Well I for one hope no one jumps in here with that age old stupid comment, "no one's forcing you to buy it"... Before it's even said, that's not the point. It helps all of us out allot if FSX/WindowXP runs great on current hardware within reason. All of us are better served if we can save our money for new hardware when Vista arrives. Microsoft by all means could have waited and released FSX when Vista hit the market. Upgrading wouldn't be an issue then, more so an expectation. What we have here is little more than an extortion choice if that's how this plays out. I for one hope that's not the case...

>According to the recently published review i could safely say>that fsX is simply a refurbished FS9.>I see nothing new in this product expect of maybe some eye>candy ****.>Seriously>what a total disappointment shame on you msft. shame on you.>What 'review' - the product is still in beta.You've come to this assumption from a couple of write ups and screenshots?I bet you said the same thing when FS2004 came out...

I don't get it.If someone had released an add-on that somehow increased the base engine texture resolution to 1m per pixel, increased the number of landclass types, and provided dynamic airport ground traffic, it would be proclaimed as one of the greatest addons of all time. And if they only charged $50 for it, people would hammer that person's site to get it. Now, simply because this is the new release of the FS line from MS, people are expecting some kind of phenominal, earth-shaking experience...Seriously, if you're "so disappointed" in FSX that you need to come post about it here, it's time to get a different hobby. Maybe radio-controlled airplanes? Or Golf? Or Fishing? The list is endless.A hobby is supposed to be fun. And that's all this is. Whether you use an X-Box controller or have a full Go-Flight setup with Project Magenta displays, it's a hobby. If you don't like FSX, then stay with FS9 and HAVE FUN! In the end, the only person who will care whether you use FSX or not is you.

>Well I for one hope no one jumps in here with that age old>stupid comment, "no one's forcing you to buy it"... Before>it's even said, that's not the point.Except it is exactly the point. Here we are again, waiting for the new version to come out and just like time and time before there are people griping about being pushed to upgrade.> It helps all of us out>allot if FSX/WindowXP runs great on current hardware within>reason. All of us are better served if we can save our money>for new hardware when Vista arrives. You can always save your money for new hardware, the process never stops.>Microsoft by all means could have waited and released FSX when>Vista hit the market. Upgrading wouldn't be an issue then,>more so an expectation. What we have here is little more than>an extortion choice if that's how this plays out. I for one>hope that's not the case...'extortion' - oh please give us a break. If you upgrade now for FSX then why do you think you will need to upgrade again for Vista. Granted DX10 cards are not around yet but waiting for an OS shouldn't be a reason to delay a product.If you want to wait until Vista is released before getting FSX then go ahead, again, no one is forcing you to get it. Why you think it makes senses for MS to delay a product until then is a mystery...

I'm very excited. Intersting though that the box art says CD-Rom. Probably an old shot.

"If you upgrade now for FSX then why do you think you will need to upgrade again for Vista."That's assuming hardware won't advance by the time Vista is released (whenever that is) or better yet a year from now. I would rather wait as long as I can before getting a new machine because as you know FS seems to always be optimized for computers that aren't on the market at the time of its release. FSX/Vista seems to be built for hardware down the road (let alone OS

Magic Man this is not the same set of circumstances as when FS2004 or any previous version of FS was released. I wish you guys quite going there... I hadn't thought about it but Chris again is on fire with his case. This is truly a first in the history of the FS Franchise where a version of FS was released prior to the OS it was originally designed to run on. It's a valid concern to ask what benefits the customer get's running FSX sooner on WindowXP versus later on Vista. As it stands now we're missing allot without Vista.If FSX/XP utilizes all the current hardware options available it should run better than FS9. It

JC for the record I think FSX looks fantastic. I love all the new airport features, the updated sky, and landclass... :-)Maybe I should have started a thread on FSX/WindowsXP performance expectations. My points are getting lost in unsatisfaction for a sim that hasn't been released yet...

