>Did someone just press the "replay" button on some forum>posts from last month? Well, maybe people think that if MS wants to appeal to the community, they should try to implement their ideas which would make the sim better. ACES had several years, and during that whole time people were offering ideas as to what would make the sim better. The sim is a completely different direction from what people in the community wanted. I understand MS wants the 'gamer' market, but to be totally honest not a lot of gamers care about FS. The community here does care about FS, and most suggestions weren't implemented. Maybe next time you guys could consider some of the ideas presented here.Oh well, at least we'll have giraffes.

Pretty simple Alex:We have never been the target market, we are not the target market now, and we will not be the target market in the future.And who is to say SOME of our suggestions will not make their way into the released product?All any of you are doing is reading and watching and experiencing some BETA sofware and it's, complain about this and that. Wait until you see what the final product is about. Then you can come back and complain as some of you will!What I think we should do is drag up the same posts from FS98, FS2000, and FS2004, because only the names have been changed.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://dot.kelder.net:8080/fseconomy/

lam just looking forward to PMDG's great upcoming FSX product's,and the new cloud's and water! Back in my younger days,I spent more money on booze in one weekend,than I spent on FS9,or will spend on FSX,What do you want for 60$ ?:-)

If we're not the target market then why did they ask us for suggestions? It seems pretty pointless if you're going to make a game for the gamer market that you ask a userbase that takes it more seriously. We already know what features are going to be in the game pretty much. And we all know that companies tend to overhype their product, so I'm taking that into account. And you can tell me not to judge or 'complain' as you say, but you can't stop that, it's human nature.

"Wait until you see what the final product is about. Then you can come back and complain"Isn't it best to bring up concerns while the sim is still in development??? You might have a remote chance of getting something valid in the right person's ear before it's too late... Bringing stuff of late and hopeing for a patch is nothing more than crap shoot...Just to clarify I don't think anyone here is complaining per say. No improvement in ATC and other under the hood aspects of the sim is a valid concern. Since when have any of you cared about visuals. Most here requested just the opposite of that and many more stated they hated VC

Interactive Virtual Cockpits and the ability to land on water were two big ones...All the COF vintage aircraft were cool as well...FSk24 had way more autogen features than FS2k2...The advancement alone in VC technology is a major under the hood feature that has taken the 'Real As it Get's' slogan that much farther with add-on's like PMDG's 744. If it weren't for that option alone in FS2k4 we'd have add-ons like Wilco's A320 (which was a commendable effort had performance not been an issue).I don't see how more eye candy can compare to advancements like what Interactive Virtual cockpits gave us... Having all the default airports include jetways is a hug plus by far but ATC still could have used a little growth here and there.

I'll be getting FSX soon after it comes out but I'm worried about mycurrent system's capabilities --- and I really shouldn't have to be.My system is an Athlon 64 2.4gig with 1.5gig 3200 DDR and a 256 Meg 6800 GT. I saw on tdragger's blog that the test systems were 'systemsthat any mere mortal could own - dual core processor and 2 SLI 7800 GTX cards'.That is an expensive system in my opinion. I don't like having to buya new system every time a new version of flight sim comes out.I'm really hoping that a DX10 card will be made for AGP... either thator maybe an external graphics device of some kind.

Reading thru this thread I felt like a was transported thru some time warp back to the runup and transition from FS2002 to FS2004 :-)Heard all the same comments and concerns from the same folks who said they were sticking with FS2002 and are now saying they are sticking with FS2004.:-)I personally kept FS2002 on my drive for about six weeks or so for development and then phased it off my system. Continued to support FS2002 until Jan 1, 2006.I suspect that when FS11 is released we will hear these same comments and concerns expressed again:-)

