9 out of 343 who won't but this new version ;)Gerrithttp://members.chello.nl/g.kranenbarg/gwkh...s/bluesmall.gif

The results of this poll prety much depict the general oppinion about this demo.I am satisfied with what I see at least in terms of performance. With a P4@3,0GHz, 2GB RAM and a Geeforce 6600/256MB I can't really push it to the limits, but it performs well at a level above the one I used to start fs9, so, I think the final version will surely run flawlessly on my system.Of course there are a few chosmetic problems, but to be honest, scenery details and the way aircraft look as seen from the outside matters less than nothing to me... I am much more devoted to Flight & Systems modelling accuracy and in that particular area I have so far found only one sign of progress from previous 2k, 2k2 and 2k4 versions - the default aircraft stall, and even spin, nore or less realisticaly, without describing those "paranormal" maneuvers in the skies when we used to push it to the high AoA limits of the envelope.Still on the positive side of the experiences with this demo, I applaud the effort put by the ACES team into the now crowded (by starts...) skies. Being an amateur astronomer it's a delight to see!Yet, after a few hours flying the demo I noticed that some of the "emblematic" bugs are still there: the engines when leaned (a persistent bug since fs5 was introduced!!!) above around 4500' still bring FF UP when it should imediately start going DOWN, one of the most important instruments, integrating the sacred six, the TURN COORDINATOR still works the wrong way. The turn rate part of the instrument does not help you performing standard rate turns on medium sized/weight GA aircraft such as Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcraft, etc..., because if you use the 2' marks and a stopwatch (real or even the one modeled in your aircraft) you'll easily find your 360 degrees turn lasts a lot less than 2 minutes. The ball also displays erroneous information because it tends to center when in fact it should be far away from its central (coordinated) position, for instance when you fly the Baron and one of the engines quits. Although nice visual effects were programmed, and the rws look great when the water from rain accumulates, there are no effects of rw contamination over aicraft operation. You will be able to brake, turn, etc... without having to worry about the degree of contamination your visuals of the rw surface depict! And yet, your aircraft still gets pushed accross the rw under moderate crosswinds, moving sideways as if there was no drag from it's tires, either in a dry or wet/icy rw.Important details of the flight model, truncated starting with fs2k2 when someone (who?) decided that some FDE variables could be eliminated from the FM cycle, haven't found their way back to where they should be - there is still no prop on fin/rudder effect (slipstream) and the family of prop effects has aparently been reduced to the one that in the real thing makes the slightest effect (p-factor), etc...There's no turboprop in the demo, but I fear the B200 or any other included in the final version will hapilly show FF varying when you vary RPM at a fixed throttle/Condition, such as when your at cruise and cycle the RPM while mantaining throttle... From what I observe in the Canadair, even the engine failure "adventures" will lack an important detail - windmill (N1, and N2 showing non-zero readings if there wasn't a catastrophic malfunction and the engine can still "suffer" an inflight restart... Anyway, it's a game, and I shouldn't forget about that, but excuse me, details such as these, noticed by any RW driver, could certainly be worked easier than the effort put into flock of birds, elephants, or even cars on the roads... Will I buy it ? I certainly will - it was my first love in the world of simulation, and there is still something about it that I really can't dispense...

The FSX Demo looks superb and I can't wait to get the full version. Despite the fact that my 9800Pro doesn't show it to its best I can see the potential once a good card is installed.I'm facing the dilemma of needing to upgrade my CPU (and therefore my mobo and RAM) and graphics card to one of the fastest currently available but the purchase of a fast DX9 card could be unwise. It all hinges on how much better FSX looks (and perhaps how much better frame rates are) once DX10 is released.It's a pity FSX can't be delayed by 6 months because it would make the purchase of a new system so much easier.I also hope frame rates will increase significantly from the demo version so that 3rd party scenery addons don't become unuseable.

>>Once I maxed everything out I was still>>getting 20fps.>>>>>Steve>>Hmm, what are your computer specs?>AMD 64 FX-551gg Ram2x Nvidia Geforce 6600 GT SLI Mode2 300gb hard drives capable of raid or sata config but I use them independantly for security reasons.

