disable advanced animations in the settings, this contains AI animals and such things. maybe it will reduce the bugs inside the demo. Bugs are animals. when i enable this setting or not lot of bugs running around the screen when in the demo.lol

I'm very intrigued with this demo. With the high resolution terrain (set to 1 meter) you need much less autogen. Turning it to sparse really improves performance and it looks great. I turned scenery detail all the way to the right. Anyways, with my Athlon 3200+, 1 Gb of RAM, and a tired old Radeon 9700 pro, it's running pretty well (I've just ordered a new video card). Thanks MS and ACES.Randall

Installed demo, played a bit, deleted. Don't even want to discuss it in detail. Just 3 long years of not fulfilled expectations finally ended.P.S. Would you people finally stop praying to the almighty God Vista and his messiah DX10?! Just look what others achieve with DX9 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3502375929069803475maybe ACES will consider getting decent coders for the next version if there is such? Good luck.

FS9 with just the water from FSX... I would be in heaven.I was flying the chopper near the ship...and I thought I saw fish. It wasn't..but it wss like..WOW!I just might get my Sea Rating just for this... Floatplane Paywares... If the payware vendors are smart..they better get started on some good Sea Planes. If you can fudge the water physics and add some water dyanmics to the flight model.... It would sell like hot cakes. Imagine...Vancover..or Alaska..Misty Fjords like foggy morning and still water... WOW!http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=239671&page=Manny

>636mb for poxy demo - shove it MS>>Aybe>>http://tinyurl.com/ooalk

>I don't know if you guys have noticed this but the people>running med range machines are pulling almost the same fps as>the guys running high end machines. It makes me wonder if FSX>is actually 2 years too early for the hardware currently on>the market. I have a theory. Every time a new version comes out, people claiming to be hardware geniuses like to declare the sim garbage because it doesn't work with the settings maxed out. Now, just to give a little perspective, I'm the type of guy who waits a little while after release before buying. Likewise, I waited a day or so before downloading the demo. I read how people with veritable Crays were having FPS issues, so it was with a bit of hesitancy that I installed. I'm running an AMD 2500XP Barton overclocked to a 3200+ class at 2.35 GHz; 1 GB PC2700 DDR; 512 MB ATI Radeon XT1600 pro card. Basically a midrange card on a lower end machine. With overall settings at 75-80% high, I'm just about staying locked at 24 FPS at all times.So what gives? I've come to the conclusion that the hidden variable here is screen resolution. I'm perfectly happy with 1024 x 768. I'm willing to bet those with the bleeding edge tech are trying to run at 1 Gazillion x 1 googleplex with detail sliders so far to the right they're in the next room, and then wondering why the sim runs so slowly.Some of these same folks claim to have previously been or currently are computer technicians/IS guys. Wow. Just... wow.

>Installed demo, played a bit, deleted. Don't even want to>discuss it in detail. Just 3 long years of not fulfilled>expectations finally ended.>>P.S. Would you people finally stop praying to the almighty God>Vista and his messiah DX10?! Just look what others achieve>with DX9 ->http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3502375929069803475>maybe ACES will consider getting decent coders for the next>version if there is such? Good luck.How dare they!? I mean, really! How dare they dash your hopes, shatter your dreams, and deny you the fulfullment you deserve!? You know, I try to be a nice guy, but folks like you have a knack for bringing out the cynical jerk in me. I am both an aviation enthusiast and a gamer, so I've seen it all when it comes to online communities, and you know what? Some of the worst crybabies are here. Oh sure, the FP-shooter boards are full of whiners, but the difference is most of those people are entitlement-bred teenagers who whine about everything anyway. It's expected from them. The Flight Simulator userbase is generally older and one would think more mature, and frankly to see this kind of boo-hooing is downright embarassing.I've been flightsimming since subLogic held the reins, so I think I have a little "street cred" when I say if this is such a disappointment, drop the hobby and find a new one, and for God's sake, don't waste yours or anyone else's time whining about your emotional distress Microsoft/ACES has apparantly brought upon you here. No one wants to hear it.