I think the concerns are understandable but I don't believe it is something that should darken this version. Sure some dissapointment occurs every release but you have to look at the overall picture and the overall improvements to a 3 year old piece of software.Irregardless of what wasn't upgraded with this release, any advancement made with the sim be it immersion via boats, whales, birds, giraffe, elephants, road traffic and airport vehicles, or virtual cockpits and 2d cockpits, clouds etc should be welcomed.The base program has been brought up to the current technology, code re-written and correct me if I'm wrong but updated to the .net framework and all the classes redone if I remember a blog or post by one of the developers. This can only help with 3rd party development, and any features not updated or having major re-work will again be upgraded via those 3rd party modders. On a personal note, this version looks to be a VFR dream come true. The cockpits look solid and well done, head movement although subtle seems to have been added, the interface vastly improved and for those IFR pilots I'm sure Vatsim and Radar Contact will have something ready soon after release, of course that's sheer speculation on my part. I'm fairly sure the developers of FS are well aware of what improvements will not make the final version and probably feel some pang of dissapointment themselves, but hopefully within another couple years a new version will come out which comes ever closer to satisfying everyone.Ian.PS> I've typed this post in different forms many times in the past several months, but as I've stated several times you sometimes feel compelled to post when sheer rumour and speculation overrides the facts. To complain about a beta version of a product in my opinion is a useless waste of electricity, it's like complaining about a hot dog before it's been put in a roll and condiments applied. Someone said it above, wait for the final version before deciding on performance issues and what has not been improved, patience is a virtue.

Howdy,I would have liked to see some improvements that some folks have voiced their concern over in here. Is it good that people voice their concerns over what they'd like to see added/improved? Probably good. How else will MS/ACES what we'd like? Doesn't mean we'll get it, but at least we let them know here and in any surveys done. If you are really put off by a lack off improvements/additions that you really wanted and/or believe they should have included, then vote with your wallet and don't buy it.Now with that said, I'm glad that one of the largest improvements is the visuals. Eye candy is good candy! :) I like really good scenery and I think it adds quite a bit to the immersion factor personally. Otherwise I think I would just do simming with PS1(Precision Simulator 744 - http://www.aerowinx.de/ ) Keep in mind we will be looking at FSX on our screens for a long time to come. So I will welcome having a really great looking sim to look at!I remember a little while after FS2004 had been out and some folks made some fantastic models and others painted them up that screenshot posts started showing up titled 'Is it Real... or FS?' Some people were posting FS shots and some people Real World shots. With the new clouds for FS2004 sometimes it was hard for me to tell! But anytime that I could see any little bit of FS2004 ground scenery in the shot it was not only an immediate dead giveaway, but I found myself thinking that the scenery is an area that really is in need of improvement.And you never know, perhaps the update to the graphics engine will bring about better performance by offloading some of the chores that the cpu currently takes care of, to the gpu. Wouldn't that be cool? One thing's for sure, we don't know what the final version is going to run like, but if it does give a smoother performance/better fps then I'll bet a lot of people will feel that alone is worth it. I can only hope.One thing I do know, MS has improved the sim with every new version. Enough so that each new version was enough of an improvement to me to be compelled to buy it. But of course that comes down to everyones own individual opinion about the new versions. And it's hard to know right now until we can really here about how well it runs, see some screenshots, ask and hear about various changes and improvements, ect. I'm talking about the final, not betas. And I'm willing to bet that even if the ATC only has a slight improvement and bugfixes(as tdragger has stated) that that, along with all the other improvements and new additions, functions, gizmos(G1000 GPS anyone?), and then finally, the wonderful things that third party developers can do to extend and improve upon the 'new and improved version of the sim', that the majority of people will feel compelled to go out and get it. Sure, there will be some disappointments to the new version. But I'll bet most people will appreciate the shiny new toy and say, 'boy, we sure have come a long way since FS95.' ;) Then again, I could be wrong and this could end up being a flop and one of the crappiest releases in FS history. Who knows? It's all kind of speculation at this point in time.Sorry for the long-winded post, guess I felt talkative. I will say one more thing. I look forward to the coming days. When the NDA is lifted there will be all kinds of screenshots and all kinds of questions asked and answered of the beta testers. Then when it's released, the same thing again! I think that part of each new version is kind of exciting. :) If I don't like what I'm hearing during that time, then I won't go out and buy it, at least not right way. But as I said, so far, every release has been improved enough for me, personally, to feel compelled that I just gotta have it!Cheers,OneTinSoldier

