All we can reasonably ask of a payware developer is that its add-ons should run on a clean flight Simulator installation with no other 3rd-party add-ons. It follows that it should run as described on such an installation with no bugs and certainly no CTDs. If it doesn't then we have every right to complain. By bugs I mean features that are modelled but don't work. I exclude features that the developer hasmn#t modelled - thesea dd-ons cost a few 10s of dollars and it's unreasonable to effect total fidelity.

Oh if only....

Not at all... And I post this at risk because it appears the thread is now being hijacked into something else which is a bit of a shame.The issues we are seeing with far more frequency and tenacity are not defined by one tweak line, it usually ends up being a user filling their config file with multiple tweaks that have a negative impact and many times adding in the shader hack that has been posted. The result becomes so convoluted, backtracking the problem is impossible because the items that cause the most problems were never sanctioned by Aces or Lockheed and therefore are not considered tested for the masses to use. We get everything from users complaining of blurry ground textures, autogen and scenery spiking, to corrupt aircraft visuals and nearly every time now we find out it is a result of a popular online automated config tweak program. The direct tweak lines or cause usually ends up being something different each time.The point is, there is no way one person can define the use of these tweaks for every system in cyberspace and place it online for everyone to use. The idea of this is not reasonable if you truly understand the FSX engine. The part we do not appreciate, is in the end users who run to us because the aircraft | scenery | etc, they are flying has issues instead of running back to the author to fix the suggestions and entries made by the program. This costs us real money and time. Quite frankly, I have been watching the forums with this tweak frenzy and what I see is people get a little relief and then something changes and they are back for more. I do know that under the right circumstances some of the posted information can have value if the user knows what he/she is doing and can correctly evaluate the result, not only today, but next week or next month when they install a new plane or scenery package. The issue is users can not evaluate the result.The best tweak for FSX is a user who buys the right hardware, sets the system up correctly and does not overextend FSX settings, then compound overextending settings with a scenery that is far over the top for design.I seriously doubt Lockheed is suggesting people use this automated tweak system. That would be reckless and they are anything but that. They will end up in the same boat with support that we are in if they do so. Some users will claim its the best thing next to sliced bread, others will be in the Lockheed and other forums asking for support for issues that have nothing to do with the developers at which point they will finally figure out what it took MSFS developers years to learn, the best tweak is getting the right hardware and a simplistic approach to tuning.This thread is going the wrong direction now and I do not intend to entertain any more discussion on the tweak subject. It is a real problem with no true level of global conformity. And it is not our responsibility to report and support a beta program designed for tweaking parameters that vary so drastically from machine to machine.

Jim. Alot of good input here from you and a few others....if only people will read and reread your posts perhaps the realization will sink in that this whole business is a two way street between devs and customers.Frankly, it will stay in its current state until folks drop the whole "us against them" mentality. Real cooperation between devs and customers is a rarity these days.Hopefully we can all change some attitudes in 21011.

Hopefully we can all change some attitudes in 21011.

Don't be so pessimistic Ron!If we all work hard we can expect some changes around the end of the 190th century! :(

But why do people have need to tweak that much? Rhetorical.

But why do people have need to tweak that much? Rhetorical.

Because FSX is built on top of legacy code, poorly coded / optimized flight simulator that needs current hardware, proper setup and configuration and good system maintenance.Add to that fact, many want it to be something that it was never intended to be. Its a flight simulator, not the holodeck on the Starship Enterprise.Where you can gaze at birdies, shiny door knobs on hangar doors, blades of grass and boats on trailers in the parking lot. If those are the things you want, you will always be challenged and will need to do something beyond just tweaks. Or if you decide to use tweaks instead of hardware, you have to be willing to understand there are trade offs and anomalies to be expected.

But why do people have need to tweak that much? Rhetorical.

I think some people really enjoy tweaking. If flight sim was a car they would be hot rodding it.No matter how well they get flight simulator running they are always thirsting for a little more FPS or increased smoothness.Regards, Mike Mann

I think some people really enjoy tweaking. If flight sim was a car they would be hot rodding it.

I've already suggested that "Flight" should come in two versions; one for the majority of folks, and the other reworked to become "Flight - the Tweak Simulator..." :(

I think some people really enjoy tweaking. If flight sim was a car they would be hot rodding it.No matter how well they get flight simulator running they are always thirsting for a little more FPS or increased smoothness.Regards, Mike Mann

Lol, that’s so true.The cool thing is Hotrods go really fast and look great doing it...but they tend to break down.If you’re mechanically inclined that’s not a problem.I run the sim like a tractor - a solid 4-cylider diesel in low range ;)Suits me well.