Ben,

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that FS9 doesn't have improved graphics - there wouldn't be much point in bringing it out if it didn't. People coming into FS for the first time would of course rightly go for FS9 over FS8. My point, being an established FS user, was about a) any potential improvements in handling, and b) the collateral impact of not being able to use specific add-ons (of which I have very many; programs, modules, scenery; not just planes).

Add to this that my 2-year old PC handles FS8 reasonably well with frame rates of between 15 and 25/sec depending on load. If there is the potential that this is going to drop significantly with FS9, then changing is a non-starter for me - especially if you can't install both FS8 and FS9 on the same machine (can you? can't you? Anybody know?).

There must be many people in the same boat as me. If the average frame rate drops from 20 to 10, then as a current FS user and bearing in mind all the other stuff I'd lose, I wouldn't see this as an upgrade worth having, even with improved graphics. It was enough of a wrench for me to go from ATP Airline Transport Pilot (anybody remember ATP?) to FS5 in the mid-90s, as the handling was superior with ATP, although the graphics of FS5 were much better.

It's the same as not bothering to upgrade from Word 95 to Word 2003, as the functionality hasn't changed that much. (Oops, can of worms opening there!)