Looking at the FSX demo is really depressing (framerates, mushy looking ground textures, etc). We only have a few months before release and Microsoft releases a Demo that flat out shows most current simmers will be unable to run FSX with their current hardware. Aces didn't say we are releasing a Beta for end users to test; no they put a Demo of the actual product on GameSpot for everyone to preview. If they said Beta that would be different but they gave the official 'Preview' to GameSpot for gamers to see if they had the muscle to run the sim or not (Try before you buy, isn't that was a Demo is used for???)

No need to worry though. Im sure there will be payware offerings available to address all the short comings before the ink on the FSX box is even dry.

FS2004 wasn't great. It was a fancied up FS2002 with pretty clouds. And the bridges were horrible. And no SIDs/DPs. And the flight dynamics sucked. Can you believe I needed add-on aircraft? Why bother putting in default AC in the first place. Why all those old planes? No one flew them.....It can go on and on. I think that the nearly 3 years since FS2004's release has dulled everyone's memory about when it was first announced and released.

You really should read Tdragger's blog. He specifically addressed a lot of your concerns. You assume that this is a demo of the "Actual product" which has been stated that it is not. Infact, this *IS* more like a Beta - #### they're just starting the open beta test now. ...sooo...they released a Demo *BEFORE* they've even released the BETA. This should show you something. Mostly that they were eager to show us all the progress they're making. Relax. This is not the finished product.

When I got FS98 my computer had bad framerates.When I got FS2k my computer had bad framerates.When I got FS2k4 my computer had bad framerates.I REALLY don't expect any good framerates and HEY I don't have them - yet!

It was a fancied up FS2002 with pretty cloudsWhat ??FS2004 was a completely new real world approach system, a completely new airport system, and on and on and on.The GPS with displays of the approach charts overlayed on the map was an amazing aid.Heck , most people still haven't explored the capabilities of FS2004.Yes we would love to have the ATC acknowledge the departure procedures we fly, and the extended approaches / STARS.But FS2004 is NOTHING like FS2002 when you look into it's operation.

I find this demo lacking in many ways, but with the exception of turning the water effects to max, which I think is meant for Vista/DX10 anyway, Performance is better than FS9. As I said though this is a small area of the world, so it's too early to tell what the release version will be. One thing I can say, is it looks like 100% UT traffic doesn't affect performance as much as FS9.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I just remember seeing those complaints when FS2004 was first announced/released.

First off, I don't think it is very polite of you to place "catch-all" terms next to the past versions of Flight Simulator. How would you feel if you were in the shoes of the ACES developers, and had someone blatantly call your work "crap." Would feel too good, if you have any sort of heart.Judging how FSX will perform on a clearly evident work-in-progress Demo is quite short-sighted. It has been mentioned many, many times that this version will test *any* PC's performance, and that will be with optimized code. What you have in the demo is far from optimized - that won't be seen until October with the shelf product. I'm pretty sure that FSX will run on medium-line PCs, with the caveat that setting sliders will have to be pulled back a bit. No PC exists today that will be able to run FSX will *all* sliders maxed out. That has been the case for each prior release. It has always taken at least 2 to 3 years for hardware to catch up to Flight Simulator running *really* well.Give these guys a chance - they've been working very hard over 3 years, and they deserve a benefit to all of the doubt that is floating around. No, FSX isn't going to be the perfect sim - if that were the case, then there would be no need for an FSXI or beyond.Owen

Hi,I think you'll see some improvement in the final version, but I hope that it won't be too much - why? Because they would probably have to take things out to do it. After Vista with DX10 arrives (and I get a new computer), I bet things will be much better. And then you will be able to run things like you want to. This is better than ACES releasing a version that runs like lightning now, and be disappointed in the sim for the next three years!The main problem with FS2000 was that it expected your computer to be able to run it well - period. If not you got stutters galore. This was fixed in FS2002, but at the cost of "blurries". I'll take the blurries every time.And the FS version that was the biggest problem for me was FS95 - if you had anything even slightly wrong with an addon FS crashed. Fixed in FS98.Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

And even if it does end up being "crap", you are still going to buy it anyway. So crap or master piece the sales are still going to be the same. Another benefit of having no competition.

I think the demo is wonderful and shows the potential of what is yet to come. We have just been lucky enough to have a sneak peek at FSX. I have a clean computer, do defrags, etc almost daily, shut down programs so FS has all the horsepower available that it can.ONE word of advice that all should remember, always run the sim first with the default settings, then enjoy what you see.FSX is going to be excellent - the BEST version of MSFS yet, no doubt in my mind.

The worst case... the fall back position is always..FS9.:)So why worry?Manny

Sorry - I was also being a bit sarcastic.One thing which I believe bothers many folks is the knowledge that they will have to start over for so many things.We really don't want a new version of Flight Simulator - just a patch or point release with fantastic new features - yet 100% compatible with all the things we love and have already paid to obtain - in either cash or man hours.We know it's impossible, we also know that we will have to buy new hardware to get the best performance.Had to do that with FS2000, had to do that with FS2002, had to do that with FS2004.We know it, but we don't like it.I for one am excited about the new things I see and some of the small unmentioned touches which will make it much easier to organize and use FS aircrft.

Funny it is alot like FS2004 IMO in terms of FPS. In the air with 1280x1024 32 and all the high jazz I get great performance. I can actually keep my speed and altitude in the VC with no issues unlike FS2004. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/153739.jpg I can certainly see where this product is heading and it looks to blow our socks off in many areas................Randy J. Smith................CAUTION! My views represent no one but my own. While I do help companies test products - this in no way means I represent them in ANY fashion.[h4]Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations[/h4]