"Heard all the same comments and concerns from the same folks who said they were sticking with FS2002 and are now saying they are sticking with FS2004."Interesting...Ron do you have the proof that me, Dillon, and Dave made these same comments about FS2k4 back in 03'. I don't recall having an issue personally with FS2k4 prior to it's release... :-hmmm

I think there more to FS X than just visual improvements. From what I have gleaned from forum posts, blogs, press releases, preview articles etc there has been a significant revamp all round. Sure the main focus being on visual aspects of the sim this time around but there is more to FS X than visual improvement. Missions and the new shared skys multiplayer features will greatly add to FS while taking nothing away :) Deja Vu ;DHowever the visual improvements alone are enough to sell it to me and I will buy it. I have a reasonably sturdy XP machine and have yet to move to dual core, SLI etc. I'll be waiting until Vista has been on the market a few months and likewise with DX10 cards. I know I'll want DX10 graphics but not just for FS X, and will wait, rather than upgrade now, rather than buy two graphic cards within a short period of time.My main concerns are in the area of performance and how this will affect that average user running the average gamer's PC. Reading the preview articles on various sim sites and also blogs, there appear to be more than a few bugs and performance issues. All this candour is refereshing and appreciated (better than being treated like mushrooms ;) ). At the same time the planned release date of October is almost 'real soon now' so I guess 'perf' as ACES call it is a nagging concern and I hope all this will be resolved by release.If FS X lives up to all the PR blurb and MS works with devs and the community as they say they are going to, and 'perf' issues are sorted - then FS X will be a rip roaring success. If not - then...........

1. Eye candy improvements have nothing to do with the flightsim program. Its is to do with pixels, dx10 and what modern day graphics cards and the routines therein can do. In short nothing has changed much from fs2000 onwards in the core flightsim. If you can "see" shadow of mountains on wavy water-its got nothing to do with the flightsim program but with the graphics routine!!!2. Eyecandy or visuals are fine but if basic flight dynamics remain unchanged, basic I/O programming has remained unchanged then whats the point?? Imagine having linear inputs to a completely non-linear 2nd degree control equations-which is what flightsim controls are!!Its the same old look up table model treating the whole aircraft as one. Turn left on final and have a look at what the runway looks like-its hilarious!!In 20 odd years MS could not get the perspective right-a must for any kind of flight training. All in all what MS have been doing in various versions is to incorporate better pixel design which graphic cards and dx rountines offer and some on top additonal programming for ATC, weather and things like that. Thats all. Its is precisely this hack and chop programming thats the main reason for frame rate issues.We all are excited but I guess for the wrong reasons.

>Isn't all this a bit pointless and premature?>Until the demo is out or FSX is in the shops and on people's>systems how can anybody decide it's not for them? :-roll I admit the 'Demo'? you refer to, is not out. Nor have I ever seen a 'Demo' for any Flight Sim program from M.S.?What HAS been made available though has surely been agreed to by M.S. because one of their 'rep's' is actually giving us information on FSX.Are you saying that we shouldn't be taking any notice of those?Dillon, hit the nail on the head. No improvements to how FS9 with all the add-ons that we all have, no info on fluidity and no info on how it will run with 'Vista' and 64bit!I was lead to understand earlier that 'M.S' would be supplying two versions which they are.One for 64bit users with 'Vista' and the other for 32bit and 'XP' stalwarts?Again, no information.Have all those who have already upgraded for VIsta, wasted our money?

Excellent post, OneTinS.Peter Sydney Australia