In my view, Microsoft may have made a serious mistake in pitching the hardware requirements far above the average user, and worse, that there is no prospect of hardware becoming available in the next 2 years that will be able to run the code as designed. The FSX code has very little multithreading and is limited much more by CPU speed than graphics card power. With AMD and Intel both focussing on multicore processors to achieve CPU speed increases rather than increased clock rate, newer multicore processors will do little to improve frame rates of FSX. Even folks running Core 2 Extreme systems report frame rates below playable levels with moderate slider settings. Unless the DX10 cards turn this situation around, most people won

The only chance is that Microsoft makes substantial changes to the FSX code when they release the patch for DX10 and Vista, supposedly due early next year. But the word is, they haven

The complaints don't bother me too much. What does get to me are the claims (maybe true or not) of the people with low/mid-range systems that they are getting 40FPS but they fail to explain how they achieved such impressive results.

I logged on to this forum today specifically to read about people's impression good and bad of FSX, as I did for FS9, FS2002, FS2000 (should have listened on that one), and all the previous releases. I do not run out a buy the release on the first day. If there are problems I may wait until an upgrade or bug fix that seems to please most - then I'll buy. If I read nothing but praises I become suspicious and start looking for who the sponsor is. It's a real jungle in cyberland and it's Buyer Be A-ware!

Hmmmmm,It certainly seems from the majority of posts that MS has made a bit of a boo-boo with FSX.For once I am glad to be in the UK as FSX is not yet available, and I wasn't in the position of being tempted.What I have noticed on this and other threads is that in efforts to obtain useable fps, many are turning the AI settings to almost none. I find this is a real shame considering the growth of AI related add-ons, sites etc since Fs8, that MS has come up with a product that does not take any account of this growth and has left users with little option but to almost return to Fs2000 days and have no traffic whatsoever.Fs9 for me guys, and I suspect this goes for a lot of folks.BC

Well I have my FPS locked at 20 and I get 15-20fps. Its not gone below 15. All my sliders are set at the defult.My systemP4 3.05Ghz1GB Ram9800Pro 256MBWindows XP Media SP2

Uh oh, you better not suggest that they didn't finish the job on this one. You might get yelled at :)

And when FSXI comes out, everyone will be staying with FSX because FSXI runs like a dog, and MS dropped the ball again and they stuffed up for the average user. It happens every time :)

>And when FSXI comes out, everyone will be staying with FSX>because FSXI runs like a dog, and MS dropped the ball again>and they stuffed up for the average user. It happens every>time :)IMHO, I think that a larger percentage of the simmers will stay with FS2004 now, than with FS2002 when FS2004 was released.I mean,....MSFS is clearly going more towards the game and GA segment in FSX. And to be real honest I can not see that much system platform improvment in FSX over FS2004, except multiplayer and a lot of eyecandies. And beleive me,...we are uncounted simmers who doesn

Since you clearly don't understand, let me repeat what's been said many times before, FSX is a DX9 game. It was programmed to run under WinXP with DX9. There is not one iota of DX10-related code anywhere in FSX. And when you turn loose the full capabilities of DX9 on the average home desktop, as FSX has done, the performance is going to give a much-less-that-satisfying experience. But, your point does have some merit, i.e., anyone running DX9 should, indeed, stay with FS9.Doug

Again people say that about every release, I just find it amusing when everyone says they're not going to get FSwhatever because of this and that, I'm surprised MS even bothered after FS5.1 with the lack of people who buy them.It's interesting to see the last version questions, there are not that many questions about fs2002, but no one was going to upgrade, or very little, so either these people have left FS altogether, or they upgraded, and for most I would say the later.Enjoy FS2004 as it's great, seriously it is, but eventually somethign will come out that you will want to upgrade.

Good points Noel. Folks need to remember also that Vista will be required to run DX10. And many people, this one included, aren't going to jump on the Vista bandwagon at an early date. So, it seems, to me that there is a sizeable portion of the user community that will be using a DX9-based system for some time to come (in my case, at least a year). If the performance of FSX under DX9 is really as poor as it looks at the moment, I think many of us will using FS9 for quite a while.Doug

>Enjoy FS2004 as it's great, seriously it is, but eventually>somethign will come out that you will want to upgrade.There are only two addon reasons for me to get FSX sooner. And that is if Dreamfleet

...but i'm pretty sure that the money spent by those who bought FSX worked well at the moment of purchase...they don't need patches,dx10 etc..do they?WHY do they have to pay for something that will eventually work someday?

>The complaints don't bother me too much. What does get to me>are the claims (maybe true or not) of the people with>low/mid-range systems that they are getting 40FPS but they>fail to explain how they achieved such impressive results.These people are full of crap and it's quite funny to see people with 4 year old machines claiming they're getting 40fps in FSX when they can't even get more then 20fps in FS9! I'm having a tough time running FSX on a e6600 with a 7900gtx so these low enders need to stop claiming.