Okie Dokie, since Jakes is following the real world example concerning delivery of the Rooivalk, lets keep the post alive with a hijack...
FSX is a bit of a problem. While I personally think it allows for a far more realistic simulation that the previous MSFSs, it also forces your PC on its knees with hardware demand. There is some who claim they play FSX with reasonable FPS on a Q6600 with a 8800GT and 2Gb RAM. I call "LIES!". My PC is far better than that and still struggles.
Although, I have to admit with no add-on scenery (of any kind) I can fly everywhere with no frame drop. But as soon as you install any add on scenery, the framerate drops, whether its Aeroworx or ORBX, the result is the same. The main reason why I don't fly in SA anymore is because Aeroworx's sceneries brings my PC to its knees, especially Cape Town, and doesn't even look as good as ORBX. I mainly fly around the Pacific North West now using the ORBX scenery, I only have to remove the humans from the scenery for it to work (so no girl in a bikini in a swimming pool for me
).
I found the following link,
http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html , where you enter your PC specs and you will receive a config file that will help you out. It did work for me, just make a backup of your own config file first. I get high 40s in the rural areas and low 20s in the city.
Initially FSX was a bit of a dud, but lately developers really started to bring all sort of nice things to the table. Just look at the new A2A products, the B-17, P-40 and P-47 with Acu-Sim, its making the FSX experience much more realistic and challenging. Look at the ORBX scenery and what they achieved. Personally I don't mind paying the high prices for the products, because I spent lots of time using the products and it really makes a difference. (And it makes it harder to go over to X-Plane...)
But enough of that, Jakes how is the Rooivalk coming along? Hehe