'I have a few problems with it, but am anxious to get the full release' means I am looking forward for a miracle.Most of the bugs in 'demo' are not demo-related at all, like view chane bugs, blurries, weather issues etc. It just shows the project is really RAW. Open BETA a month prior to release? It also seems weird to me.And what exactly some people mean when the say 'optimizing autogen will reduce FPS hit'? :-hmmm The only thing I can think of is either reducing the amount of objects or reducing polygon counts. Judging we have only primitive buildings and trees I really can't see how one can 'optimize' it much further.BTW, just cancelled my pre-order at Amazon. Want to see what it is like first/wait for Vista.

Hi GuysGreat demo from MS, I have been having problems like everyone else. But one thing I would like to see implimented is exhaust heat blur from the engines. MS Combat Flight Simulator 3 & LOMAC has it! It gives a great sense of movement to the aircraft... its been over 20 years now guys (ACES Studio).Check out the attachments!DanielEDIT: All three of those images were taken from Airliners.net and posted in our forum. That is against our policies. Do NOT do that again; it is violation of copyright to do so.

I totaly agree with you on this. This demo made me cautious about the end product. If I can't get framerates in the FS9 range in the FS-X demo on low (FS9 like) settings I will pass on it. If FS-X wants to target the mainstream it will have to run okay on mainstream hardware. Most FS fans have beter hardware then mainstream and unlike the mainstream they have ussualy tweaked their machines to give FS as many resources as needed.The current demo runs bad without tweaking. I tried it on 3 very different machines and the results stay the same. On all 3 machines I can get beter framerates by tweaking (disabeling autogen and AI is ussualy the first step) but the framerate never gets near the level FS9 performs on the same machine.Its al good and dandy to release statments like. we improved this, increased performance of that function by X % but releasing the demo in this state destroys the trust in the whole program. Here we have a demo with maybe 1% of the scenery that the whole products ships with and they can't get it to run smooth. Whatever improvments in the code if you add the other 99% of the world scenery and full AI aircraft traffic that will certainly give you an extra performance loss.No matter what you put in the readme if the demo doesn't come up with a title screen that says EARLY Demo / Alpha code / Sneak preview 80% of your public will think its a demo of the end product.

Mike (Tdragger),You may want to contact the folks who have 2 years or more old PCs who are getting smooth consistent frame rates of 20 or more FPS with the sliders all up on the Demo.They seem to have the secret that you guys need. You may want to get their input and pass it on with the products "Readme" file or permanently incorporate it in the product.That might solve the problem.Manny

>Mike (Tdragger),>>You may want to contact the folks who have 2 years or more old>PCs who are getting smooth consistent frame rates of 20 or>more FPS with the sliders all up on the Demo.>>They seem to have the secret that you guys need. You may want>to get their input and pass it on with the products "Readme">file or permanently incorporate it in the product.>>That might solve the problem.>>MannyI still maintain that the "secret" is using a resolution more appropriate to the hardware. I find it hard to believe that people with currently high end systems are getting horrific performance, when my meager little 3200+ XP, 1 GB RAM, and ATI Radeon 1600/512 AGP can kick out a solid 30 FPS with settings that aren't maxxed all the way, but set to where the game looks leaps and bounds better than "vanilla" FS9. The caveat is that I'm running at 1024 x 768, and in my opinion, it looks just fine.

