Performance is always (and has always been an issue) with all versions of FS when they were first released. FSX not being any different. It is what keeps the tweaking guys busy.It is very likely that when Flight is released, there will be thousands of threads on how to tweak it as it will not be up to par with today's hardware.Until then, I will continue to enjoy FSX.

I've been seeing much on the forums about this debate, I thought I would sign up and also give my two cents towards Microsoft Flight / FSX etc...Firstly, to half the users on here, it's all very well to say FSX is brilliant when you have the lastest Intel i7 processor, state of the art Graphics card and enough RAM to probably power a real aircraft, but the fact is, you are not the larger market share out of all the people who buy the game, actually very low. Were talking a good few £1000 here for the machines you run FSX on. A game or simulator simply shouldn't need that cash investment in it, for it to work properly.FSX was a bad simulator, fact. A company doesn't go bust for being good.Microsoft will give every reason in the book as to why FSX wasn't bad, just like BP saying that the oil spill back last year was "minor". Fact of the matter is, when the game can't run on the technology for when it was built, that's saying something. For example, its like Ford or Nissan making a car now in 2011 but telling the driver, "nope, you can't get the max performance out of it, until 6 years later when we have the new techonology to power it" Now don't get me wrong, please, i'm not bashing FSX (it's a beauty when you get it working), i'm just having a go at the way it was handled. You know, "if your going to do it, do it too your best", this certainly wasn't in the ACES office during development. You know, where was their market research? Looking at the technology of the day, asking flightsim users what their configs were, testing Alpha version's on different machines to see how they perfomed? This is basic ICT stuff!In my opinion the term "average flight sim user" means a person with a £600 computer, with a decent processor (Intel i3's and i5's are becoming popular now) and a decent graphics card. Not the people with i7 Processor's costing £2000 let alone. Nor should one have to overclock a machine to get a game/simulator looking crisp, while in good hands, overclocking is brilliant, the "average flight sim user" doesn't have a clue as to how it works! Knowing me I would probably blow half my house up if I tried!Lastly what I cannot understand is how I look at games on Xbox with their HDMI graphics and good frames, and the Xbox cost me litterally £260, but a game with blurs, lag and crashes happens of a computer worth £2000?Now before you tear into me like a pack of wolves, I'm not saying FSX is bad (I use it myself), nor am I saying that having top of the range computers is bad either. I simply feel that Microsoft handled their market audience wrong, and that for a simulator or game to do well, I feel that it should look good on computers which cost £600-£700, I mean the more computers that can play it well, the more people will buy it! I'm happy for open opinion and please, if you disagree with me, then please say, I mean i'm not FlightSim Overlord, ruler of everything now, I can't have my own way. I just feel that Flight Simulator should be open to all, and not just to people who have the top of the line computers for it to be able to to play well and look decent.Thank you for reading.Virtual Reality,

The thing that brings me so much amusement is the fact that people are hot to make statements like this based on very preliminary peeks of something that is still a very long way away. Frankly, that also applies to most of what I have seen in many other threads here. Maybe it's just me, but I've seen this show before :(

I agree.

A game or simulator simply shouldn't need that cash investment in it, for it to work properly.

It doesn't. I'm flying on an almost six year old AMD-powered computer. FSX is running just fine. There could have been a better manual explaining how to set up and configure FSX, but you don't need a monster PC to run FSX. If FSX is too high end, there's always FS2002 or 2004... You buy a Ferrari you know it's gonna cost you more for parts, tires and gas than driving a small Hyundai.

For example, its like Ford or Nissan making a car now in 2011 but telling the driver, "nope, you can't get the max performance out of it, until 6 years later when we have the new techonology to power it"

Apples and oranges... It is more like buying a Ferrari engine and putting it in your Nissan, then you go to Ferrari and complain that your Nissan doesn't drive and perform like a Ferarri.

Lastly what I cannot understand is how I look at games on Xbox with their HDMI graphics and good frames, and the Xbox cost me litterally £260, but a game with blurs, lag and crashes happens of a computer worth £2000?

