From Kevin's 'Chicago in FSX' screenie thread

[Rocket_Bird]

I seemed to have been more impressed with the feedback that FS2004 got when it first came out.  I got FS2004 not long after I got my old P3 700mhz, which ran the game only at about medium.  It was ok though, and I was quite impressed with the product.  From FS2002 in which I could run with full sliders to FS2004 with medium sliders, I can still justify the buy.  Somehow I managed to get payware to work alright on it too, another plus!

Having been into real life aviation as well though, it seemed to me that FS2004 wasnt far off from what I see while I fly in a real airplane.  The FSX demo runs ok on my new rig nowadays, which is not top of the line, but not bad for gaming either.  Despite that fact, unfortunately I was quite disappointed.  It wasnt up to par with FS2004, and from what I've read and screenshots ive seen from the forums, the full release isnt much better.  Theres really not a whole lot of upgrades, aside from a new interface, cars on the road and animals on the ground, and it doesnt really balance out the performance impact.  What kind of computer would we need if we wanted to run payware aircraft with full avionic suites in FSX?

In the long run though, its just my opinion and I don't want to change others opinion on the sim.  Its just another sim, just like X-plane is another sim.  Though I've pre-ordered it, im probably going to cancel and hold out to see what happens and whether or not DX10 will do huge justice  :-X

[Mobius]

I've posted a rather lengthy explanation of how I feel about performance in one of my FSX screenshot threads - HERE - which I think sums up how I feel about the performance I'm getting in FSX.

[JBaymore]

Mobius,

Thanks very much fo the link to the screenshots and your thoughts.

[757200ba]

Hello!Guys take it easy, some of your opinions sound like frustration, because you invested on a pc and you not having the results you were expecting.Others are crazy because they didnt had the money to invest on a machine for fsx.Then we find (im sorry im just talking
)people that say " have a mid high pc-Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe w/AMD 4400
Silverstone 600W PSU
1 x Seagate Baracuda SATA 250G
2 x Seagate Baracuda SATA 80G
2 x 1024 Corsair TwinX PC3200 XL Pro w/LED
1 HP f2105 Monitor
1 Akai 27" LCD TV
2x Evga 7950 GX2
Logitech Z-5300 Speakers
Plextor PX-716A SATA DVDR
and he gets 20 fps over L.A and 50 fps over flat water, well sr, im surprised you dont have 100 over flat water, 20 over L.A were, over KLAX over the city over the "flat desert"Try this go to Heathrow on active runway put your view from back of the airplane and press shift z .Remember how it was on fs9.Or and then you would be 200% right is to see how are your slides maybe thats the answer.AMD 1.8 good processor again 20 fps were?Gentleman this forums helped me so much, you helped me so much lets not go into arguments about our machines were with so much effort and work we put together.If not just to finish.Remember  what microsoft told us has requirements for fs9, and minimum requirements.
Gentleman please keep up the good work and together we will find the solutions, like we have been doing so far.
Many thanks