>Yet, after a few hours flying the demo I noticed that some of>the "emblematic" bugs are still there: the engines when leaned>(a persistent bug since fs5 was introduced!!!) above around>4500' still bring FF UP when it should imediately start going>DOWN,Just trying a few aircraft for FS2004, the fuel flow went down when leaning. I usually always fly above 4500'. My backyard is above 4500' :)> one of the most important instruments, integrating the>sacred six, the TURN COORDINATOR still works the wrong way.>The turn rate part of the instrument does not help you>performing standard rate turns on medium sized/weight GA>aircraft such as Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcraft, etc..., because>if you use the 2' marks and a stopwatch (real or even the one>modeled in your aircraft) you'll easily find your 360 degrees>turn lasts a lot less than 2 minutes.The stock FS2004 172 was 10 seconds less than 2 minutes, and my RealAir SF260 (for FS2004) nailed the 2 minute turn perfectly. The "ball" did move the correct way, in three aircraft tried.As to being one of the most important real life instruments these days, the turn coordinator just isn't it anymore. In fact, the GPS driven solid state auto-pilot I installed in my airplane replaces the turn coordinator. It still has a ball for coordinating turns, but only an electronic readout representation of turning direction, should you desire to flip through the "page" presentations. These days, with moving map GPS, and a far better and much more accurate representation of your aircraft realitive to the ground, two minute turns are old school. However, my A/P will perform a 180 turn at the push of a button, should it be desired. I do have a nice TSO'd turn coordinator with backlighting for sale... >>Important details of the flight model, truncated starting with>fs2k2 when someone (who?) decided that some FDE variables>could be eliminated from the FM cycle, haven't found their way>back to where they should be - there is still no prop on>fin/rudder effect (slipstream) and the family of prop effects>has aparently been reduced to the one that in the real thing>makes the slightest effect (p-factor), etc...I'm not running FSX here, and can't make a comparison. However, the prop slip stream effects for the takeoff roll and climb have always worked quite well, some very well, and varies somewhat with aircraft FD authors. The effect of airflow over the elevator, is what's been missing lately while on the ground. I do use rudder pedals to get the full effect, and believe they're essential.As far as I'm concerned, a representation of a living world will be great. Real life pilots who actually have an interst in "looking down", of which there are many, notice these things. The improved topography and data-bases will be excellent for my type of mountain flight. Should I desire advanced aircraft instruments or characteristics for certain portions of the flight envelope, then I'll rely on 3rd party's to get more exacting conditions. That's what we've been doing for all these years, anyway. It's also the reason MS works with 3rd party's in development.L.Adamson

oops!

Probably, like many here, I use linked computers here for professional work. On one I use FS9 with a lot of add-ons and no problem with frame rates and permanently connected to the Internet for realtime streaming etc. It uses an ATI Radeon X300 series with Catalyst. It has an AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3200+. 2GHz and 512Mo of RAM. It is less than a year old.It took two attempts for a clean download. On completion of the installation a box came up and said that the DirectX was not compatible. This is strange, as all the machines here need version9 to operate some of the programmes we use. Having followed the link to the DirectX webpage, what was on offer was what was already installed! Another download and installation of FSX incurred.The Demo itself must be treated as to what it is, a very basic Beta version to see what it is like to use and see the new environmental effects. Very high graphics orientated and certainly must be seen with DX10 and Vista to appreciate it. As with all new software, especially with MS, it has to be a wait and see and buy when all the major problems have been ironed out. Vista is going to be a wait of 18/24 months with a probable SP as well. So for me, it is just a preview with the tag, buy in two years, don't call me, I'll call you touch.Now for the big hiccup; Using the Demo and selecting the downloadable weather updates from Jepperson. Does it work? Has the demo installation altered the configuration? Certainly, for sure, I am getting the message that there is a problem getting the weather and to check the Internet connection and configuration. No problem there as evertythingelse is running normally. On Vatsim with SB3 I receive the weather every 5 minutes. So what has caused this?Running FS9, I am now not able to get the 'real time' weather here also, so is the Jepperson server, where this information data is drawn from, down?. I have now uninstalled the FSX Demo and the problem continues on FS9. Is it possible for the installation of the Demo to interfere in such a way. Would a firewall (Zone Labs Pro)stop the weather downloads to FS generally? The logs and settings do not seem to indicate this.As there seems to be no other comment on the 'real time' weather, has anyone else experienced this?FSX is being very commercially driven, as opposed to other previous releases. If FSX is being rushed to launch it at the Avsim Conference, let alone for the Christmas sales, this would be a big error on Microsoft's part, as there seems to be too much to rectify going by the comments here and elsewhere. There are too many questions left unanswered, especially as some have identified already, in the add-on market and compatibility where huge investments have already been made. With add-ons costing on average

Hi,I think that it's pretty exciting. At present the whole thing has some rough edges-er, that's what I'm hoping they are, but I tried landing the CRJ? and the co-pilots voice was really sexy.She didn't seem too bothered we came in over the tail of a 747 that suddenly appeared . I think I may transfer her to FS9 for a while and practice more landings in the DC-4 with her.I'm really looking forward to the release. great work guys.Andy.