Apples and oranges again... It's like comparing Windows Notepad with Microsoft Word. Flight simulator could be just as good as any game if you limited it to flying in and around Seattle. Also, XBox is a standarized computer. PCs comes in millions of variants with different configurations. The only solution would be for Microsoft to release their own "Flight PC".

Now before you tear into me like a pack of wolves, I'm not saying FSX is bad (I use it myself), nor am I saying that having top of the range computers is bad either. I simply feel that Microsoft handled their market audience wrong, and that for a simulator or game to do well, I feel that it should look good on computers which cost £600-£700, I mean the more computers that can play it well, the more people will buy it! I'm happy for open opinion and please, if you disagree with me, then please say, I mean i'm not FlightSim Overlord, ruler of everything now, I can't have my own way. I just feel that Flight Simulator should be open to all, and not just to people who have the top of the line computers for it to be able to to play well and look decent.

It's a nice fantasy, but realism comes at a cost. FSX can be run on almast any mid range computer. Just move some slider to the left and turn off some features. That said, I agree with you that there are many things Microsoft could have done better when developing FSX. It's far from perfect, but what is. What has dissapointed me most is lack of support and lack of user interaction. Microsoft like most other large corporations do business on such a large scale that single users are treated like dirt.

If FSX is so bad, then why do so many people use it and enjoy it. And why are there thousands of add-ons available for it. Yeah, really bad sim. :(

I'd have to ask then, why so many (including posters in this thread) commenting on FSX's performance (a sim released in 2006 shouldn't have this issue in 2011)? :(

A patched version of FSX with doubled framerate performance, and compatibility with my existing addons would be perfect for me.....but I doubt Flight will be as simple as that.

:(

Thanks simmerhead for the reply,I do not see why Microsoft would create FSX on the basis that it required high end systems for it to be played on max, as you are saying. I mean the 'FlightSim' has only grown to the size it has today because of the addon developers, surely Microsoft seeing the magic, developers were doing with FS2004, should of made a simulator that could run on mid-range systems on max, which meant more people could enjoy the simulator for what it is, and allow addon developers such as Orbx to develop scenery for those people who had the high end systems which allowed it to take the simulator one step further.I'm like other people on this forum, if Flight is no more than FSX with good frames, i'm in. FSX is beautiful, simply stunning that some videos on youtube leave me speechless, I feel, it was just a shame that you need that "high end machine" to get that result. Microsoft seem to want Flight to appeal to a wider audience, but if they launch it like FSX was it simply won't work as the only people who are willing to invest money into getting the system required for it to run well, are the hardcore simmers. And I respect your opinion and thank you for replying, I do agree FSX is that Ferrari engine and I totally agree with you that Microsoft lacked that user interaction, many of the people within the flight sim community have made Flight Simulator what it is today, if Microsoft listen to the people who love it the most, then the only result they will recieve is positive. While we all complain about it, all of us can't live with out it, as it lets us do something which is so limited in the real world.Microsoft have dropped Simulator from the name, so we could consider this a fresh start and let's hope Flight starts this new series off to a good start!Thanks for reading,Virtual Reality

I do not see why Microsoft would create FSX on the basis that it required high end systems for it to be played on max, as you are saying. I mean the 'FlightSim' has only grown to the size it has today because of the addon developers, surely Microsoft seeing the magic, developers were doing with FS2004, should of made a simulator that could run on mid-range systems on max, which meant more people could enjoy the simulator for what it is, and allow addon developers such as Orbx to develop scenery for those people who had the high end systems which allowed it to take the simulator one step further.

