Already disappointed

[Guest PlaneDriver]

Oh I see. I just saw the CES 2006 presentation video and yes - FSX is just what I expected, same story as with every new edition of FS. Bad framerates (imagine what kind of computer that is) and nothing really new except a super demanding application with a few new features. I don't even try to imagine the framerates with some scenery addon on my computer. 5fps is probably optimistic.Well some of us will probably have a good videocard for FSX at the end of 2008 (let's start saving money already). Until then I'll just keep flying FS9 without bothering about the newest videocard which costs $350. Instead I'll use the money for some real flying.I just don't get it. Why not make a good game?? Why not realease a truly *BETTER* product (to make a difference)Well Microsoft - here are a few things I'd like to see fixed in FSX:ACCEPTABLE framerates - Yes it is possible. Remember "Crimson Skies"? It used to run perfectly on my old computer (ATI rage fury 32MB, Pentium3 600MHz). If you don't remember the game - it looks A LOT better than FS2000 in my opinion, yet the framerates are about 10 times higher.Why not "fix" some important features in aircraft behaviour? - Aircraft ever since CFS2 tend to "flip" upside down when you stall them - that's true for every low-wing aircraft, because the centre of gravity is *above* the wingsWhy not fix some OLD problems in FS? - with most aircraft you have to apply nearly *take-off power* to start rolling on the ground. Which is fixed for some add-on aircraft by "artificially" increasing the static thrust. Now you get the other problem, you need 2000 pounds of fuel just to taxi to the runway.*Realistic GROUND EFFECT* - probably #1 on my wishlist - ok, the landing is like the happy end in a movie. Bad framerates, no realistic ground effect (and lots of other things actually) make each landing a nightmare. I remember I read about landings somewhere on the internet. The last few seconds before touchdown were covered in 1 or 2 full pages - very detailed. Every landing in MSFS is like 3 words on those pages only.I still remember my first time behind the controls of a real aircraft (I already had a few months of flight simulator "experience") when I said to myself - man, real flying is so easy, yet it requires some real input from the pilot... So how about reality in FS? Well I heard the MS guy talk about "realistic reflections". Yea right!

[n4gix 4,947]

*PLONK*

[W2DR 1,859]

Those are, indeed, "interesting" (though not too insightful) comments. Trouble is, I think you've confused us with someone who cares. Trolling can be such a difficult task...Anyone got a padlock?Doug

[Guest Robin.B]

LOL. People who've been reading this forum for some time can already see that this guy knows very little about what's going on.http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/7766/signature7tz.jpgBest Regards,Robin Bilgil

[RobbieHe 0]

Can't we be a little more positive? We have some Microsoft Flight Simulation programmers who frequent this site. We don't want to run them off any time soon. Besides, FSX is still in the development stage. RH

[KERNEL32 495]

I think that AVSIM should make all new users take an IQ TEST before allowing registration into the forums.If not > 50 then IGNORE REQUEST

[DAD 2,648]

is this serious or candid camera? 'why not release a truly better product'?!? hey, you havent even seen the final release. this is really a great post. ROFL!

[cgbart 7]

Give 'em a chance. FSX + DirectX10 + a good PCIE video card will run much better and on Vista even better than that.Let's face it, new software demands new technology. If not for that, you might as well run FS9 or earlier and stick with it!

[Guest Bell206freak]

I just wanna laugh my a$$ off at the lameness of that post. Oh, waitaminnit, I already did.Dude needs to get a life, err, grip on what's been going on the last several months!

[Guest Andre_Hedegaard]

Hmmm, Some valid points tarred within criticism.I can relate to some of his frustrations *at certain times* and voicing your opinion is what gives feedback colour.Who says that FS should only be enjoyed by people of like mindedness?It should hopefully be for everyone.Lets face it though, competition is tough, just look at the latest manifestations of Linux, they are crisp, they work, look good (gui interface) and best of all, its absolutely free! I think its amazing.Imagine then how hard it is to compete with that?Don't get me wrong, I am very pro Microsoft, they have great quality products and I'll happily pay for it too.I suspect that the future of FS is indeed related to other freeware flight sims and their quality, because they are 'getting there'.What most of us 'hardcore' simmmers are interrested in, is 'cutting edge' even though quite a few still use FS98/2000 and in a few years time, freeware products will presumably take over that share in the market.I don't mind that neither tdragger or pixelpoke don't post regularly or even update their webblogs frequently (though I do miss that), they are real people with real families and 'real life' to contend to as well. They are dedicated to the spirit of quality and that 'label' is far better than a few glitches in FS over the years :)

