Why do we need a "franchise" continuing ? What difference does that make? All they ever gave us was a base product.

The problem with the FSX base engine is that it runs so badly even on modern hardware like mine. I have tried every tweak going and always gone back to a stock install after seeing little to no improvement. I'd like to think that even if no other features were added the next iteration of the engine would have been more frame-rate friendly. It's true that add-on developers can do a lot, but so far no-one can give me 30fps on this computer.

Not true, Dave: Let's set the record straight, because you sure as heck don't need to spend $4000 to get 30 frames...

Once upon a time

I am actually starting to lean more towards X-Plane as well.

So Long!

XP looks pretty decent, but for now I'm enjoying the heck of out FSX. I'm open to what XP10 will bring.

I have both, X-Plane and FSX, I just can't get into X-Plane though, for these reasons.1. Primitive ATC, even FS default ATC is leaps and bounds above X-Plane ATC.2. Default 3D scenery is too generic. Like for example no Empire State Building and few other recognizable landmarks. You can add these by 3rd party though.3. No default airport scenery.4. Autogen scenery not placed realistically by land class, or at least the LC isn't as good as that of FS. Not aware of any more accurate land class products for X-Plane.5. Ground textures. While there are nice areas in X-Plane like mountains, most other areas, especially urban, just look plain horrible and low resolution compared to FSX, especially with a 3rd party addon like GEX/UTUSA, which I already have. Granted FSX default has it's problems too, but most of that can be resolved with a $10.00 Land Class like FSG.6. Default online weather generator is primitive next to FSX default and especially ASA and ASE. While it's weather config editor is good, as well as it's random weather generator. It's online system is just plain bad. REX for X-Plane should really improve things here though.7. It is a myth that X-Plane can model aircraft realistically, and FSX/FS2004 can not. Both can, and in fact from what I've seen, with the exception of a few models like the MU-2, there are a lot fewer realistically modeled aircraft for X-Plane than FSX. For example you can snap role 747, and 777's the 3rd party ones not the default. Another example the BAE-146, which has a service ceiling of 31000ft, I have no problem at MTOW climbing to 41000ft at 4000+fpm. Within the flight envelopes both sims perform well especially from 3rd party developer's models, It's when you are outside of it, that X-Pane models break down IMHO.8. It's GUI is just too complicated for the average user. I find even manually editing the FSX.cfg file easier then setting up controls in X-Plane.

Please let me know when X-Plane looks like this so that I can switch too.Thanks for viewing: <oversized images removed by mod>

I have both FSX and xPlane v9 installed on my computer and use them both.FSX more for entertainment simming since the visuals and virtual cockpits are better looking. I start up ASE and go get a cup of coffee or pour a glass of wine, come back and wait for it to finish loading. Then press the go fly button on ASE and go get a snack, come back and remember I didn't initialize the Track IR so I hit the windows button and get that loaded up. FSX main menu comes up in another few minutes and I set up a flight and hit the fly now button. I go pour another cup of coffee or glass of wine and come back and watch the progress bar slowly move across the screen, impatiently waiting for that moment I get to go fly. Flight loaded, weather loaded and updated, Track IR working, I start up the plane and load the flight plan into the RXP Garmin and go fly. If I am flying with VoxATC there a few more steps but we're not in this example. Take off, fly to destination and during descent to landing the sim freezes and walk away from the computer cussing.OR... if I am doing some procedural IFR training I open up xPlane which loads in less than a minute and enjoy shooting a few approaches at minimums with RXP's WAAS Garmin which will even give autopilot glide slope capability. Smooth frame rates and consistent performance but without ATC, without traffic, without out the window visuals that FSX is capable of and much more primitive visual models and panels. Good for IFR procedural training but not nearly as entertaining for virtual sightseeing.Now if we could get the fast loading, smooth frame rates with the visuals, auditory and AI traffic that FSX gives we'd have a happy combo but for now that's simming.For now they both reside on my computer and get used for what they are each best at. I do drink more when using FSX!

It's true that add-on developers can do a lot, but so far no-one can give me 30fps on this computer.

Hi Dave, my comment's not directed at you...but more the difficulties of using and customizing FSX. :( An add-on to improve performance could certainly be made

I have both FSX and xPlane v9 installed on my computer and use them both....Now if we could get the fast loading, smooth frame rates with the visuals, auditory and AI traffic that FSX gives we'd have a happy combo but for now that's simming.For now they both reside on my computer and get used for what they are each best at. I do drink more when using FSX!

