My thoughts exactly. I was assuming this was pretty old code. If it's up to date code then it's going to be a struggle to get it ready for release in October. This code is absolutely full of bugs and graphical glitches. Fairly sparse islands are bound to be frame rate-friendly, and yet frame rates in the demo are passable but not brilliant. It'll be a different story when we have dense scenery and terrain that reaches to the horizon in all directions.... To me this demo illustrates great potential, but it still needs a huge amount of work. Well, good luck to the FSX team. I certainly hope they can pull it off. Best regards, Chris

Get a grip people. You all have performence/fps issues because your computer sucks. Have you EVER tried a high graphics game with full settings and being able to play it fluently? ie. HL2, Doom3, Far Cry even FS8 or FS9 - I guess no.

>>which is also a game.>>a "game" which was approved by FAA for training...>>http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.htmlBut, only with several thousand dollars of - OMG - addons!

>Can you please whine some more?I can't wait until a nice FSX is released, and these characters have to eat all these purile and petulant words... :)

You guys keep harping on the demo because it's an island, so the FPS HAVE to be good... Have you stopped to think that the water is no longer just a texture? Put the water slider to the minimum, see what it does to your FPS. Just because it's an island doesn't mean the FPS won't suffer, not anymore.And Carmine, get a grip... If you can't get your point across without lots of exclamation posts and caps, you should probably refrain from posting on hot topics. It's annoying, and frankly, you aren't really making sense. Just drop it and move on.Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

>>I read in a NG (agmfs) that the demo code is old and>released>>for gamers..its not the real thing for us "simmers"...Could>>that be true? Why would MS treat us like this? If so will MS>>release a demo with the real code to quell the mounting>>dissatisfaction especially as it relates to performance/fps?>>>>Hopefully Mike tdragger can shed some light on this as he>has>>always been quite forthcoming with sharing what he can>>>>thanks>>>>Bill>>>>PS Edit ..the person who posted the info is an MS/FS MVP and>>beta tester>>>Seriously, why would we do that? The demo code is the same as>the full product. In fact it's even newer than what our beta>testers have. Sheesh. ;) I think it's AWESOME personally. There are soooo many things I see in the demo not in FS2004. Don't mind the yellers and kids T, this is going to be a step way ahead of the others you have produced................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]

:) Very true

The problem is that I tried the demo with all the low graphics settings and the fps was CR@P. But lets make sure. Lets make an FS-X graphics setting thats visualy and feature wise equal to FS9.1. Now benchmark both sims against each other my current bet is that FS9.1 runs rings (performance wise) around the FS-X demo (it would mean a break of the EULA of the demo though).The only way I get a passable somewhat stable framerate in FS-X is when I turn off autogen completly.The way I see it they have around 2 months or less to tune for performance. Thats not a lot of time to get things right. I read in one of the ACES blogs that they are working hard to improve the code. ( http://blogs.technet.com/p-12c_pilot/default.aspx ) I hope they can get it right.My current experience with this demo has changed my buy / no buy decision. I wil now only buy FS-X after I get some hands on experience on a friends PC or hopefully MS might release a 2nd demo to show the world that they know their stuff and can get the promissed performance.

>"The demo code is the same as the full product. In fact it's>even newer than what our beta testers have. Sheesh.">>Wow... That's not good news. :-hmmm >He means the demo was cut from the same codebase as the "real" product. It wasn't finished when the demo was cut and it still isn't finished but the point is we didn't serve up "bad mash" or any such nonsense.