It's interesting to see how fast public reaction get split onto "very disappointed" people and those who viciously guard MS from any possible critique.We all try to justify whether a team of 40+ experts in aviation and programming can make a better product with a new release. So far we haven't seen anything from development point of view, i.e. real program improvments: weather, ATC, flight itself. What we seen is what PR at Microsoft gives us. And the FSX PR campaign is not quite "a peace of work" so far. I've seen 3 trailers, one with oil rig, one with gliders/trike/truck/redbull racer and another with "ATC". I don't see the real pitch in these videos; they all "hint" on what you can do with FSX, and they do "catch" my attention but it doesn't provoke the same anticipation as previous releases when ATC and weather were introduced. Is it a lack of new features, or a lack of good publicity that makes such disappointment? I'd say both, latter because if FSX = FS2004 + "incremental improvements", it already deserves better presentation than what we seen; and former because "revolutionary" things like ATC and weather can be introduced only once; and now, when "revolutionary" features still need quite "incremental" upgades, (meaning more money for development and research), the PR at Microsoft could really help. They could help by working with EAA, AOPA and other organizations for promoting Flying and flight simulation... They could bring up Embry-Riddle and other institutions for "educational" ads... There are initiatives such as Be-A-Pilot and Project-Pilot that just cry out loud for collaboration! There is always something else in aviation other than Wright Brothers flyer relaunch and COF celebration that can be a successful pitch in campaign. Its not developers who do it, its PR experts.I'm not an advertizing expert but I think FSX deserves better publicity to bring new users and possibly future pilots, and more money for better development. My way to real world aviation started from a copy of MSFS, and I wish many others could follow this exciting track to flying. But I doubt many of them will like what they've seen so far. Well, maybe korean girl :)Cheers,

I couldn't agree more. The XP performance question is the only thing that matters to me. Folks can talk about Vista/DX10 all day but the fact remains that FSX is going to be a WinXP/DX9 release. There is no way I'm going to move from XP to Vista in the next 18 months - that's just not going to happen. I have no problem changing out the video card for whatever is the best still available for an AGP slot but that's going to be the end of the hardware upgrades on this XP machine. If FSX runs OK on this box I'll keep it. If it runs poorly, I'll return it and move on to something else.DougP4 3.2E @ 3.680 (1.385 vCore - 230 FSB)Asus P4C800-E Deluxe (BIOS 1019)2 x 512MB Corsair TWINX CXM3700 (3-4-4-8)5 x 300GB WD HDD'sHercules 9800 Pro (128MB @ 410/360)A-Open 1648 AAP RipperPlextor 708A WriterEnermax 431W PSUInwin Case

>I'm very excited. Intersting though that the box art says>CD-Rom. Probably an old shot.I noticed that, together with the 'FS 2006' shot of the 737 on the apron..Eye candy is everything to me..:-)

Great points =S.V.=. We'll see what comes down the pipe in the next few months concerning PC. Microsoft has pulled in some great supportes going back to FS98... FSX is still in beta and things are just now filtering out officially. Speaking of the things we've seen, I'd bet most of the eye candy and features (especially what you mentioned above in the short movies) was from FSX/Vista. The FSX/XP screenshots I saw from E3 posted here on this forum scare me... :-eek

I found Fs2006 has become a little better for me after reading the review! Before I was really worried they were going to turn it into a game but the fact that the adventures are all based on real situations was a good suprise. Also having great mesh from the start will be great, more roads, more accurate coasts, better landclass, default Airbus, default Crj (I think). It's kinda like Fs9 with the addons but straight out of the box.However I don't think I'll have good enough hardware for a few years to run it!Hoping Fs2006 will be great,P.

I'm assuming JC's post was referring to the original post, but I agree with you both, any improvement to the hobby is welcome and I've spent hundreds upgrading PC and software for flight simulator, another 70 bucks for a revitalized engine which should have better code optimization (I believe they upgraded many of the classes and libraries if my memory is correct) and a living world is something I'm looking forward too.Sure, not everything that was wanted will be in there but as of yet, nobody has used the final version so gloom and dooming it now is jumping the gun, and SDK's on the disk, bring on the add-ons and feed my addiction.Ian.

>default Crj (I think). Looks like a CRJ-700 to me, although there's no way of knowing whether it'll be a default or AI yet. ;)