>P.S. Would you people finally stop praying to the almighty God>Vista and his messiah DX10?! Just look what others achieve>with DX9 ->http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3502375929069803475>maybe ACES will consider getting decent coders for the next>version if there is such? Good luck.I think you're correct in that Vista and DX10 won't be some sort of a "magic bullet" that suddenly makes every DX10-capable machine run games stutter-free at high FPS no matter WHAT you throw at it. It's just downright foolish to get bad performance in modern DX9 games and assume that everything will be different when Vista and DX10 come around.However, the comparison to Crysis and the notion that Aces have the wrong people working on the project is equally foolish. Get back to us when someone makes a flight simulator with FSX's scope and aviation-related content combined with Crysis' graphical goodness - then you'll have grounds for that assesment.There's a very real, very simple reason why we don't have that kind of flight simulators on the market.

My first impressions: Bravo and thank you for a job well-done, Aces. The new textures, water effects, dynamic lighting, reflections, details, GUI, mesh, autogen and clouds are awesome. Switching views has improved a lot, fps seem to be more or less stable and i don't remember seeing any stutters or old FS9 problems so far, except maybe for blurries.Sure, there are quite a few bugs in the demo, but I have to say I am impressed.Pat

>>636mb for poxy demo - shove it MS>>>>Aybe>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/ooalk>>>Not hard to work out where you spend some of your time. BTW, is that you. You look very fetching the only thing missing is a pacifier (dummy for the POMS)Oh. I made myself laugh.Aybe

>>And honestly comparing a>>640 MB demo to the 12 GB final product is well pretty stupid>>don't you think? >>Well, if he's not happy with a 640MB demo then he'll be 19.2>times unhappier with the 12GB product! Ha ha ha! (I crack>myself up.)>Only if I buy it!!Aybe

The Milky Way looks really nice. I'm working on a new version of my AutoStar program which takes advantage of FSX's significant improvement in star rendering (the stars are now rendered in colour, although the default star colours are basically grey). When I release AutoStarX it'll show e.g. Mars with a true reddish colour and realistic comets. Best regards, Chris

>>>636mb for poxy demo - shove it MS>>>>>>Aybe>>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/ooalk>>>>>>>>Not hard to work out where you spend some of your time. BTW,>is that you. You look very fetching the only thing missing is>a pacifier (dummy for the POMS)>>Oh. I made myself laugh.>>AybeMm.. indeed. I suppose my unspoken theory that you originally posted the "shove it" message to get attention, with plans to see if the attempt worked, and would then turn it around and play some kind of martyr. Hey, that's cool. I know for those of you who crave attention, even the negative variety can prove cathartic. I'm gonna go do another flight from TNCM to St. Barth. I'll be thinkin' 'boutcha.

>My first impressions: Bravo and thank you for a job>well-done, Aces. The new textures, water effects, dynamic>lighting, reflections, details, GUI, mesh, autogen and clouds>are awesome. Switching views has improved a lot, fps seem to>be more or less stable and i don't remember seeing any>stutters or old FS9 problems so far, except maybe for>blurries.>>Sure, there are quite a few bugs in the demo, but I have to>say I am impressed.You've been flying a different FSX demo from the one I've been trying out! ;-) Iain Smith

First impression is that the downloaded version of the island I have on FS2004 is far more detailed, yet the frame-rate in this demo is about half as high. I just don't see any obvious improvements over FS2004 and performance is absolutely awful: aside from the frame-rates, in the demo movie it took about ten seconds just to start displaying the wings of one of the jets it was showing me.That's on a 3GHz/1GB/7800GS system, so it's not top of the range by today's standards, but it's not a cheap Celeron with on-board graphics either. Heck, I was getting a better frame-rate when I had a Radeon 9500 Pro.