, I've been thinking about this allot the last couple days, especially since getting the 8800GT and seeing the performance increase in SP1 (have not installed SP2 yet, but plan to install it this week/weekend). Since I started flying with FS5.0, over that span I have lost quite a number of 'favorites', which was hard to swallow at the time, but low and behold newer better models were produced beyond those points, and the loss was soon forgotten by moving forward......Sooner or later, in order to take advantage of the new technology of FS, you will need/want to take the 'leap of faith', and move forward. In another couple years FS9 is going to look very 'long in the tooth', in fact, for me, it already does. So, instead of investing more money into something that cannot get much better than what it is today (FS9/and even FSX SP1), I've decided to move solely to FSX, including SP2, and experiance the development of new releases within the new platform, and invest there instead. If I loose a few aircraft/scenery along the way, so be it, it has happened many times before with this hobby. But for me, it is quite a thrill to jump into something like the Eaglesoft Piper Twin (and others) and see performance equal to, or better, than what I was able to achieve in FS9 just a year and a half ago. I could argue that the hardware advances have caught up with FSX faster than it ever did with FS9. But it does not only stop at performance, there are many more things within FSX that 'feels right' that even if the performance is sub-par than what I had before (FS9), it is still worth it.So...I'm going to close my eyes, and leap. Our hobby is in good hands by not only Aces, but also folks like Ron Hamilton and his team, Flight1, Dreamfleet, Aerosoft, RealAir, etc. who will take this new technology and make it better than we could have ever imagined before. We have come a long way since I started with FS5.0, and I look forward to the future, because I know there are forward thinking folks that will make this hobby better by moving forward, not backwards. Now, if FS ever truly became a 'console game', then, I stop ;)

Brian, by all means jump in. Properly built FSX products have only one issue and that is a few have display problems with DX10 preview.Some may need to understand that DX10 preview is an option, not a requirement. Those who run FSX/SP2 under it's default DX9.0 should have zero issues with their current FSX aircraft:-)

>Brian, by all means jump in. Properly built FSX products have>only one issue and that is a few have display problems with>DX10 preview.>>Some may need to understand that DX10 preview is an option,>not a requirement. >>Those who run FSX/SP2 under it's default DX9.0 should have>zero issues with their current FSX aircraft:-)>>If Running it in DX10 was the only issue, it wouldn't be as much of an issue, but the fact is these aircraft has texture problem in DX9 also. All my Overland aircraft, externally now have an empty space above the cockpit in SP2/DX9, as well as semi-transparent gauges, in DX10 theres no textures at all externally. Also answer me this, if FSX RTM aircraft and SP1 met it's own SDK, why was there a need to change it to get it to work in SP2? Seems more like they added to it to me! The reason this type of change should have waited for an RTM release is clear, as Steve Halpern and others have voiced. It creates a division in the developer's community as well as the users, which is never a good thing. If they had implemented the DX10 features as originally intended, it may have been worth abandoning legacy addons. But to force this to implement only a preview, so Aces can say they support DX10 as promised, just isn't worth this radical change for me at this point. What other developer do you know has ever intentionally made such a radical change to RTM working features in a patch! Yes some have inadvertently broke things that worked before, but never intentionally. Those type of changes are usually relegated to RTM releases, where they can start with a blank slate!

wow..now that is what late fall textures should look like. Is that default? I thought default looked like sand dunes.

OK, I was reluctant to install SP2 from all the negatives, but I did it anyway. I can report better frame rates, but I was getting pretty good ones before. For instance, in Hawaii PHOG with the Cessena 172 I am getting close to 90 fsp with all sliders at 50%, before I saw 50-60 (set at unlimited)With the LD767, I was usually around 20-30 fps, now I am seeing around 40. So far so good and no negative issues here.I am running on a Dell quad core 3.47 GHtz, dual 8800 GTX cards, Vista home, 4 GB 1066 Corsair ram, dual 24" monitors ($6200 set-up for computer only)

I am going to 'jump in' Ron, just trying to decide if I want remove everything and 'do' a complete re-install (vs. 'installing over' my FSX/SP1 install)....that will take me a bit longer, but may be well worth it in the long run.

>wow..now that is what late fall textures should look like. Is>that default? I thought default looked like sand dunes.No, he's using GEX. But the point remains: if you can config your rig, FSX looks a lot better than FS9. But to its credit, FS9 now has a niche in procedural airline simulation.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

Tom, the answers to your questions may be found in the long thread started by Steve and also in other threads.There are other threads for those who want to debate. This thread is a positive about what simmers can attain with a little understanding of what is going on with Vista/SP2/and DX9 v DX10.:-)

>>wow..now that is what late fall textures should look like.>Is>>that default? I thought default looked like sand dunes.>>No, he's using GEX. But the point remains: if you can config>your rig, FSX looks a lot better than FS9. But to its credit,>FS9 now has a niche in procedural airline simulation.>>Rhett>>AMD 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 PraetorianNope, that's sure not GEX. That's OrbX beta. I posted some shots in the Orbx preview forum :http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?board=4.0Heiko

Pretty impressive stuff from orbyx:-)

Well Ron, I jumped into the SP2 waters last night. Too late to look at everything in detail, but it does seem I am seeing a performance increase, and the only aircraft I have 'lost' for the moment is my MAAM DC-3. But either I'll try figuring that out, or just accept that 'it is what it is', and move on, and hope the guys at MAAM provide a 'real' FSX model down the road.One nice surprise is that I got my windows back on a certain CitationX I ported over from FS9;)So....I'll be looking at testing things out further, but I've switched to SP2 unless something really negative happens.

Glad to hear Brian. Yes, SP2 has changed the way certain properties for glass display and it is a pleasant surprise on the CX1.0:-)

>Glad to hear Brian. Yes, SP2 has changed the way certain>properties for glass display and it is a pleasant surprise on>the CX1.0:-)>>Yep, nice surprise!Additionally, it looks the MAAM folks have a fix for the DC-3.....Oh happy day :D

I still use a AMD 3700+ (remember those?!) coupled with a 6800XT yet with SP2 the sim looks amazing. The only thing I cut back on is AI traffic (30%) and Dynamic Scenery (I find this kills my system, a beet gfx card would solve that am sure) I put clouds and weather above other things so the balance is fine. Amazing program, flying is fun and rewarding. The future looks good , as hardware is becoming very affordable we have a program that will become better and better in the visuals as we merrily get those pixel pushing upgrades we all like to get once in a while - now isn't that good ?

Are you guys testing with DX10 preview?I'm running sp2 now, but i've lost ~10fps on average. but reading this now, i'm being inspired (kinda) to do a fresh install.or to at least zap my fsx.cfg and start from scratch.oh, and remove mytrafficx. but i love my traffic :( i have a feeling this might be causing a frames slump. ill lower that to about 20, although its on 40 right now. GA is at 0%.i have a 8800gtx, 2.6ghz core2duo, etc, 4gb ram.. vista 32. but i just can never seem to find that niche where it runs nicely. frankly, i'm getting tired of trying to tweak. and oh god.. the blurries...just plopped down my $$ towards the pmdg queen, can't get anywhere without a gradual slowdown, then a nice OOM. always nice.and flying into the NYC area always results in OOM. (yes, the windows patches etc are applied).luck of the draw i guess.regardless, fs9 is nothing when i look at it compared to fsx. theres just a different "aura" about it.