Flight simulator is amazing. A virtual world that amazes me every time I run it. I think flight simulator X is great, not just from a user's perspective, but also as a software developer. There is something better than FSX though, the community.Wild.

Anyone notice how the OP hasn't responded?Obviously trying to yank someone's chain...Or maybe just another ###### XP follower upset at the loss of their beloved CRJ project :(

I think you should return your hadrware. As I said earlier, I have an almost six year old computer and it runs FSX just fine, even with ORBX scenery installed. I've got an AMD dual core 4400+ processor, 3 GB of RAM, Nvidia 7900 GTX graphics card, and normal SATA 7200RPM harddrive. A low end computer by todays satandards. I do no tweaking, no overclocking and no fancy defrag software. All stock. Sad to hear about your hardware troubles.

I have the same set-up with the only exception being that I went the way of ATI rather than Nvidia due to my rig coming with an ATI card as standard (You'd be surprised how easily a warranty can be voided! Damn you Comet!!) Done a couple of tweaks (Thanks Bojote!) and I'm running REX, ASE, some of the Blueskyscenery photoscenery as well as some self-made photoscenery. FSX runs pretty well with the sliders maxed IF i'm in a quiet area such as the middle of Utah or Scotland, whereas places like NY/LA/London tend to kill the FPS dead so I understand why you don't max it out yourself. In fact, if I'm going to journey to any of those places, I'll knock it all down and lose the AI, Autogen and some airport buildings. No biggie for me if it means I can touchdown without a CTD or a slideshow happening. As you said in a later post, I'll upgrade/replace when my PC refuses to boot. :)

If you think for one sec. I belive you are running Orbx (everything ticked in their control panel also) with REX and HRD at max settings on your rig. without any stutterings.....you need new meds.They only way to make sure of what you'r saying about your rig. is to show us a vid. of what you can do with it using Orbx, REX and HDR....you don't...well I rest my case.

Mate, why the hostility? You do know that not everybody uses FSX for the looks? Some people (myself included) use it to do something that they'll never get the chance to do in real life, i.e Fly an aircraft! If I feel the desire to look at some hyper-realistic trees well... I'll look out my window frankly. Sure the visuals can enhance the experience, but is having 50% AI instead of 100% really taking away anything? Let's not forget that unless you have a full-motion simulator in your front room, even with everything maxed, FSX is still lacking the feeling that real pilots get.What you have to remember is; as cheap as hardware has become, some people have families to support and simply cannot afford to go out and spend a couple hundred £s/$s/whatever of a brand new CPU/GPU. Others simply don't feel any need to as FSX is fine for them and so instead they sacrifice some eye-candy for playability. I know that I would rather have FSX set to the lowest settings than be torn a new one from the other half for spending £900 on a new graphics card just so LAX looks "nice" and has traffic.The thing that Flight needs is adaptability. It NEEDS to be able to run not just on todays tech but on yesterdays, definitely NOT only on tomorrows'. What M'soft need to consider is, not only are users of FSX going to be buying Flight but also users of FS9, some of which won't have the same level of hardware as the FSX users, mainly because they didn't need it. To limit Flight to just a handful of people would simply put, be suicidal. Especially if they're wanting Flight to appeal to people other than aviation enthusiasts.This is an era of simplicity where the console is King and no casual gamer, enthusiast or not, is going to want to spend more time editing files than flying/gaming.

I'm not impressed at all by the fact that you aren't impressed at all.I was happy with FS9, I'm very happy with FSX, and I can't wait for Flight. I'm a pilot who for financial reasons hasn't been able to fly for quite a while now, and FS definitely helps to feed my addiction. I'm sorry if your expectations aren't being met, perhaps you need to lower your expectations?I might agree that MS was slacking if there was competition out there blowing them away, but, having developed software myself and having used flight simulators since the late 80's, I gotta say I'm blown away by what they are producing. Especially for the price.As I always say, If you can develop something better, I'll be first in line to purchase. Well maybe not first, but I'll jump on the bandwagon very early. Really, if this was easy, or even possible, somebody would have done it a Loonnnggg time ago. Look at the long list of failures out there. Frankly, I'm verryyy impressed by what MS has been able to do with the FS series. And I'm more interested in using what I can than worrying about what I don't have.