>>Just trying a few aircraft for FS2004, the fuel flow went down>when leaning. I usually always fly above 4500'. My backyard is>above 4500' :)Strange... do me a favour... climb to 6000'. Lean your Cessna or Baron engine and watch the FF (or, if you have the tips ON, check the values). You'll see it increasing during the first leaning steps, and only after a while starting to decrease, as it should right from the beginning... We know why - internaly the engine model directly ties FF with engine RPM, and as you lean and gain power and RPM starts to increase, FF increases as well...>The stock FS2004 172 was 10 seconds less than 2 minutes, and>my RealAir SF260 (for FS2004) nailed the 2 minute turnBe sure not to base your observation on the instrument tips!!! They show a 3 deg./sec turn rate, but if you monitor the turn with the stopwatch you'll see it's NOT 2'...>perfectly. The "ball" did move the correct way, in three>aircraft tried.When did it move correctly? Perform a few sideslips and you'll see what I mean, or even better, take a twin, your best twin, and quit an aengine. You'll see an initial deviation, but soon after the ball will "want" to center, and just a slight compensation of aileron towards the good engine will center it for good... Not even close to that in RL, as you know...>>As to being one of the most important real life instruments>these days, the turn coordinator just isn't it anymore. In>fact, the GPS driven solid state auto-pilot I installed in my>airplane replaces the turn coordinator. It still has a ball>for coordinating turns, but only an electronic readout>representation of turning direction, should you desire to flip>through the "page" presentations. These days, with moving map>GPS, and a far better and much more accurate representation of>your aircraft realitive to the ground, two minute turns areLarry, it's not only the innacuracy of the "ball" or the inclinometer as an instrument, but rather what it reveals regarding the internal FM...>I'm not running FSX here, and can't make a comparison.>However, the prop slip stream effects for the takeoff roll and>climb have always worked quite well, some very well, and>varies somewhat with aircraft FD authors. The effect of>airflow over the elevator, is what's been missing lately while>on the ground. I do use rudder pedals to get the full effect,>and believe they're essential.That is missing as well, but you can force it using an "aircraft.cfg" parameter introduced in fs9. Problem is that only p-factor affects things during takeoff/high power low speed climbs. There is no slipstream effect at all - only p-factor. And p-factor is nill above a certain IAS, as you know...(also related to the AoA then...)>things. The improved topography and data-bases will be>excellent for my type of mountain flight. Should I desire>advanced aircraft instruments or characteristics for certain>portions of the flight envelope, then I'll rely on 3rd party's>to get more exacting conditions. That's what we've been doing>for all these years, anyway. It's also the reason MS works>with 3rd party's in development.Glad you can live with that... Problem is NO add-on will ever be able to avoid this bugs... That irritates me, although I agree I may look picky...And since you mention flying visualy, and I also agree that flying "for free" is indeed one of the most rewarding ways of flying, please comment on that other persistent "bug" so evident to RL pilots like you, and difficult to overcome even when were talking top FMs like those developed by Rob Young, Ron Freimuth and just a few more... the POWER/PITCH relationship. Do you feel well with the ever slugish behaviour of MSFS aircraft in pitch when you change power? Isn't that irritatingly different from what we have in RL? Doesn't that influence, negatively, such basic maneuvers as a plain vanilla approach? Ah! And before you start thinking I am x-plane-biased ;-) , no, I don't think X-Plane is any better, in this or any other aspects other than a wider range of aircraft designs and the helos... As a matter of fact, the more I see the way xplane is evolving, the more I think MSFS is a better choice after all...

Much to my surprise, I've had flawless performance with this demo (averaging about 22-25fps despite maxing the sliders over). Trying my best to push it...I'm quite happy with the progress of the "world environment" coming together. Specifically the better merging of water and ground textures, cloud rendering and natural light effects, simulated ground activity/road traffic, and a much expanded variety of autogen scenery objects, all making for much more convincing terrain. Feels like FSX is finally merging with Google Earth.I think the transition from 2D to VC flying is advancing well also. The cockpit panning and head motion latency is a pleasant surprise. I only hope to be able to program the panning onto the directional hat switch of my Nostromo gamepad...this would make turning base leg to final a whole new experience when targeting the rwy threshold. I also use dual 24" monitors, using one solely for arranging the panel views and nav charts. This continues to work well and keeps the cockpit view totally unobstructed.I can accept the minor graphic flaws which are far outweighed by the advancing of a more comprehensive framework for the product. Especially considering the fact that it covers a quite broad and dynamic consumer base. Might even make a good pax sim one day...