It's because FSX is one of the worst coded games in history

hmmmm... "worst coded games in history" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it, Squishy?You would have us believe that we all victims of some ginormous scam by Microsoft??? How is it that a single person can judge twenty-odd years of work by several hundred very professional programming teams at Microsoft? D'you think that Billy Gates got rich by running a sloppy game development department??I've been in IT since 86 and no-one gets a programmer/analyst job unless they can actually do the job! Their seniors are generally even stronger, and know all about cutting-edge hardware and software, and they continuously use that knowledge in the design of the sim, and this is why Microsoft's flight sim has managed to "be around" since 85 or so. Considering that backward AND forward compatibility, upgrades, continuous improvement and new functionality that has been built in - the ACES team have done a wonderfully good job! This flight simulation works right out of the box on 99.999% of the pc's that us users build or buy ready-made. The sim works properly on almost any Intel-based pc, and is almost trouble-free - every time it is launched. The problems begin when weaker developers create addons that either didn't keep up with the SDK, or were a little 'inept' and their 'issue' didn't get spotted by the devs immediately. This gets blown out of all proportion by users with little or no technical training or knowledge, andthen we get statements and complaints like the above. I, and thousands of other simmers take precautions when we buy an addon: we create a restore point or do a backup before an addon gets installed: we make backups of our fsx.cfg: of our our scenery.cfg and our logbook.bin, and so on. We also do research when it comes to adding on. This way we rarely have problems with the sim. AND we read the manuals, instead of blindly blundering into the addon like ten-year-old kids.As Al Bradbury says -

"Sounds more like a problem on your end to me. The previous thread you link to relates to what REX may possibly have done to your FSX and not to FSX itself, so if that happened, if anything it would be an add-on installation issue and not a fault with FSX. REX never did that to my FSX, nor did pretty much every other add-on I've thrown at it either.It pretty much works like a charm for me, so I really think you might have some kind of computer issue rather than it being an FSX problem if you are constantly having to sort things out. - Al

Works like a charm for me, too, Al, I just love this sim.... and it's been my support experience over the years that 85% of user problems are somewhere between the brain and the keyboard.....and that's my two cents. :(

How many of these problems arise using FSX straight out of the box with no add-ons? Very few, if any, I suggest. This implies the problems are with the add-ons not FSX.also, it's completely unreasonable to expect FSX to provide error checking/recovery for 3rd party add-ons. These add-ons are written to whatever standards the individual developer's choose and, in some cases, not even in accordance with Microsoft's published SDKsFSX is a sub-$50 game - not a commercial application..

This has been, and is the absolute worse argument when it comes to product quality. FSX costs $50.00 not because its all its worth but because it is what the market will bear and the pricepoint at which it will sell to the masses. If the market would bear $10,000 for FSX, that would be the price that would be affixed to the front of the box.So the argument here is that because it is NOT a commercial application (acually you are incorrect - FSX is being sold in commercial form for $500.00 - same game, different EULA) that it should not work as it is supposed to? How about Microsoft Word? Should there be a commerical version that works and a cheaper home version that doesn't always type on the screen what you press on the keyboard? How about a commerical laptop that boots up when the power button is pressed and a cheaper home version that only boots up sometimes but at a lower price?Commercial software is extremely overpriced only because companies usually have very little choice in the vendors that sell a product. For instance, Cisco makes its phone system available starting at $25,000.00 and then goes up from there. A fully spec'd out system will cost upward of $100,000 and then you have to buy phones! Juxtapose that against Asterisk that is FREE (or $999 with support . Does everything that the Cisco Call Mananger does but it is free. Should that then mean that the free phone system should work poorly because you got it for free? Does that mean you will accept dropped calls and the ability to make phone calls from a free offering? I don't think so.I personally have no problems with FSX and I've gotten more than my money's worth even if it were $10,000 per copy. I can honestly say that I have come to love FSX, but this is after hundreds of hours of tweaking and hardware and system optimization. HOWEVER, if someone is having problems with FSX then to them its not even worth the $49.99 they paid for it. But let's not claim that a pricetag always defines quality...because it doesn't.

Under the legal "reasonable man" standard, this would not constitute a criminal act.

The reasonable man is a legal fiction of the common law which holds each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable man would under the same or similar circumstances. I suggest a reasonable man would ensure he didn't cause deliberately damage to other's property.Anyway, the ofence would be a criminal one. The UK Computer Misuse Act reads:(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer or to enable any such access to be secured] ;b ) the access he intends to secure, or to enable to be secured, is unauthorised; andc) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.An installer, by definition, falls within a) and c). As far as b ) is concerned, if I agree to install an application I only authorise it do just that. I don't authorise unexpected changes that prevent other applications from running. The courts have ruled that a even though a person may be authorised to use a particular computer, that isn't authority to "hack" it.There are often problems with amateurish installers/uninstallers not only with FS but more widely. I recall one which saved a copy of a particular file on installation before modifying it. On uninstalling, it restored the backed up file. Unfortunately, that file was also used and modified by other applications. The result was that on uninstalling all changes made by the user with other applications in the intervening period were lost.

