FSX was designed for Vista not XP...

[slashed2 53]

You know, I don't know how many who posted in this thread were reading this very forum when FS9 came out, but it's deja vu. The same discussions regarding performance and autogen that we see today almost mirror exactly the same discussions from three years ago. The only difference is this time around Aces was interacting with the forum during the development phase.My hypothesis is that marketings original intent was to wrap FSX around Vista, but when Vista was delayed they obviously had to adjust that campaign. Tdragger did indeed say that FSX was designed on DX9 platforms, but I do recall that an update would be released for DX10. I'm not sure why there is so much concern over this subject. If an update is to be released which I would assume includes the code for interfacing with DX10, then what is the problem?FSX is most likely optimized for DX9 in it's current state, but I would guess that they had some forethought whilst writing the code as Aces seem like a fairly intelligent group of people, and I will give them the benefit of a doubt that they have allowed for the inclusion of DX10 within the structure of the existing code or will have a large update to take advantage of DX10. All we can do is wait and discuss until Vista and DX10 come online.Ian.

[Jwcfly 0]

Gentleman: I have read every post regarding FSX on this forum, and others as well."...MICROSOFT is telling its selected gaming industry chaps that gaming under Vista will be ten to fifteen per cent slower than XP...."When the developer of the OS states this, it does not bode well for any of us. This bothers me more than any problems FSX now has. Our community of developers and consumers have proven that there are few hurdles that cannot be overcome regarding Flight Sim. This, though, is a different animal. I fear that we are facing a Dark Age, and it may be quite some time before we all see the happy days such as we have had the last few years.

[JerryG 1]

For all those complaining about FSX - Please stay with FS9. Please do not buy FSX. Or, wait until Vista and the FSX release for Vista when it is available.But, PLEASE don't say that Microsoft, ACES, etc. have "screwed us" (as another poster below claims).You're happy with FS9 - GREAT - stay with it.For others, they'll be happy with FSX - GREAT - buy it.But, and it's been said before, don't think you'll be able to "sway the masses" and have them not purchase FSX.JerryG

[rich135 0]

<<>OK, I will bite. I always come back to this great article written by Adam Szofran.http://www.fsinsider.com/articles/Global_T..._Technology.htmIt explains in detail how the rendering engine works and what the sim spends most of its time doing. Correct me if I am wrong, the word Vista or DX10 does not appear once. I had the opportunity to ask Adam at the AVSIM conference about the expectations of Vista, DX10 and the FSX patch. In a nutshell, they are not sure yet. Like the rest of us, they don't have any hardware to explore it. So I for one value the opinions of the developer despite what the readme file says.You could also take the FAQ literally I suppose:Q: Will

[Guest Water Mango]

"You seem to imply that it was not designed to work on XP - which is pure fiction."Then why are so many people having performance problems with the most top of the line machines???"But it was also designed to RUN WELL ON WINDOWS XP SP2"Go tell this crap to the many people returning to FS9 after purchasing FSX...

[Guest robmuzz]

>>> I'll happily dispute it with no knowledge of the facts. >Isn't that what we do here?>>:)>>CraigLOL!!! So true :D

[Guest FALC]

Well all this definately well puts a lock on it for me...I certainly am not wasting my money on Vista .. Moreuseless bells and whistles, with stupid icons. And of coursewhat will be the usual plethura of security leaks andbugs. Which will result naturally in patch after patch after patch.I'll wait for 'Kookamonga' or what ever they're going to call it when it comes out in 2010, see what that has to offer.As for FSX. Honestly, Im not overly impressed. Admittedly forthe GA pilot there are some improvements, if your willing totake thr FR whack or spend a kajillion dollars to upgradeto a Crae super computer. But for others, naaah. What do Icare if its got birds and more trees when Im up at FL360.Besides Im not willing to give up what Ive got, excellentaircraft, Wx, ATC, scenery for six month or more for havingthe so called latest and greatest.Just my opinion of course. I know there'll be thousands runningout and buying it as soon as it hits the shelves. And thats finenothing wrong with it if thats your 'thing'. But for me...Not a chance, sorry MS your getting no more dollars from mefor a long time.

[n4gix 4,947]

>Bill you were one of the main ones on the FSX/XP/DX9>bandwagon... You were actually a beta tester as well and>currently work with Eaglesoft. You knew what was going on...>The excuse the marketing department didn't know what the>coders were doing is bogus when you had the sim in hand and>could see what was going on...I am refering only to your thread title: FSX was designed for Vista not XP.." which is pure, unadulterated bologna.>Gauges need to be registered for a fee... Say what? While it is true that in order to avoid an annoying popup warning the simmer that a .gau or module file doesn't have a "Trusted Certificate" the gauge/module developer needs to obtain a "Trusted Certificate and set of signature key files..."For freeware gauge/module developers, there is a very active movement by a dedicated group of devs (Nick Whitcomb and Arno Geretson among 'em) to set up s FREE "Certificate Authority" to allow freeware folks to obtain a FREE "Trusted Certificate."In no case though is THERE A COST TO THE SIMMER!!! Sorry for "shouting," but you seem h*ll-bent on a crusade to spread misinformation. What your motives might be I won't begin to imagine.>Bill it will be very interesting to see what path>your constituents and piers decide to take in the next few>months concerning what platform they decide to develop for... You can go to the Eaglesoft website and read for yourself the policy statement. Eaglesoft will continue to create and release FS9 products right along with the FSX versions of the same products for at least the next twelve months... possibly eighteen months!While some folks are busily finding unique and creative ways to work with FSX to mitigate some of the autogen framerate losses, while we all wait for hardware to catch up......a few others are simply "wailing and nashing their teeth" and playing at Chicken Little. Perhaps a bit more time reading the positive contributions and less time writing laments might prove to be a productive exercise... ;)

