The full install of FSX will run like the demo, even after FSX SP1 and SP2.

FSX needs a pretty fast CPU and a very good video card.

As for the OS most reports are that XP runs better than Vista  for games in
general

I have FSX running on vista and it is more sluggish than XP IMHO.

The only thing you get with Vista is DX10 and that's a huge waits of time in
FSX as they give you a "preview" which doesn't work properly. And word is
out DX11 is on the way, well that's another story, another era :-)

Cheers
Bill

You have better than what I had!  It will not be a barn burner but it
will run.  I had an AMD Athlon 2000, a 7600 from BFG and found that
there were some missions I could not fly (Innsbruck) and I had to cut
back details.  FSX requires a good processor and a good graphics card.
I have upgraded and now run FSX on Vista 64 bit.

I have had so many mixed results with FX. It is great when it running
right, but I am getting sick of always tweaking it. It just seems to run ok
sometimes and then lousy at other times for no reason. I find my myself
enjoying FS9 more and more with all the sliders set to Max with no stutters
and crashes.

Running a dual Core Intel 3.20 hz ....3 gigs Ram...ATI Radeon  1060 512..XP
pro SP3. I would figue my system would not have any problems.. Who wants to
go out and spend big money on a  graphics card when all other applications
run great .

It it just a poorly designed program in my oponion.

If the demo is running bad, I would not expect you to see any inprovement
purchasing the full version.

Dan

Hi Mike,
   Yes, that has pretty much been the experience of most of us. FSX runs
slower framerates than FS9 does, even on very high-end machines. Last year I
bought a brand-new high-end computer system specifically for use with FSX.
When I run FS9 on it, with every  display and scenery slider maxed out, I
get between 50 and 60 FPS, even in the high traffic, high polygon scenery
areas. But when I run FSX on the same machine, I can only get framerates in
the mid to upper 20's, and that is only if I set my display and graphic
sliders about half way, and only after tweaking my fsx.cfg file to within an
inch of its life.
   Don't get me wrong, I love the way that FSX looks. I think right out of
the box that it looks much better than FS9 does, even after installing
scenery upgrades and special effects for FS9. Its just that FSX doesn't have
as fast of framerates as FS9 does.
   By the way, don't get excited about FSX's ability to run DX10. I bought
Windows Vista, with DX10 on my new computer, with a high-power DX10 video
card, and FSX still doesn't run DX10 right. Many of my aircraft don't load
their textures when running DX10, and many scenery glitches occur while
running DX10. In my personal opinion, FSX "DX10 Preview" is not exactly
ready for prime time yet.

Randy L.

Is a caterpillar even capable of imagining
what life is like as a butterfly?

--------------------------------------------------
From: <michaele@ando.pair.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:08 AM
Newsgroups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim
Subject: frame rate for FS X vs. FS9 questions

Yes.  

I've got an AMD Athlon XP 3200+ and a nVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT and I can
"run" FSX with frame rates of 15ish.  

The trouble is..  I have to shut off a great deal of the new eye candy to
get those frame rates and the net result doesn't make it better than FS9.1.

The demo runs better than the full program because the islands don't have
the scenery density.  

This is just my opinion...  the "improvements" in FSX didn't impress me
enough to make want to build a new computer to run it.  I'm doing fine with
FS9.1.

"michaele@ando.pair.com" <michaele@ando.pair.com> wrote in news:28ecd99d-
4efc-45af-b3d5-a63057f14340@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

You find 25fps acceptable? To me acceptable has to be 40fps or more. I get
well over 60fps in FS9. You need a faster PC, end of story.

I think there is some mis-understanding here in comparison of frame rates
between FS9 and FSX.  The framerate shown is not an accurate indicator of
the illusion of motion when flying.  There are posts from some of the
Microsoft gurus who said (and I concur) that FSX is much smoother at a given
framerate than FS9 at the "same" indicated rate.  I also find on my high end
system that the FSX framerate is much less "stable" as indicated in the
display than FS9 was, so I don't think it is accurate to say that FSX must
run at a certain rate in order to be as good as FS9.  My FSX counter may
drop into the teens for a very brief second at highly populated, large
airports, but I never get a stutter or temporary freeze during taxi on the
ground as FS9 used to do.  Enroute rates are mid-40s-50s with occasional
jumps over 100, and I've even seen better than 200 for a split second!  This
is, of course, worthless with a 60Hz screen refresh rate on most LCD
monitors.

I also think the SP1/Acceleration upgrades did help those of us who have
multiple core or hyperthreaded CPUs as some of the background processing is
multi-threaded more efficiently to non-dominant cores, virtual or otherwise.
On a quad-core machine, I'm finding that most slider settings have little or
no effect on displayed framerates, and I'm running sliders where I want
them, not where the computer seems to need them.

My first FSX install was on a 3.2GHz  P4 HT machine, 840MHz FSB (slightly
overclocked)  with 2 gigs of RAM and an nVidia 5900 Ultra (256 Meg) card.
It runs acceptably well on that machine with FS Genesis terrain mesh,
ActiveSkyX and Ultimate TerrainX installed but with most sliders midway or
less.  The SP1 patch did help framerates on this machine a bit (running in
hyperthreaded mode), but if you aren't running a hyperthreaded CPU, it may
do nothing for you, and it may not help on AMD chips.  Framerates in the
lower teens still give me a smooth visual display, although large airports
bring it to its knees unless you back off on some settings while you're on
the ground.  Enroute, things are fine.  That machine runs FS9 like a champ
with frames in the mid-30s or better, but I still got glitches, stutters and
a few other things -- not bad, but a bit distracting at time.  I would say
that FSX at 15 fps runs as smoothly as FS9 at 25 fps, although you can't
compare them directly.  Turn the framerate counter off and enjoy the sim.
It's a diagnostic tool unless you just like having it on-screen.

Mike Davis
Intel 3.2GHz Quad core, 1600MHz FSB
Asus Formula Rampage mobo
Vista 64 with 4 gigs of RAM
nVidia 9800 GTX o/c to 715MHz core

Michael, If you are one who concentrates on Frame Rates, steer clear of
FS10.  I run it on a laptop with Vista and my FPS runs 9 to 30 depending on
where in the sim world I am. American TV operates at approximately 35 FPS
which I find to be most smooth.  I do not expect to achieve that with my
system.  Anything above 10 or 12 FPS is acceptable with me. I rarely display
the FPS. Some will want 50FPS the try to tweak that to get 60, then 70.  I
prefer to spend my time flying and not tweaking, so I don't go that route of
constantly spending and upgrading.

I do believe FS10 will run differently on two similar machines with the same
equipment and same programs installed. It is a strange program at times.  If
you can afford it, get the Premium edition of FS10. Install the service
packs and just see what you get. No one can really predict. I was told I
would never be able to run it on a laptop.  I still fly FS9 a great deal,
too.  My laptop runs FS9 Really Well and with my FS9 add-ons, it looks so
good.
Danny