That's why I can't stress enough that one should, when FSX is running perfectly, and has been just defrag'ed, that you create a SYSTEM IMAGE of your C: drive or all drives that make up your system, and then:after installing the latest software/upgrade for FSX1 Defrag2.Create another SYSTEM IMAGE onto your external back-up drive you own just for this exercise.3. After each addition of new software to FSX, again defrag, and create the latest SYSTEM IMAGE as back-up.4. Keep your external drive safe and locked up, away from your system location, when not using it.I purchased ORBX Orcas Island this morning, and installed it, defragged, moved my current SYSTEM IMAGE to a folder called Redundant Backup, and then used W7 (if you have a W7 version that has this feature) System Image Backup to create the current and latest backup that includes the now installed ORBX Orcas Island scenery.If you take my suggestion to heart, there is no way that you will ever sweat any new installation that might cause a conflict...for......you are protected by the REDUNDANT copy of your system, so you can go right back to that if the latest update/installation proves to cause you troubles, and with the current back up you just made, you are now protected if there was no conflict and only by running your system, did something happen to make FSX or any other part of your system prove to be unstable.By creating a SYSTEM IMAGE, you protect your entire system as installed from any mishap, or worse, if you were to have your system stolen, or lost to fire or water damage, surges, etc...you would only have to merely bring back that image onto your new system, or new drive...and would have everything instantly as it was, prior to the mishap or other woes.I can't imagine that anybody would not make the time to do this, with all the time and effort it takes to physically place all the software (hundreds of hours and $$$'s) back, to make the system once again, as you have now it before you...To myself, this is a major 'to do' list.

It's because FSX is one of the worst coded games in history

Sounds like you haven't been playing games very long... I could probably name a hundred games that are far more buggy than FSX.

Sesquashtoo....I followed your advice when you first mentioned this a while back, as well as making a backup of my registry, and have had ZERO problems. This is hands down the best advice ever offered here, and not just for FSXThanks!

It's because FSX is one of the worst coded games in history

I was saying that too, but changed my mind:FSX is not "the worst coded game"...its game-engine is simply AGES behind new tech.The engine was sufficient decades (!) ago (yes, FS is 28 years old!!), what it needs is a total overhaul at the core level and not simply building up and expanding on the old stuff as they did with all the versions of FS.So..in all fairness we need to give them a little credit.The fact that its (kind of) open source with a SDK and anyone can code addons and tools for it does NOT make it easier either. I had some terrible addons installed which totally ****ed up my FSX. Yesterday i deinstalled TILE-PROXY just to see that it screwed up many of my sceneries after the de-install. So i had to reinstall gigabytes of addon-sceneries because tileproxy overwrote configs. HORRIBLE. You can compare this to Linux where anyone and their mama can write code...

it is an old engine and also what we throw at it with tons of addons it was never designed for. Sometimes the problems you see are the result of addons like incompatible landing lights or scenery that has a bad landclass file or something similar. I wouldn't blame MS, out of the box you can run FSX just fine, but we require more realism and better looking scenery so we throw ultimate terrain, ultimate traffic, orbx, pmdg airplanes, etc. all at once. And expect everything to work in harmony with each other. I always hoped MS would work with developers directly and release a new flight sim game with addons already integrated, imagine Orbx for an entire continent, default airplanes made by PMDG and Level-D. I wonder how many games would sell then, and tweaking the old engine to work well together would be a dream. Here's to wishing...

The reasonable man is a legal fiction of the common law which holds each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable man would under the same or similar circumstances. I suggest a reasonable man would ensure he didn't cause deliberately damage to other's property.Anyway, the ofence would be a criminal one. The UK Computer Misuse Act reads:(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer or to enable any such access to be secured] ;b ) the access he intends to secure, or to enable to be secured, is unauthorised; andc) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.An installer, by definition, falls within a) and c). As far as b ) is concerned, if I agree to install an application I only authorise it do just that. I don't authorise unexpected changes that prevent other applications from running.  The courts have ruled that a even though a person may be authorised to use a particular computer,  that isn't authority to "hack" it.There are often problems with amateurish installers/uninstallers not only with FS but more widely. I recall one which saved a copy of a particular file on installation before modifying it.  On uninstalling, it restored the backed up file. Unfortunately, that file was also used and modified by other applications. The result was that on uninstalling all changes made by  the user with other applications in the intervening period were lost.

you are using the wikipedia definition ...Here is another legal definition ....A phrase frequently used in tort and criminal law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstancesAnd, in your example, you would have to prove criminal or unreasonable intent.  The US loves its legal system and courts .. But, this situation would never get prosecuted without more evidence of criminal intent.  So, these addons are not making the case for <A> and <C> as you suggest.  

