I just posted this FSX vs FS9 opinion for the benefit of CS in their survey section. This is therefore redundant, but for the benefit of the membership at large. Is FSX ready for prime time? The short answer to that question is a resounding no, unless you’re one of the few more among us that happens to have access to a Cray Supercomputer. Over the last week I’ve been testing FSX on a Dell XPS “gaming computer”. This machine is configured with an Intel dual core processor (2x2.13 Ghz), a 512 MB Nvidia 7900 GTX graphics card and 2 GBs of RAM. I thought this machine could handle anything a graphic’s designer could throw at it, well folks I was wrong. To be fair I must admit that I am simply not interested in degrading my settings or sacrificing quality for performance to get my frame rates up to some acceptable level. I want quality and functionality. Toward that end my FS 9 program currently exceeds 30 GBs with add-ons. Frame rates have simply not been an issue for me since the advent of Dual Core processors. It is true that FSX scenery has been significantly improved over FS9. Unfortunately, with nominal frame rates of only 10-30 FPS without add-ons, FSX will simply be a novelty for that occasional scenic Cessna flight and FS9 will remain my primary flight program for the foreseeable future. --- Ziggy