Mate, why the hostility? You do know that not everybody uses FSX for the looks? Some people (myself included) use it to do something that they'll never get the chance to do in real life, i.e Fly an aircraft! If I feel the desire to look at some hyper-realistic trees well... I'll look out my window frankly. Sure the visuals can enhance the experience, but is having 50% AI instead of 100% really taking away anything? Let's not forget that unless you have a full-motion simulator in your front room, even with everything maxed, FSX is still lacking the feeling that real pilots get.What you have to remember is; as cheap as hardware has become, some people have families to support and simply cannot afford to go out and spend a couple hundred £s/$s/whatever of a brand new CPU/GPU. Others simply don't feel any need to as FSX is fine for them and so instead they sacrifice some eye-candy for playability. I know that I would rather have FSX set to the lowest settings than be torn a new one from the other half for spending £900 on a new graphics card just so LAX looks "nice" and has traffic.The thing that Flight needs is adaptability. It NEEDS to be able to run not just on todays tech but on yesterdays, definitely NOT only on tomorrows'. What M'soft need to consider is, not only are users of FSX going to be buying Flight but also users of FS9, some of which won't have the same level of hardware as the FSX users, mainly because they didn't need it. To limit Flight to just a handful of people would simply put, be suicidal. Especially if they're wanting Flight to appeal to people other than aviation enthusiasts.This is an era of simplicity where the console is King and no casual gamer, enthusiast or not, is going to want to spend more time editing files than flying/gaming.

No hostility here mate, if he or you are happy with what you have I'm happy too.I was just making a point, I understand it's not everybody who can afford top of the line hardware as soon as they hit the makket.What I like is the immersion effect in FSX so to obtain that I have to have the sliders all the way to the right, AI at 100% is not a must, but boat traffic 100% and car traffic 20% is for me the min with all other sliders maxed out.I can buy a Ford Focus and put the body of a Ferrari on top of it but I won't get the perf. of a Ferrari, of course I can fly FSX without maxing out the sliders but I myself will not enjoy FSX as much.Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to brag about my rig or say that if you don't have the top of the line PC don't bother with FSX.....not at all.....like you, this is what I like to do (flying) so I saved my money to build this rig and I'm happy with the result I'm getting out of it.It's not about who as the best, it's about happiness when flying.Be safe flying.......

Some new screenies in PC pilot mag, looks wonderful and they state that performance is a key issue.

I wonder if the software can be 'tuned', that is to only display the 'seen' textures, so it can reduce the workload and make this available for older computers as well? If time and effort is spent I am sure that a high performing and high quality simulator can be released to the market without the demands of FSX. Any software engineers here care to comment? I can honestly say I have no idea what I am talking about, but, alas, common sense say anything can be done if you put your mind to it.Daniel

I wonder if the software can be 'tuned', that is to only display the 'seen' textures, so it can reduce the workload and make this available for older computers as well? If time and effort is spent I am sure that a high performing and high quality simulator can be released to the market without the demands of FSX. Any software engineers here care to comment? I can honestly say I have no idea what I am talking about, but, alas, common sense say anything can be done if you put your mind to it.Daniel

Great idea, So good in fact just about every engine already does it. Objects are marked with a simple true/false for both visibility (objects behind other objects) and clipping (object is in current view). FSX would never work if it weren't for things like that.

Some new screenies in PC pilot mag, looks wonderful and they state that performance is a key issue.

So is there any where else that these images can be viewed legally?

As I see it, both FS9 and FSX are truly amazing in what they can do, and FS2000/2002 were superb in their day too. These programs have provided me with half a lifetime of pleasure for very little cost. I cannot make my mind up which I enjoy most - the actual flying or making sceneries, modifying panels, or tweaking AI FDEs, or flying online with others? I even manage to run a virtual VA within FS9. But....there is a place for something between the FS9/FSX type PC based simulator, and a $15 million airline simulator. Hence, the recent interest in high precision hardware (yokes, throttle quadrants, instrumentation) for home built cockpits of varying complexity and cost. :( This would seem to be a growth market but at the moment none of the really big players in FS have got into it. Flight simulation needs to make a quantum leap away from the desktop/keyboard/mouse simulator. Some large company needs to think about integrating flight simulation software with precision control hardware in a package which is affordable by the average hardcore simulator pilot. A base package of this type would include a simple cockpit with forward and side views, controls, instruments etc which could be assembled and dis-assembled in say 30 minutes. It would be a package which costs not $20 but not $15 million either.John