While it is a fact that FSX doesn't run all that smooth, even on high en systems, I like that it can be scaled to fit various setups. FSX is a flight simulator operating system that can be tweaked and reconfigured to do so many wonderful things. As I said, I run FSX on a low end system by todays standards and enjoy many fine addons, including ORBX NA scenery. I don't understand what the big deal about running everything on max is all about. If it works and looks good I'm happy. It is pure and simple logic that running a realistic flight model, accurate terrain, realstic scenery and decent weather simulation requires massive amounts of data processing.But since many people apparently need to max everything all the time, Microsoft could just release two version of Flight. One standard edition that runs fine on cheap computers, and one professional edition with more tweaking options. I'd only buy the latter version.

Microsoft could just release two version of Flight. One standard edition that runs fine on cheap computers, and one professional edition with more tweaking options. I'd only buy the latter version.

One good running version is all we need... I hated the 'Standard'/'Professional' versions they tried with FS2k2...

I think at the end of the day it just comes down to simple human logic. "People want more for less"While I mean my FSX runs great and i'm happy with it, I do agree that a simulator shouldn't need to take 5 years before it can hit it's peak, it should be able to do that on day one of launch (Using the current techonology available)Like I said before, i'm not dissing FSX, it really is one amazing flight simulator if you take away it's faults. If Flight was merely an FSX without these faults, I think we would have one sweet Flight Simulator. The guys at Orbx are making and developing things which I never thought could be applied to FSX (for example adding moving people to their airport scenery)I only have the stance I have, because if you make the simulator run on mid-range systems (such as yours) with good frames and it's graphics good (doesn't have to be perfect). The more likely we will see an increase in people buying it (seeing good reviews, word of mouth) and that's only a good thing as it helps push for further development not just for the series but for addon developers, virtual airlines and flight sim communities.The more people that can play it and enjoy it, the far more likely the series will continue and become stronger.Thanks for reading,Virtual Reality

From what I'm seeing, this thread is quite pointless. OHN, you gave your opinion/rant based on 10 screenshots and one video taken in a flight simulator in early development. What is the point of that? Complain to Microsoft if you are unhappy. Complaining here is useless.In a way, FSX was not so great. In other ways, it's the best PC flight simulator we can afford.

this thread..incredible..what do you think the next flight sim should be. I have had both Pro Pliots, all 3 flight unlimited. I have been using FS since around 1990. At this point allI care about is how fluid it will run..I don't need more eye candy. If its there, I'll take it. but it wont stop me from buying the next version. Give me a flight sim that will use the latest DX and dual cards and I'm happy. AND THAT does not mean I'm easy to please I occasionally use VATSIM, I have a flight deck in my office..goflight radio stack, over head switches, rudder pedals, yoke, throttle quadrant, track IR running 4 dell screens(with triple head to go), OBRX, PMDG, EAGLESOFT, AEROSOFT, REX, GTX UTX , and alot more..I just want fluid running ..thats all.

One good running version is all we need... I hated the 'Standard'/'Professional' versions they tried with FS2k2...

Why? A retail version takes care of all the gamers and the professional takes care of the hardcore enthusiats and developers. What's to hate?

Why? A retail version takes care of all the gamers and the professional takes care of the hardcore enthusiats and developers. What's to hate?

There are pobably too few hardcore enthusiasts to justifiy the development of two versions. You might hate the price of the professional version!

One good running version is all we need...  I hated the 'Standard'/'Professional' versions they tried with FS2k2...

If a version, in this case, is software designed to run on different level computers.. then, FSX is already 50 versions (use the sliders people, and all set far right is not what i mean)

Why? A retail version takes care of all the gamers and the professional takes care of the hardcore enthusiats and developers. What's to hate?

3rd party developers began using components exclusive to the Professional version in their addons. Those who purchased the standard edition, be it curious gamers or enthusiasts who didn't really care about the extra airplanes and airports they had been enhanced in Pro, were left unable to run a slew of freeware creations. One could blame it on the developer for using "Professional Only" components and putting the requirement on their creations, one could blame Microsoft for giving users the choice, and/or one could blame the user for choosing poorly... either way, it's a situation that was hopefully recognized and won't be repeated again.Plus, multiple versions and editions only adds to development time and expense. It's better all around to have a single version. -Greg