Ben Watson wrote:Nigel, you'll love it

Yes. It's definitely the way forward. Whereas the basic, default interface is more 'arcade' than 'simulator' it's the expansion potential that makes it work. FS9 has probably been stretched to the limit but FSX provides a very powerful baseline for increasingly realistic add-ons. But that does mean a lot of extra expense in the form of scenery add-ons to get the benefit of it. And then there's the need for a powerful PC to run it effectively - so it's not a cheap option.
I installed it recently on my laptop, despite Ben's reservations

, and after a lot of fiddling got better frame rates in FSX than in FS9 for similar graphics quality. And of course FSX runs more smoothly than FS9 at the same fps so I was pretty happy.
Unfortunately, that didn't last! It had all gone so well that I was having a strange feeling of optimism (which sadly turned out to be indigestion). On a wave of euphoria I bought the Captain Sim FSX 757 because I like flying it in FS9 and because it was cheap(ish). Disaster! Frame rates of 1.0 to 1.5 at UK2000 LHR
So - off it came but it had wreaked havoc with both the FSX and, somehow, with the FS9 installations! I don't know what it's done but I struggle to get 7 fps with the VC10 in FS9 at KaiTak, which won't do at all.
I did have this happen once before and it involved a re-install of Windows, but I'm not in the mood to do that now I've upgraded to W7. So, I either do that and stick with FS9, spend upwards of £1,000 on a desktop and add-ons just to run FSX or give up flight simming completely and go back to being a male underwear model
Moral of the story: FSX is the future, but it ain't cheap!
Dunno where I go from here.
Ian