As I see it, both FS9 and FSX are truly amazing in what they can do, and FS2000/2002 were superb in their day too. These programs have provided me with half a lifetime of pleasure for very little cost. I cannot make my mind up which I enjoy most - the actual flying or making sceneries, modifying panels, or tweaking AI FDEs, or flying online with others? I even manage to run a virtual VA within FS9. But....there is a place for something between the FS9/FSX type PC based simulator, and a $15 million airline simulator. Hence, the recent interest in high precision hardware (yokes, throttle quadrants, instrumentation) for home built cockpits of varying complexity and cost. :( This would seem to be a growth market but at the moment none of the really big players in FS have got into it. Flight simulation needs to make a quantum leap away from the desktop/keyboard/mouse simulator. Some large company needs to think about integrating flight simulation software with precision control hardware in a package which is affordable by the average hardcore simulator pilot. A base package of this type would include a simple cockpit with forward and side views, controls, instruments etc which could be assembled and dis-assembled in say 30 minutes. It would be a package which costs not $20 but not $15 million either.John

Well, you can always build you own cockpit for $100K-$250K depending on extras (6-DOF platform, collimating arrays for your monitors, etc., etc. and certain firms will pretty much build them for you). Note that although expensive, $250K is pretty much between $15 and $15 million as you propose! :-)The problem with high-precision hardware simulators is scale: The cost of the first copy of FSXI is in the millions, while the cost of the second is esentially zero, so Microsoft will be able to afford selling hundreds of thousands of copìes at the very low price of the Flight Simulator franchise we are all used to as loss leaders until they recover their investment and start to make money because they can sell a million or so (I'm guessing) so selling a low cost FS to the masses is very feasible (and we should all be grateful there are so many simmers out there willing to buy a copy of FS for occasional use so it makes business sense for MS to make a really powerfull sim that will keep us enthusiasts entertained.)Now hardware is a different story altogether: Fixed cost is close to zero (for motion platforms developed by others) and somewhat important for certain dedicated hardware that must be develped in house like the controls, but variable cost is very important: Each unit must be precision manufactured, machined, painted, assembled, tested, etc. and how big is the precision hardware enthusiast market anyway (at least at current prices)? How many even have the sapce in their homes or can convince their SO to park the car on the street from now on because the garage now houses a 737 sim? So with a much smaller market to begin with, hardware developers have a hard time making a business case to justify develpment costs, which is why a good CDU costs something like 7 iPhones (OK, phones are loss leders) or 2 iPads. And the functionaliy of a CDU is puny when compared to an iPad, but the iPad sells millions while the CDU is lucky if sales reach 10K.Cheers,- jahman.

----------- But....there is a place for something between the FS9/FSX type PC based simulator, and a $15 million airline simulator. Hence, the recent interest in high precision hardware (yokes, throttle quadrants, instrumentation) for home built cockpits of varying complexity and cost. :( This would seem to be a growth market but at the moment none of the really big players in FS have got into it. -----------John

John- Have you looked at the products offered by Precision Flight Controls? Having used their Cirrus rudder pedals for a decade, I can recommend them. The products you mention ARE there- if you have an ample wallet.AR

Well, you can always build you own cockpit.....

My point was exactly that I cannot do that.

How many even have the sapce in their homes or can convince their SO to park the car on the street from now on because the garage now houses a 737 sim?

Again you missed the point. Not a 737. A basic cockpit that can be assembled and dis-assembled easily for storage. My other main point was the integration of hardware and software in a package.Good to hear from you, Alex! Yes, PFC have great stuff at a price. I remember you told me how you came by your rudder pedals - I wish I had your luck :(

My point was exactly that I cannot do that...Again you missed the point. Not a 737. A basic cockpit that can be assembled and dis-assembled easily for storage. My other main point was the integration of hardware and software in a package....

John, I do understand your point. I was just trying to explain why specialized hardware will always be expensive for us simmers: Market size affects pricing, and in this regard you are subject to what others decide to do, as market size will affect the price of the specialized hardware you can buy and thus the cost of a full-sized garage-invading 737 cockpit, or the fold-way version you have in mind, as both have yokes, throttles, panels, etc.One thing I am hoping for is eventual PCATD certification for FSXI (FSXII? FSXIII?, eventually it will happen!) so more pilots will flight sim and purchase specialized hardware (I suppose that the cost would be deductible as a business expense?) so that I will be able to afford that hardware as well (and give my CH-Stuff a needed rest).So again, what others do affects prices and thus what you do.Cheers,- jahman.

One thing I am hoping for is eventual PCATD certification for FSXI (FSXII? FSXIII?, eventually it will happen!)

That would be a step forward, if not a quantum jump :( :(