A look at reviews of FSX

[Guest over and out]

I see many posts regarding FS9 vs FSX. One thing I have been watching is the reviews on Amazon's site. FSX has 3 out of 5 stars from 196 reviews at this time. In grade terms that'a a big fat D or 60%. And now the used price has dropped to 35.99.Some of the reviews are a liitle confusing, maybe user error because you see many poor reviews but with 4 and 5 stars so I think some people do not understand the process. So the acual rating is probably less than 3 stars.I find the AMZN site reviews interesting becuse many of the poeple are simming for the first time. Those people tend to give it better reviews, probably because they have not experienced FS9. And the poor reviews usually come from the FS9ers.If I were shopping for an item and it had a D grade from 196 reviews, I would not buy it.

[tunnelcat 1]

You're right about the reviews on Amazon's site. I tend to read them when trying to decide on a product purchase and they are entertaining as well as informative.As for FSX, I'm going to wait for a few more years until the hardware catches up somewhat. It won't look really good until DirectX 10 comes out anyway. My two year old computer already chokes on FS9 when I fly with high settings and the PMDG 747.Many of us have a lot invested in add-ons for FS9 anyway, so why bother with spending more money on FSX at the present with hardware that can barely run it very well. However, when DirectX 10 becomes common with newer graphics cards and then Microsoft patches FSX, opinions will change.Kim

[MarkRey 16]

Poor fps is a show stopper in a game or sim, no matter the features.I guess SP1 should address that one to a fair enough degree to change a few minds.regards,Markhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/a320/custbanner2.jpgPC Power Silencer 470/3.2HT/2048mb/ATI X1950pro/SB Audigy

[Noel 4,498]

I have waited too, as I have no desire to tinker ad infinitum until performance is *acceptable*. SP1 should change that, especially if you are blessed with a multicore system. I am using FS9 on a 4 y/o system, with one processor upgrade along the way, and it runs very well on my system at 3.5Ghz. I also have the nV6800GT/OC card which is great for its day. I am very much looking forward to a Penryn Yorkfield processor, which is quadcore with 12mb of L2, plus whatever DX10 video card has mega ram and performance. Time frame for this is late this year or early next year. I will probably pay top dollar for components as I know I will use the thing for at least 4 years which is my practice. Fortunately the less than robust perf of FSX has left me without the "gotta have it" sentiment, so I can be patient. Hopefully none of my components will fail forcing a premature upgrade. SP1 & a DX10 patch should make the move very attractive, plus addons should be converted or new ones available by then as well.Hang on a lil longer!Noel

[Guest allcott]

>Poor fps is a show stopper in a game or sim, no matter the>features.>>I guess SP1 should address that one to a fair enough degree to>change a few minds.>>regards,>MarkWhy would you say that? Best estimate from ACES is a 20% improvement, maybe slightly more for multi-core. Average fps 16-18? Expect 19-22 post Patch. SP1 is going to be less patch, more miracle, if it is going to pull the FSX fat out of the ACES fire. And further down the line, DX10 will consume resources, not reduce them - it's how it will achieve the quality enhancement. Only the foolishly naive would believe that the DX10 patch will add performance, when that is not its purpose. The DX10 patch will be predominantly to enable DX10-compatible graphics cards to use some of their luscious horsepower to boost visual quality. Any performance improvement will likely be no more than a side-effect.Allcott

[Guest Eek]

>>Poor fps is a show stopper in a game or sim, no matter the>>features.>>>>I guess SP1 should address that one to a fair enough degree>to>>change a few minds.>>>>regards,>>Mark>>>Why would you say that? Best estimate from ACES is a 20%>improvement, maybe slightly more for multi-core. Average fps>16-18? Expect 19-22 post Patch. >>SP1 is going to be less patch, more miracle, if it is going to>pull the FSX fat out of the ACES fire. >>And further down the line, DX10 will consume resources, not>reduce them - it's how it will achieve the quality>enhancement. Only the foolishly naive would believe that the>DX10 patch will add performance, when that is not its purpose.>The DX10 patch will be predominantly to enable DX10-compatible>graphics cards to use some of their luscious horsepower to>boost visual quality. Any performance improvement will likely>be no more than a side-effect.>>>AllcottExactly. Well said.EwingKATLAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a store, not a government agency.MSI K8N Neo2 PlatinumAMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 GHz2GB Corsair PC-3200 512x4 Dual Channel CL2.5 DDR DIMM eVGA nVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3Sound Blaster Audigy LSOCZ Powerstream 420WWinXPPro (SP1)

