What's the point of getting FSX if you have to turn down all the settings just to get half decent FPS. Sound's like it was made for computers 2 to 3 years in the future. If a 3.6 GB system has trouble running at default settings, forget about detailed scenery and payware aircraft. Dave F.

I know you

>I know you

I must admit that I'm a bit skeptical now about FSX. If FSX really was designed to take advantage of future technological developments in computer hardware then I wonder why it wasn't at least coded to take advantage of the duo core processors which now are commonplace? I think that I'll wait on making my purchase until I hear more posts and get some feedback. I'm getting the impression here that it's a total waste of money at the moment.:( Well I'm glad I still have FS9 still installed.;) Cheers,Mark.

What's the point of getting FSX if you have to turn down all the settings just to get half decent FPS. Sound's like it was made for computers 2 to 3 years in the future. If a 3.6 GB system has trouble running at default settings, forget about detailed scenery and payware aircraft. DaveI can't see buying anymore payware. It's finished. Using default settings and w/o autogen with the default motorized trike at 5.5 fps on the ground is laughable. To this hour (8:32 p.m. central time), I've been struggling (since morning) with this thing. Unless I strip it down to it's panties this version is a colossal bloated mistake. Well, you can take your plane into the desert and do loops at good fps with a system like mine but bring it into civilization and you'll have &*ll to pay on default and that's w/o autogen. KSEA, KSFO, KATL, they look like deserts because I can't run AI at more than 15% (default).

>What's the point of getting FSX if you have to turn down all>the settings just to get half decent FPS. Sound's like it was>made for computers 2 to 3 years in the future. If a 3.6 GB>system has trouble running at default settings, forget about>detailed scenery and payware aircraft. >>Dave F.I just upgraded my graphics card drivers and I have noticed a bit of difference from before. Not huge but definetley makes me a little happier. I really think what it boils down to is windows vista/dx10. I don't know why you people see it as marketing strategy for microsoft to lie and say that it's designed for vista. I think you have to take it for what it's worth when in the readme file it clearly says and I quote "Flight Simulator X is designed to run on the Windows Vista operating system. Flight Simulator X was released prior to the completion of Windows Vista." That right there really sums it all up. We have to tweak as much as we can until vista is out. Vista isn't just a small upgrade. Obviously you are still going to need a high end computer and by no means do I think vista is going to work magic for every computer but I do know that FSX wasn't released for the settings to not be maxed. I will try to find a link to a video I saw where they were testing FSX out on vista/dx10. It was at ces or something where microsoft had a presentation on Vista.

I acquired FSX Deluxe today and have spent 3-4 hours with it. I have a moderately high end set up, on which I have run FS9 with multiscreens, two computers and complex add-ons (Active Sky, FS Commander, etc.), including the very challenging MD80, all with no difficulty, using moderately high scenery and other settings, at 25+ FPS in all conditions. FSX is running at about 10 to 15 FPS (which is not flyable) using default settings or below and the simplest aircraft, with no weather, buildings or trees whatsoever. Most of us didn't buy this for the additional aircraft, but in the hope that it would mark a step forward in overall performance. So far, it appears to be a big step backwards. I get far better results on FS9, using add on scenery and aircraft. FSX is a big disappointment. Money back please, Bill.

Flight Simulator X was released prior to the completion of Windows Vista." That right there really sums it all up. We have to tweak as much as we can until vista is out. Vista isn't just a small upgrade. Obviously you are still going to need a high end computer and by no means do I think vista is going to work magic for every computer but I do know that FSX wasn't released for the settings to not be maxed. I will try to find a link to a video I saw where they were testing FSX out on vista/dx10. It was at ces or something where microsoft had a presentation on Vista.Yes I saw this as well. And of course the settings now are so far from max (in fact at default level largely) that we can only speculate at how it might be improved. So Vista + 79.95 = $XXX. A nice lucrative additional cost not factored into the equation. I would note on the back of the box both Windows XP sp2 or Vista are recommended.

>What gets me is the fact MS insists on making a product that>has way too much overhead. People seem to accept the fact>each simulator contains features only a very small minority>will ever be able to use. It's ridiculous that MS is given a>pass on this each and every cycle. I've enjoyed FS9 a great>deal, however, it took a lot of tweaking and system building>to get to that point. I simply don't understand the mindset>of a development team who choose to make a product in this>fashion, and at the same time ignore the community who asked>for ATC and AI improvements, among other things. The problem is that these things are only important for a small fraction of the users - the so-called hardcore simmers who want the sim to get everything as right as possible. That's probably what the AVSIM community represents - people who take "as real as it gets" seriously and people who don't call MSFS a game but a simulation.The majority simply doesn't care, period. They want pretty visuals, cool effects, simple and easy to use multiplayer (not something like VATSIM or IVAO) and they define the "fun" you get from a flightsim different from the way we do.If MS would deliver FS as a product like the complex addons from pmdg or lds for which you first have to read a hundred pages of manual before you know how to start the engines, the product would fail. MSFS is also a platform. It doesn't get everything "as real as it gets", but fortunately, it is open enough to allow 3rd party developers to fill the gap for us hardcore simmers.

