>But that will never change the fact that it's the most non-secure>OS ever made, with more bugs, problems and holes than any>application in history. Like I said, when you're God you can>dowhatchalike.>SK...and when you're a software engineer that has written an OS, you'll be in a position to criticise rather than quoting the usual anti-MS bs.

Ah, rgr that. It makes better sense now...:-)

greggerm,Thanks for the post. It is what many people think, but couldn't quite verbalize like you did.Bravo!!!!!

>Vista Basic would be comparable to XP Home which no>simmer in their right mind would get.I've been running XP Home since release day in 2001 man...XP Pro has some esoteric corporate networking features and a few more services to turn off. Never could understand where the fervor for running Pro got started, they're the same thing at the core man.Vista Home Premium will probably be what I end up getting. Basic will be sub XP Home if I understand correctly. Don't see any need to buy the Ultimate edition.

It isn't my style to wade into these discussions, but, I also will not be rushing out to purchase FSX as I did with other versions, I felt far more excited by the prospect of FS9. As a dedicated VA-man the missions hold no interest for me and I have no use for multiplayer. I am, however, interested in the possibilities offered by Simconnect, especially in regard to ATC/AI. On the face of it FSX doesn't seem to offer much for three years of development, but it is a little early to pass judgement. So with this in mind, I will probably look at it when Vista/DX10 has been released, which maybe where the innovation for this version lies...Stan Harvey (EGPE)

FSX will be a classic :). The possibilities with FSX are much greater than FS9. The SimConnect module has plenty of potential. I think the graphics are a significant improvement in numerous areas.I'm drooling over the following:1) An integrated ATC system... no more Squawkbox in windowed mode! ;)2) SimConnect means one less piece of payware to buy ;)3) The Head Latency thing is great .... that's gonna save me some money!FSX will be great fun :)

>It isn't my style to wade into these discussions, but, I also>will not be rushing out to purchase FSX as I did with other>versions, I felt far more excited by the prospect of FS9. As a>dedicated VA-man the missions hold no interest for me and I>have no use for multiplayer. I am, however, interested in the>possibilities offered by Simconnect, especially in regard to>ATC/AI. On the face of it FSX doesn't seem to offer much for>three years of development, but it is a little early to pass>judgement. So with this in mind, I will probably look at it>when Vista/DX10 has been released, which maybe where the>innovation for this version lies...>>Stan Harvey (EGPE)> Seriously. Everyone staying on FS9 will just not get to take advantage of my AI/ATC program.Also, I end up on a lot of forums related to video games, many of them populated by socially-inept 14 year olds, and the original post in this thread has got to be the most ridiculous and poorly constructed attempt to troll a forum that I have ever seen.I applaud you.

>>my average frame rate with all of the fixins. is about 10>>frames per sec.>>im into sim flying a lot, to much in fact, i have a eight>>monitor set up with six computers all networked toghether.>>>>I have the same add-ons as you and have significantly higher>performance. There are tweaks you may implemented that have>negatively impacted your performance. You may want to back up>your FS9.cfg and explore your scenery library-- you shouldn't>be getting performance that low on your hardware.>>One thing to remember is the tweaks we've received over the>years within the forums are not necessarily cummulative-- in>fact, some tweaks undermine others. >>I'm sorry you're getting poor performance. That's never fun.>>>>well i suppose i could have more frame rate , but why do i have to go thru all that just to get it, i mean the server com has three monitors attached to it for instruments, so with all that software added on how and where do i get the extra resorces to handle it.if i do a dump and load how do i prevent from all that crap getting onto my com , all i want it for is simming. i dont want all that crap that runs in the back ground.im going to the AVSIM CONVENTION next week and perhaps i will get some answers.im sure i can get some better frame rates , but it becomes a big headache tweaking , way to much time.what i would like to do is load FS(/FSX and load only what is nessary.i would like to set the coms up for FSX only.Thanks.....Robert

>>>my average frame rate with all of the fixins. is about 10>>>frames per sec.>>>im into sim flying a lot, to much in fact, i have a eight>>>monitor set up with six computers all networked toghether.>>>>>>>I have the same add-ons as you and have significantly higher>>performance. There are tweaks you may implemented that have>>negatively impacted your performance. You may want to back>up>>your FS9.cfg and explore your scenery library-- you>shouldn't>>be getting performance that low on your hardware.>>>>One thing to remember is the tweaks we've received over the>>years within the forums are not necessarily cummulative-- in>>fact, some tweaks undermine others. >>>>I'm sorry you're getting poor performance. That's never fun.>>>>>>>>>well i suppose i could have more frame rate , but why do i>have to go thru all that just to get it, i mean the server com>has three monitors attached to it for instruments, so with all>that software added on how and where do i get the extra>resorces to handle it.>>if i do a dump and load how do i prevent from all that crap>getting onto my com , all i want it for is simming. i dont>want all that crap that runs in the back ground.>>im going to the AVSIM CONVENTION next week and perhaps i will>get some answers.>>im sure i can get some better frame rates , but it becomes a>big headache tweaking , way to much time.>what i would like to do is load FS(/FSX and load only what is>nessary.>i would like to set the coms up for FSX only.>>>Thanks.....Robert >>>I hadn't even thought about the fact that the MS guys are going to be there. I'll have to bug them about some of the problems I'm running into.