This has been, and is the absolute worse argument when it comes to product quality. FSX costs $50.00 not because its all its worth but because it is what the market will bear and the pricepoint at which it will sell to the masses. If the market would bear $10,000 for FSX, that would be the price that would be affixed to the front of the box.

While you've got basic supply-and-demand theory correct... I think it's safe to assume that the resources, man-hours, de-bugging and release schedule, and budget set aside for FSX, were based on it being a sub $100 product.

Sesquashtoo....I followed your advice when you first mentioned this a while back, as well as making a backup of my registry, and have had ZERO problems. This is hands down the best advice ever offered here, and not just for FSXThanks!

Then like myself, you at 'easy cruising, with no worries!' I'm just waiting for PNW-Rockies to show its face, then will update MyTraffic Pro to version v5.3a...will do another defrag, current image back up (because of the new stuff) and give it a purchase-rest for a while, lol~!Glad to help!Mitch

you are using the wikipedia definition ...Here is another legal definition ....A phrase frequently used in tort and criminal law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstancesAnd, in your example, you would have to prove criminal or unreasonable intent. The US loves its legal system and courts .. But, this situation would never get prosecuted without more evidence of criminal intent. So, these addons are not making the case for <A> and <C> as you suggest.

The only intent required is set out in a). Provided :( and c) are then an offence has been committed. What further intent do you think is required?Incidentally, there are further offences carrying higher penalties where there is unauthorised access with intent to commit a further offence (such as fraud or theft) and where there is unauthorised access with intent to the impair operation. (such as a denial of service attack).Would you be so sanguine if an installer wiped your hard drive?

FSX has evolved into an amazing sim. With the latest hardware and beautiful sceneries like Orbx and add-ons like REX and with so many new quality planes, it's possible to run FSX with max settings and have a smooth (20-30 fps) and trouble free simulator. When I say max setting, I mean the important settings maxed.It does take some time to set-up and tweak, but once you have it working, you will experience the best flight sim of all time. Unfortunately, $50 did not get me there. More like $5000 US and hundreds of testing hours in my case.But, I'm happy I reached my goal.

FSX is a sub-$50 game - not a commercial application.

Some of us paid $79.99 for the Deluxe Edition when it was first available on shelves. Then add on another $20 when the Acceleration pack was first released with the earliest availability of SP2. That's quite a bit for those that were early adopters. Considering this, certain expectations may or may not have been met for the buyer.I've had a love/hate relationship with FSX. It has plenty of positives and plenty of negatives. When you're dealing with a negative and knowing that you have $100 invested in just the default box items, plus the addons you've paid for, I can see how it can be disheartening at times.Just trying to relate to how the OP might feel here.Scott

While you've got basic supply-and-demand theory correct... I think it's safe to assume that the resources, man-hours, de-bugging and release schedule, and budget set aside for FSX, were based on it being a sub $100 product.

No you are 100% wrong becasue Microsoft (actually no one in their right mind) doesn't plan its product in terms of unit price...they plan them in terms of overall net return. You don't build a product and allocate resources based on what you can sell it for per copy, you base it on what you will get in cumulative return. If I sell a widget at $10.00 but know that I will sell 10,000,000 of them if I can build a widget that people will want to buy then I can allocate my project resources as a percentage of my projected return on investment. If I based it on only on unit price the product would be garbage. I can commit 5 million dollars on research and development and everything else required to deliver a quaility product and still sell it at $10. According to your logic a $10 product would have quality based on $10 when in fact it is based on my cumulative expected return. If all of the resources required to develop, test and sell FSX costs $1 million dollars and the estimated sales of said product is 500,000 units at the market pricepoint of $50 then the gross sales would be $25 million. Assume retail markup, cost of production and bulk sales prices cuts into that and even if it were by half your gross profit would be $12.5 million on a $1 million dollar initial investment. Microsoft sees the product as a $1 million dollar product and YOU see it as a $50 product.Now let's suppose that Microsoft had a market of only 10 people in the world who would want a product like Microsoft Flight Simulator. Microsoft would still have to spend that same $1 million to bring the product to market but the product would have to sell for $1.5 million dollars each to make the same profit. Same product different price. This is the exact price point difference in high density consumer sales vs low density commercial sales. A consumer doesn't expect to make a profit from a consumer purchase while a commerical buyer does. If an airline buys the $1.5 million dollar software to train new pilots but makes $200 million from tickets sold and those new pilots that used the expensive software can now fly those flights then it was well worth the expensive software wasn't it? There is a big difference between what YOU see and what Microsoft sees so don't confuse the two.