>>>Yes 'kinda' interesting as you say. Thing I found funny or>>>contradictory was how adamant he was in saying that one>does>>>not 'play' the simulator but 'fly' it, and then goes on to>>use>>>the word 'game' repeatedly throughout the review.>>>>>>Well just to clarify things we play games and we fly>>>simulators, even cheap ones...the age old debate :-)>>>>>>Bill>>>>Flight Simulators, just like a lot of various entertainment>>software packages, are essentially role playing games.>>>>Prove me wrong. ;)>>I would not try to prove you or anyone wrong, as I really do>not care. It is the contradiction in terms in the review that>I am referring to.I meant no offense, and I understand what you're talking about. I was just poking fun at the sim vs. game debate in general. I'm willing to bet that the whole issue originally started as a demonstration of a contempt for "gamers", as if "flying" a simulator suddenly removed the odor from one's feces. The very notion, of course, is rubbish, but it's still good for a laugh. :)

Chris, I for one appreciate your endless concern for my hard-earned cash.

>Nice read while some of you fight over the game or not game>part, what stood out to me is the one fact that by the time we>can run any Microsoft FS sim great the next version comes>along. What a cycle we are in.:) I'm not sure its a cycle I would smile about...As much as I love FS, it disgusts me to have to buy a new computer to run one game, while everything else works just fine. Hopefully, we will be pleasantly surprised as to the performance of FSX, however, if the pathetic demo is any indication, this may just be a bout of foolhardy, misplaced optimism. But, alas, only time shall tell.

It's a hard job but somebody's gotta do it... :-hah

But most new games require brand new hardware to run well. Just wait till Unreal Tournament 2007 is released, that'll require FAR more horsepower than FSX!!You can't have progress in visuals, features and realism without a cost in hardware.James

Even with autogen on min and a lot of the graphics turned down, it still looks a heck of a lot better than FS9! And you'd probably get better frames.Your pessimism is annoying. I'd understand if FS2002 and FS2004 were woeful you'd be pessimistic about FSX, but otherwise why the doomsdayism?James

Well based on how good FS8 and FS9 are, I think it's actually realistic to expect a finely polished sim.A bit of faith probably won't go astray :)James

>...As much as I>love FS, it disgusts me to have to buy a new computer to run>one game, while everything else works just fine.Mmmmm, interesting viewpoint. I am psyching myself up for the purchase of my 6th completely new PC exclusively for MSFS. You see, I view a PC as an essential component of the Simulator. Others see a $50 buck simulator software as a game in isolation. I have been "flying" my MSFS since 1984-85 when I bought my first PC exclusively for that early version, and so I view the two components software and hardware as being inextricably interlinked if I want to participate.My brother buy's himself an expensive set of golf clubs, and then upgrades his driver or putter or whatever every so often, pays for 18 holes every so often and his annual membership to his golf club... and on and on. It's his "hobby" or "sport" and is the price of entry. I see hardware upgrades as being the same "ticket to the game" and I budget for the expenditure accordingly, especially during the transition to a new version.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

I've done programming where I took a completely non-functional program to a perfectly functional one in one second of text editing. Bugs are often like that. The knack is knowing what's wrong. Your point is somewhat taken, it wasn't too much time for perf problems to be fixed, but if they twigged to something (like when the autogen inefficiency was fixed around the time of the demo's release) it can be surprisingly quick to improve a program a surprising amount. Yes, we'll have to wait and see.

This argument reminds me of the old Certs commercial:"It's a BREATH mint!""No, it's a CANDY mint!"Will the world stop spinning regardless of what definition prevails? Of course not! :-wave-Rick

Quad Core may be the way to go for FSX down the road... :-)I was just reading this article and found it interesting...http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/Business

No, no one has to do it...RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

"No, no one has to do it..."Yes they do!!! :-hahSome of these reads are about as entertaining as the sim itself. Another thing is it's always good to have an apposing view from the masses to get people to think. :-)

FSX doesn't even utilize a little fraction of the second core in dual cores!!

Actually, it does, just not in the way people think it should.http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/200.../21/711152.aspx