>>convinced me that if Sierra had been able to continue the>development of their simulator to this day, it would have>evolved into something far better than both FS9 and FSX put>together. Is it a joke, I can't believe what I am reading? So where is Sierra?? Is Microsoft conspiring to prevent Sierra or someone else to give us a better flight simulator? If, if, if, ... if NASA had extra $500 bilion people would be walking on Mars by now ... >Two words: Stifling innovation. 4 words: you have NO CLUE. You don't even know what "stifling" means.Go into business and prove to the world that you can beat FSX, I will gladly buy your product if it proves superior. But until you do it - your so called "opionion" is not worth a dime.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpgIs

Security for one Ryan...With different accounts setup on one computer, one never has to worry about a family member deleting files in an account and/or inadvertently destroying certain applications (namely Flight Simulator). You can lock down whole directories where only you can view them.

>I have been simming for a long time. I started back in 1982>with a little app called "Flight Simulator" for the C=64, a>few years before SubLogic's Flight Simulator II came out. It>was nothing more than a black screen with a starting position>at a landing approach phase, with about 10 or 15 little pixels>designating the "runway". lol>>Flight Simulation has come a long way since then. Before>FS2004, the best sim out for the PC, IMHO, was Sierra's Pro>Pilot. When I started using FS2004, I was amazed by the whole>thing, but I also noted many of the fundamental differences>between Pro Pilot & FS9 - differences in the overall approach>to creating the look and feel of the software package - which>convinced me that if Sierra had been able to continue the>development of their simulator to this day, it would have>evolved into something far better than both FS9 and FSX put>together. Why? Good question - hold that thought.>>When I tried the FSX demo, I was not at all impressed. With>FSX, the only things I find that are "better", at least to a>degree befitting a completely new version that's been 3 years>in the making, are the presence of birds, stock watercraft and>the improvements in the rendering of clouds versus sky &>horizon.>>Of course, there are a million and one new options available>that provide for increases in level of detail for various>aspects of the FS world, but when one is unable to set any of>those options to levels beyond about 50% of what can be>achieved with FS9 without bogging a cutting-edge box down to>about 5 FPS or worse, all those neat little "wish-list">options are nothing more than a sickening, frustrating tease.>>Back to the "Why" question - Why would Pro Pilot have evolved>into a better sim than FS9 & FSX combined, had it not been>knocked out by Microsoft encroaching on it's customer base,>much like Walmart laying waste to small-town America's>downtown shops & stores?>>Two words: Stifling innovation. That is the name of>Microsoft's game. No, not in the beginning - after all,>innovation was the means by which Microsoft came to rule the>software world. But once they became God, they took a well>planned 180.>>If there was any question in anyone's mind before now, the new>FSX demo illustrates perfectly what everyone should understand>about Microsoft: that they have absolutely ZERO interest in>making any of their software as good as it can be.>>As the leaders in their field, Microsoft's entire business>plan is modeled around a single core concept: That if you>provide as little improvement in quality, functionality and>usability as possible between major releases of any software>application, it will extend the marketability/profitability>life of that product indefinitely... and you will RULE THE>SOFTWARE WORLD until you are forced to compete in order to>maintain that rule.>>So the only surprise I have is in the fact that with FSX,>Microsoft seems to have outdone even themselves in the>department of stifling innovation. And I must applaud them for>their (under)acheivment. Bravo, Bill! You've managed to>stagnate the world of home flight simulation software even to>a greater extent than you've stagnated the rest of the>software world! Bra-VO!!>>SKOk.

Jeff I have more than enough add-ons to keep me busy for the next 10 years. I don't need to buy every new add-on that comes out. I'd rather let FSX mature on the market, allow the many products I've gown to love get updated, and allow Vista and Hardware to catch up with FSX. I don't have the time to play the 'slider' game with another version of Flight Simulator. Flight Simulator is a lonely sim without all the various add-ons that so vibrantly populate FS9 at this current time. I take this as an opportunity to save money and concentrate on building my Vista Dual Core system (well not build but look around and prepare for purchase)... :-)You tout SimConnect, can you show me a website where I can read up on this or better explain how this is going to be so revolutionary??? I must have missed the big write up on this...

>Security for one Ryan...>>With different accounts setup on one computer, one never has>to worry about a family member deleting files in an account>and/or inadvertently destroying certain applications (namely>Flight Simulator). You can lock down whole directories where>only you can view them.Ok I guess that's true, but no one uses my PC except for me...

But you can do the same in the XP home edition....