[Guest Water Mango]

"Eaglesoft will continue to create and release FS9 products right along with the FSX versions of the same products for at least the next twelve months... possibly eighteen months!"I'll disregard all the rest of that mess you wrote and concentrate on this one most useful and important sentence. Seeing how crappy FSX is performing on the best hardware we can throw at it these days, I hope most developers are wise enough to follow this same logic (may I remind you this is a first in FS history)... Usually when a new version of FS comes out developers don't continue developing for the old version twelve to eighteen months out from the new sim's release date. We may have seen this with FS98 after FS2000 came out but surely not from FS2000 to FS2k4 or FS2k2 to FS2k4... That's really saying something no matter how much you want to deny it. The support is usually there but not any new products. Eaglesoft didn't keep developing for FS2k2 when FS2k4 came out. They quickly moved forward and updated their current product line. All upgraded products promptly worked in the new FS2k4 environment. Try to get that CitationX to work in FSX on a 3gig machine with FSX looking comparable to FS2k4. Ain't gonna to happen. The autogen issue is not the only problem with FSX performance.All that being said we still love you Bill (I

[1mikel151 71]

>While some folks are busily finding unique and creative ways>to work with FSX to mitigate some of the autogen>framerate losses, while we all wait for hardware to catch>up...>>...a few others are simply "wailing and nashing their teeth">and playing at Chicken Little. Perhaps a bit more time>reading the positive contributions and less time writing>laments might prove to be a productive exercise... ;)AMEN Bill!!!Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[Guest Water Mango]

"Do you still believe this verbatim? If you do, then please load up FSX on a Vista RC1 and DX9 system and tell us how much better experience it is than XP/DX9."This is the most idiotic statement yet to appear in this whole fiasco. First off why would I try FSX on a beta, second Vista and DX9 will never happen in it's release version, third Aces needs to release a patch for FSX to take advantage of the latest drivers and abilites of the release version of Vista (no one can know that as the release version of Vista is always changing. It won't be in it's static forum until release and even then patches will end up changeing things here and there)... Judging by reports from others even my own experience with the FSX beta, the performance is about the same with Vista beta as it is with XP/DX9. So in essence FSX is still running like an unpolished beta on an OS it was allegedly designed for (XP/DX9). It should at least run better on XP/DX9 than it does on Vista RC1 (oh I forgot you can turn off the autogen). Now let's jump to some facts. Since we're talking about what the sim was designed on, it's most logical FSX was designed, ran, and tested somewhere along the line on a Dual Core machine. Why wasn't FSX optimized for that??? I've heard the excuses but all the current hardware was there and the 3 year timeframe was in place. FSX with all the time and hardware at Microsoft's disposal shows absolutely no benefit from all the hardware it was exposed to during development much less a plan for the future. The same old logic of single CPU speed seems to be what's going to make FSX tick. Problem with that is hardware is moving to multiple processors in the future yet FSX isn't designed to take advantage of that. Two to three 2.8gig processors in the same box with greater bus speed is the future... THIS IS HUGE if you

[Guest Water Mango]

** Double Post **

[n4gix 4,947]

>Try to get that CitationX to work in FSX on a>3gig machine with FSX looking comparable to FS2k4. Ain't>gonna to happen. The autogen issue is not the only problem>with FSX performance.Currently testing this now. Results are very positive so far.>All that being said we still love you Bill (I

[Guest Rayed]

>"Do you still believe this verbatim? If you do, then please>load up FSX on a Vista RC1 and DX9 system and tell us how much>better experience it is than XP/DX9.">>This is the most idiotic statement yet to appear in this whole>fiasco.FSX was not even officialy released yet ;)>Now let's jump to some facts. Since we're talking about what>the sim was designed on, it's most logical FSX was designed,>ran, and tested somewhere along the line on a Dual Core>machine. Why wasn't FSX optimized for that??? Because it's extremely hard to write multithreaded application, especially a computer game, where different sub system have to talk to each other in synch in realtime. Your OS is optimized for it, more or less. Your graphics driver sometimes is and few other things.. so FSX will still perform considerably better on multi-cpu system, no worries.>I've heard the>excuses but all the current hardware was there and the 3 year>timeframe was in place. FSX with all the time and hardware at>Microsoft's disposal shows absolutely no benefit from all the>exposure of hardware it was designed and tested on. Hardware>is moving to multiple processors in the future yet FSX isn't>designed to take advantage of that. THIS IS HUGE if you

[Guest Water Mango]

This sounds great Bill for the people turning off autogen and/or have the sim running at 14-20fps. For the majority that can't get past 10fps without turning off all autogen, I don't care what you do that CX is going blow the big one.... Let's think about the target market that you so eloquently stated all you guys are trying to reach. I'm pretty sure many are very happy and appreciative you guys are staying with FS9 for another year or so (which again I say is a first for as far back as I can remember)... :-)