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul.../downloads.html

>The bottom line is this, FSX doesn't look that much different>than FS9 and nothing much has improved under the hood that>simmers asked for. Seeing what it takes to run it is insane. >I just hope Vista/DX10 alleviates these issues because turning>off autogen is not acceptable for a brand new simulator>furthermore we need allot of stuff to run under and on top of>this thing. We can

I'm very dissappointed after reading this thread. I'm usually a big MS supporter even in the eye of criticism, but in the end fellow simmers views come first when they come in bulk like this.While I do have the unopened program, I wonder if I should just take it back. I wonder if they'll take it back before the 17th.:-lolSeriously, while I love "eye candy" what good is it if you can't fly ? That's the message I'm getting here !I'm not going to fly with most the important things turned off. FS9 with add on's is too good for that.I'm getting the impression this one might be a dog ! I hate that, especially after such a long wait. MS knew what the number one complaint for this game was 3.3 years ago, and it appears they clearly did not respond in this version.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

This whole building more processors in the future thing has me thinking about what someone else said. If the game doesn't support multi core processors then it will never run any better in the future. Faster speed processors isn't where CPU development is headed in the future as we can all see. Multi-core, highly efficient processors are where things are taking us for the next few years at least. These new processors will rely on completely redesigned code to function efficiently and that means apps and games that are all multi-threaded. The only hope of this game running any better in the future is if they release a patch for it that changes it to a multi-threaded capable game. Without this patch then this game will never run with all the sliders to the right.Alan Wake type games are the future, and any developer that doesn't create games in this manner starting from here on out may as well quit and start working at a supermarket. The days of bloated, old, inefficient code are over. All games and all apps starting from here on out MUST be multi-threaded. If you can't or won't do it then it's time to find a new career. There is no more faster silicon to throw at these dinosaur type games, only more cores which will sit by idle for now...

There is no need to return. JMO.This is my strategy:1. Buy a new Core 2 Duo machine, if you don't have a great machine to begin with. (I just did).2. I am now excited to load FS9 with all my addons that I have and fly it within high FPS (I don't even have to dial in to register the software. :( ) Now, I can fly to Manhatten (Aerosoft's awesome Manhatten) from Flight scenery Rhode Island and fly Tampa's Boston etc. 3. Install FSX and very few addons (very stringent standard as to what goes in). Anything that consumes more than 1 FPS, is disqualfied. and fly this in areas where I would not normally fly FS9 (Places I don't have addons). Particulalry night flying. Night flying in FSX is actually very nice. Over water and moon light with its VC lighting is actually pretty good. Many aircrafts like Aeroworx King air etc don't eat FPS. Even some scenery addons I believe like Megascenery don't consume FPS. Two biggest concern is PMDG 747 (I gost to have this plane) and Ulitmate Traffic AI (Hope Ultimate Traffic would pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one).4. Wait for Vista and DX10 and keep evaluating progress on FSX and development if any from CPU vendors to see if they are going to actually come out with new Chips or if they are going to go from Quad core to oct core... :(So...thats what I have resigned myself to and have come to terms with. Manny

I posted a precursor to this recently in the AVSIM hardware forum, believeing that one must have a "super-PC" for FSX-- having seen it run generally very poorly at AVSIM 2006 convention--and the replies were interesting. I think the gist was that if you expect FSX to run well, keep the sliders limited and mainly get a high end dual core machine.In other words, spend about $3000 now to get a decent new generation PC and then be prepared to spend more when VISTA comes out and you also need to get DX10 compliant video cards. And don't pull sliders full right, etc., cos no ordinary PC can handle FSX.FSX is totally stunning, but it will require a whole heap of new generation h.p. to run it well. I flew it at the convention on a lovely VELOCITY PC that was stutter free and smooth as butter, but I suspect it was one of their $6000 machines.That's why folks like Bob who posted here the other day are quitting--and he nearly got flamed for saying he was fed up with the upgrades and incessant PC issues and tweaking, etc. So am I. I ain;'t buying anything new for FSX and if it means I never get it, so be it.MS constantly understates everything and overpromises as well. Their behavior with regard to FS' performance has been particularly questionable over the years as they tout that the next generation of FS can run on a machine that is laughably inadequate. Remember FS 2000 and how that "broke" a lot of simmers' machines because it needed so much PC h.p.? Same old same old yet again with FSX. PC not powerful enough? Just spend $3K and buy another one. Simple!It's long since become a mug's game. Sad, but true.JS