[Mace 1,896]

Heh. Some of you guys are *harsh*! :)But in all fairness, I do think it's kind of premature (that's a euphemism. Bell206Freak is closer to right on) to comment about a piece of software that none of us have actually used yet.After I fly FSX, if I still get 5 fps after tweaking, THEN I'll do a post like that. haha.Rhett

[kand 205]

>Oh I see. I just saw the CES 2006 presentation video and yes>- FSX is just what I expected, same story as with every new>edition of FS. Bad framerates (imagine what kind of computer>that is) and nothing really new except a super demanding>application with a few new features. I don't even try to>imagine the framerates with some scenery addon on my computer.>5fps is probably optimistic.>Well some of us will probably have a good videocard for FSX at>the end of 2008 (let's start saving money already). Until then>I'll just keep flying FS9 without bothering about the newest>videocard which costs $350. Instead I'll use the money for>some real flying.>>I just don't get it. Why not make a good game?? Why not>realease a truly *BETTER* product (to make a difference)>>Well Microsoft - here are a few things I'd like to see fixed>in FSX:>>ACCEPTABLE framerates - Yes it is possible. Remember "Crimson>Skies"? It used to run perfectly on my old computer (ATI rage>fury 32MB, Pentium3 600MHz). If you don't remember the game ->it looks A LOT better than FS2000 in my opinion, yet the>framerates are about 10 times higher.>>Why not "fix" some important features in aircraft behaviour? ->Aircraft ever since CFS2 tend to "flip" upside down when you>stall them - that's true for every low-wing aircraft, because>the centre of gravity is *above* the wings>>Why not fix some OLD problems in FS? - with most aircraft you>have to apply nearly *take-off power* to start rolling on the>ground. Which is fixed for some add-on aircraft by>"artificially" increasing the static thrust. Now you get the>other problem, you need 2000 pounds of fuel just to taxi to>the runway.>>*Realistic GROUND EFFECT* - probably #1 on my wishlist - ok,>the landing is like the happy end in a movie. Bad framerates,>no realistic ground effect (and lots of other things actually)>make each landing a nightmare. I remember I read about>landings somewhere on the internet. The last few seconds>before touchdown were covered in 1 or 2 full pages - very>detailed. Every landing in MSFS is like 3 words on those pages>only.>>I still remember my first time behind the controls of a real>aircraft (I already had a few months of flight simulator>"experience") when I said to myself - man, real flying is so>easy, yet it requires some real input from the pilot... So how>about reality in FS? Well I heard the MS guy talk about>"realistic reflections". Yea right!you really have no idea! Yawn

[mgh 89]

Then you'll be able to save some money by not buying it

[Geofa 108]

...and think how much real flying time that $40 saved will get!! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[frankla 44]

There are two points to your email and I don't know which ones to answer first. One point is that frame rates will be lousy as usual! Your other point is that there are no improvements! We heard the same exact comments regarding FS9. We heard.. "oh blah..only clouds changed and some dumb old airplanes were added". I admit it; I was one of the skeptics of FS9. But most including YOURSELF are running FS9. Why did you upgrade from FS2002 to FS9? Let me try to answer it on your behalf. Many subtle improvements added-up to make the sim a much better one than the older version. None of the improvements, by themselves, look like much. But it is the sum of all those subtle improvements that truly transforms the simulator! I bet you would hate to go back to FS2002!I also don't underestand how you could assume so much about functionality of the sim based on a video or some screen shots! By the way I think the screen shots look amazing!As for Frame rates; Just because the designers have given you the choice to trade off eye-candy for frame rates, does not meant that they made a software that doesn't perform properly! Rather than leaving a feature out, isn't it better to give YOU the choice to turn it off? I think FS team is not afraid to push the limit of the technology and I applaud them for it. This allows the user to improve the simulator as they "catch up" with technology. Think of it as getting a new simulator as you upgrade your hardware!!! It gives the software a lot more life!! Perhaps you see why FS is the longest running game franchise in PC history!!