[Guest Binncott]

Not having FSX, I am (like many here) relying entirely on reports.I do understand that FSX has had severe user related problems, particularly in relation to frame rates and folks having to turn off autogen etc.This does not sound like a complete product and perhaps MS rushed it out? I don't know!What I do (and have done since the day it was released) wonder is exactly what on earth the "so called" beta testers were doing.Seems to me that they "dropped the ball" Or maybe they were all running 5 Gb machines with every add on provided by MS?BC

[JSkorna 137]

We did what we were asked to do.There was no dropping of the ball.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

[MarkRey 16]

This and other statements pretty much debunk the myth (in my mind) that beta testers miss all kinds of glaring problems. In the end it's up to the developer to heed or not.I'll never forget running fs9 for the first time on a 1.6ghz laptop with 9600 graphics and a gig of ram. I could not believe it ran as well as it did right out the box compared to fs8. The tweaks only started AFTER I started loading addon traffic etc.As the quest to recreate the real world continues I wonder what future transitions will bring.regards,Markhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/a320/custbanner2.jpgPC Power Silencer 470/3.2HT/2048mb/ATI X1950pro/SB Audigy

[Guest radarbeam]

For the record I run FSX and I am very pleased with it. Sliders are not maxed out but they are all to the right side. I get excellent visuals and very satisfying frame rates.The new features of FSX are great, missions are a lot of fun and full of unexpected surprises and the scenery is just amazing.SP1 will make this sim even better.

[Guest over and out]

Back to the Amazon reviews. The reason I mentioned this is because when I heard that FSX was coming out at that time I was concerned that it was going to a

[ghostrider 112 0]

This is exactly why I have been sitting on the fence for FSX.With your system, you should be able to have all the sliders maxed.SP1 will improve performance, but....that will be for the default install. I am waiting to see what happens when people start adding scenery, weather and complex heavies. All of those components are mandatory for me.

[n4gix 4,947]

>This is exactly why I have been sitting on the fence for>FSX.>With your system, you should be able to have all the sliders>maxed.>SP1 will improve performance, but....that will be for the>default install. I am waiting to see what happens when people>start adding scenery, weather and complex heavies. All of>those components are mandatory for me.That's just a myth. On the day FS9 was released, there wasn't a single person on the planet who could run it with "all the sliders maxed."Why on earth does anyone think FSX is any different in that regard?Those who were "there" for the initial release of FS9 should remember this; for those who "came late to the party" and brought along systems a "year or so newer" have an excuse. They wouldn't have ever seen the rather lukewarm performance of FS9 on the then "state of the art" systems... ;)

[vonmar 123]

Maybe a "lite" version of MSFSX would work for us?My system is:Dell 8400 (2 yrs old) INTEL 530 P4 HT (single core) 3GHz,2GB, ATI Raden 1650 PCIe 512MB (nothing fancy).Runs MSFS9 "great" 25 FPS with Level-D, ActiveSky, addons etc. ... normal stuff.Installed MSFSX with "tweeks" end of last year.I got 8-12 FPS KDTW at the gate ... just looking around.Was using the following software:FSUIPC, MS on-line Wx, FSRealtime clock, TrackIR, GoFlight modules, Baron58 (default vintage) I quit using FX ... waited for patch.Today I uninstalled FX and all the software I was using with it (mentioned above).Defrag hard driveInstalled FX from CDDefrag againInstalled the SP1With none of the above software running ... FX "default" setup, sliders were MID or less "default, clear Wx today.No tweeks, no changing anything at this time.Default FX selected screen resolution was 1024x768I was getting 25 FPS at KDTW at the gate ... just looking around.Not bad!Then I reinstalled each of the above mentioned software.KDTW at the gate ... just looking around.15 FPS in the 3D cockpit18 FPS in the 2D cockpitI figured the VC took 3 FPS away, the other software 1-2 FPS each .. average.At 15 FPS I could fly.But, if I added payware Wx, the Level-D 757 (not avail yet) and used the 3D cockpit?IMO the frames would lower to 10 using the same default FX settings ... nothing "kicked up a notch".So, like you guys were saying .... I too will need a new pc with more cores etc before I can use it for a real flight.I like the "lite" version idea. Right now it is = FS9.1 (already "kicked up a notch").

[delta november 0]

"I like the "lite" version idea.Right now it is = FS9.1 (already "kicked up a notch").Actually it is already available.....It is FSX-SP1 with the slidersadjusted to what YOUR system likes.