I'll give you the fast loading point, but the X-Plane has smoother frame rates is also a myth. One X-Plane model details are the equivalent to FSX non complex models. so when you compare performance with them it's much closer. You are also limited in visibility with X-Plane to 25 miles. I can see Mt Rainer from Vancouver from the air in FSX which according to Google Earth is 175 miles away. You also have limited AI. 25 planes maximum in X-Plane. Try and throw a couple of hundred like FSX at it and see what you get. Here's a couple of examplesFirst is X-Plane 757 freeware landing in KSFO. No AI

Next is FSX non complex aircraft (The default CRJ landing in Portland) 100 percent WOAI AI

And a Captain Sim 757 (Original Block B with a LDS-767 panel merge) landing at KSFO with 100% WOAI traffic.

I have a E6850 3Ghz 4GB (2Gb at time of these videos) with a 9800GTX 512MB card, which my today's standards would be considered a mid range system.

I'll give you the fast loading point, but the X-Plane has smoother frame rates is also a myth. One X-Plane model details are the equivalent to FSX non complex models. so when you compare performance with them it's much closer. You are also limited in visibility with X-Plane to 25 miles. I can see Mt Rainer from Vancouver from the air in FSX which according to Google Earth is 175 miles away. You also have limited AI. 25 planes maximum in X-Plane. Try and throw a couple of hundred like FSX at it and see what you get.

Yes, Tom. Hence the qualifer... "if we could get the fast loading, smooth frame rates with the visuals, auditory and AI traffic that FSX gives"

Yes, Tom. Hence the qualifer... "if we could get the fast loading, smooth frame rates with the visuals, auditory and AI traffic that FSX gives"

Opps! Sorry, I misread it to mean, X-Plane is smoother, as many have professed. In my experience as they are, they are about equal, maybe a slight edge to X-Plane, but take off the limitations of X-Plane to make it equivalent in detail, visibility range and AI to FSX, and I think it would be a lot different.

I start up ASE and go get a cup of coffee or pour a glass of wine, come back and wait for it to finish loading. Then press the go fly button on ASE and go get a snack, come back and remember I didn't initialize the Track IR so I hit the windows button and get that loaded up. FSX main menu comes up in another few minutes and I set up a flight and hit the fly now button. I go pour another cup of coffee or glass of wine and come back and watch the progress bar slowly move across the screen, impatiently waiting for that moment I get to go fly. Flight loaded, weather loaded and updated, Track IR working, I start up the plane and load the flight plan into the RXP Garmin and go fly. If I am flying with VoxATC there a few more steps but we're not in this example. Take off, fly to destination and during descent to landing the sim freezes and walk away from the computer cussing.

You can't blame it on FSX that ASE takes a long time to load, that you forget to start TrackIR and that (I should have said that first) your computer obviously sucks big time and/or is setup rather crappy and/or way too old to play FSX anyhow. :( I just took out my stopwatch to see how long it took to startup TrackIR and FSX and load the default flight (let's forget about the time you need to set up a flight, because I suppose that takes time with X-Plane too!).I was in the VC after 30 seconds. How long did you say it took X-Plane...? Less than a minute...? Guess FSX beats X-Plane in this regard. :(I suppose you were only joking. Right? :( To get back to the OP: the fact that FSX is made by MS and/or that they fired the whole Aces team is of no importance at all to me. Who cares who made it? (I don't understand the anti-MS attitude some people have: I don't LOVE MS, but if they release something good I'll use it, and if they don't, I won't use it.)Secondly, I think it is great that we finally have a version of FS that gets the time to get better (by other companies and devs, obviously, but I couldn't care less). I never liked it when a new version was released while the old version was still being worked on by lots of addon producers. But now there is more than enough time to invest in FSX addons, the addons just keep getting better and better! It's never been as good is it is now!About the countless hours it takes to setup FSX... I don't know what you are talking about, really. I re-install my OS and hence also FSX at least once in every half year. W7 is done in about 20 minuters or so. FSX plus addons obviously takes a bit longer, but certainly not hours, and setting everything (W7 and FSX) to my liking takes about 15 to 30 minutes because I was clever enough to make actual detailed NOTES of what I was doing the first time I installed W7 and FSX. I've got that printed paper lying in my drawer here. Taking notes takes time, of course, but after doing it once (and doing it good), it simply saves time in the future. I never have to search for the right settings, options and tweaks on my computer (and on internet because I forgot it all...). You can't blame MS for being sloppy and not thinking ahead, can you? :( About the activating: it seems it's different for everyone... I think I installed and activated FSX about 15 to 20 times (I have the feeling it's even more but that can't be possible, I guess) and on at least three different computers (not to mention different hardware setups) and not ONCE did I have to call MS... I guess I was just lucky.Last: FSX isn't dead. It's alive as it can be. Just see what various companies and devs and a few forum members over here are doing with it!!!BTW All this was typed in a good spirit and I would have added a lot more smileys if it weren't for this message Avsim gave me...:"You have posted a message with more emoticons that this board allows. Please reduce the number of emoticons you've added to the message"B)

I just took out my stopwatch to see how long it took to startup TrackIR and FSX and load the default flight (let's forget about the time you need to set up a flight, because I suppose that takes time with X-Plane too!).I was in the VC after 30 seconds. How long did you say it took X-Plane...? Less than a minute...? Guess FSX beats X-Plane in this regard. :(I suppose you were only joking. Right? :( :(

To be fair, startup time in FSX does vary based on how much addons you have, how detail your scenery is. I find it takes longer with GEX/UTUSAX to load. How many airplanes you have available to use (That to me seems to have the biggest impact on start up time, and how large your AI database is. On my system it takes over 3 minutes to start and about 30-45 seconds to load. That though doesn't bother me, it's how it performs once I'm flying that I'm most interested in. X-Plane seems more consistent in this regard.

I've just decided to stop using FSX and FS2004. After using both of these excellent simulators, as well as X-Plane (on and off) for many years, I think its time to for me to make a switch. As of today, I'm going to throw my support behind X-Plane and start using it instead. I'm not asking for anyone to agree with me, nor am I asking for support (I'll head over the the X-Plane forum for that), I just wanted to share a few thoughts about what led me to make this decision:First and foremost. Microsoft (MS) fatigue. The day that MS dropped the Aces franchise was a turning point for me and my view of MS was radically changed forever. Was I surprised? Yes, but I shouldn't have been. MS has a long history of starting projects and either leaving them half baked or dropping them entirely. I've always loved the MS Flight Sims and purchased every single one since FS98. Now, Other than Windows 7 which I really like and enjoy using (mostly because I have too for iTunes/iPhone support) I try to remain as MS free as possible. Also, I'm really tired of the MS activation hassles. Secondly, I'm tired of the FSX/FS2004 hassles too. I just had to do a complete reformat of my system and I'm not just no going to spend countless hours getting the MS Sims up and running again. (Gee I wonder how many activations I have left on my FSX disk?) Am I going to have to make another call to India to get FSX Activated again? I don't think so...Thirdly, I love the simplicity of the one folder X-Plane install/uninstall process. Lastly, I'm fully aware that FSX/FS2004 are the big gorillas in the flight simulation world and that X-Plane still looks a little rough in comparison. However, the X-plane franchise is definitely alive and well with support that I think I can depend on, at least for now. To me it seems like X-Plane is my best option for the near future.Thanks for listening.

-------------------------------------------------------------You are going to change because you are motivated to change .. but just a couple of thoughts on the points you made as your rationale.I know some folks are MS haters .. don't understand it .. but those folks exist. MS software functions as good or better than any of its competition. Furthermore, MS has brought so much to the industry that you now enjoy.You do know the the FS franchise has been in existence since 1982 .. hardly feel like we didn't have a great run."MS activation hassles" .. how often do you do this 1 - 15min process ... once every two years is my guess.I bet you MSFS ran fine until you started with addons to the base sim. My bet is that you will experience the same issues with Xplane as you mod it with addonsLastly, consider that Xplane might make a business decision to stop supporting XP. These things happen all the time in the business world. Just wanted you to ponder the fact the XP might go away as will in the future. I will see if it has as long a run as MSFS has had.

i wanna get this out.In February i switched to x-plane saying it was good and all that and i stood by that for months. but i switched back to FSX for many reasons. When i want an aircraft i cant ever find a good one. Even if i do find one its some crappy ten minute mash together. Airport scenery is crap and some airport's terrain is over done. like at KATL the crossing over from runway 10 to the rest of the airport its like a HUGE hill on the taxi way. Thats a huge terrain error.Not only that but the weather is pretty screwed up too. When flying up to 2000 you get like 0 visibility than it returns to normal. even on a clear day. In other words the X-plane community is barely developed and growing EXTREMELY slow.