FSX ... son of FS2K :-eekLet's not forget that some people got great performance with FS2000 as well! All they had to do was turn off the shadows ..... have we been here before?"Edit: As a business owner, I wonder why the common, shared opinions expressed daily by so many flight simmers about what features would make a great sim, have seemingly fallen on the deaf ears of the developers ???"The casual users are more numerous than us. Their needs are bound to be more important than holding patterns etc, which the casual user will never use.ACES has created a potentially great simulation, but until 5GHz PCs are the norm ....... :(

Mike,I'm right with you. I bought it. Uninstalled it and then sold it. I have been using Flight Sim since the Sub logic days. Sure every new version taxes current systems when they come out. FSX is the best version yet at what it offers but it is also the best version yet at bringing a system to it's knees. Aces Team, Great work but I'm not paying $70 dollars to run FSX at settings that would make it the same or below FS9. I'm going to wait a year or two. There will be hardware able to run FSX by then and FSX will be at Wally World for $29.99

Can you do that? Sel FS-X after you registered it on your own hardware. Are you sure this works?

It should.Aybe

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

Simple answer man - don't like it don't buy it.Don't buy it - stay out of the discussion.Aybe

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

Why? should reviews only be written by people that like the product? Where's the fun in that?

>How do you guys take the screenshots?It is an included feature within FSX. Just hit the "V" key and the shot is stored in your "My Documents Folder" under FSX screen shots. They are also cataloged in the UI under the Pilot tab. Very nice touch. Bob....

Thank you Bob!

I still don't understand everyone's surprise. Most flightsims do not run very well when they are released. They all require tweaks, patches and some level of hardware or software updates. This is not confined to FSX. I'm not saying this is good, I'm just saying this is the way it is and all the wishing in the world won't change it.Most of the major sims are unplayable at their highest settings when released. Lock On is a great looking sim, but with the hardware available when it was released, put the sliders all the way up, add a few extra planes and it was a slideshow. The IL2 series, also years old, can cripple today's hot systems at its highest settings. Falcon 4, as stated, was also released requiring twice the available CPU power. This has been going on for years and years.FSX isn't even supposed to be on the shelves yet, but two things are already happening - people are complaining about poor performance and others are already improving that performance. Within a few weeks there will be many small fixes and, incrementally perhaps, performance will increase. It's inevitable. I've had FSX for all of 48 hours (most people don't have it at all yet) and I've already used a few available file tweaks and my FPS has gone up at least 20%.I mean, really, with the massive amount of community input this sim elicits, who doubts that in a few short months FSX will be running substantially better than it is now. I got faith.

>>30 FPS, nice. A photoslaped mesh, with a few scattered>boxes.>>Some very poor looking 2D clouds & not forgeting the low res>>terrain mesh on the horizon. High Tech stuff; for the mid>>90s.>>>>See the Guru3D guide to FPS:>>>>Frames per second Gameplay>>>><30 FPS very limited gameplay>>30-40 FPS average yet playable>>40-60 FPS good gameplay>>>60 FPS best possible gameplay>>>>Why do flightsimmers except such low performance?>>>>>>We accept such performance because the requirements for smooth>gameplay in flight sims are different than they are for FPS>games. 30 is the magic number for a flight sim in pretty much>any situation. I like at least 30 and am happiest with a>little more cushion in combat slight sims, but for just>general tooling around in FS9, as low as 20 is tolerable with>mid 20's being perfectly acceptable. Or this is what you accept, because you can't get any better and don't know any better. Anything below 30FPS is not only crappy gameplay, but will cause dizzines, you will get tired really fast and get few others not so nice effects on your health.Flight simulator is no different game than any FPS game in that case.P.S. I am awaiting for this "science" post that eye works at 24 fps or something :)

>I still don't understand everyone's surprise. Most flightsims>do not run very well when they are released. They all require>tweaks, patches and some level of hardware or software>updates. This is not confined to FSX. I'm not saying this is>good, I'm just saying this is the way it is and all the>wishing in the world won't change it.>>Most of the major sims are unplayable at their highest>settings when released. Lock On is a great looking sim, but>with the hardware available when it was released, put the>sliders all the way up, add a few extra planes and it was a>slideshow. The IL2 series, also years old, can cripple today's>hot systems at its highest settings. Falcon 4, as stated, was>also released requiring twice the available CPU power. This>has been going on for years and years.>>FSX isn't even supposed to be on the shelves yet, but two>things are already happening - people are complaining about>poor performance and others are already improving that>performance. Within a few weeks there will be many small fixes>and, incrementally perhaps, performance will increase. It's>inevitable. I've had FSX for all of 48 hours (most people>don't have it at all yet) and I've already used a few>available file tweaks and my FPS has gone up at least 20%.>>I mean, really, with the massive amount of community input>this sim elicits, who doubts that in a few short months FSX>will be running substantially better than it is now. I got>faith. Nice post. If only FS would run like America's Army FPS or Guild Wars ;-) but we all know why it cannot... Best,Randy J. Smith

It is such a laugh to hear people still complaining about their FPS. Get a life (or a state-of-the-art new computer) dammit. You should seriously start to get some idea about computers and highly detailed games/sims. For us all - please whine to your door instead.

Well said, CanadaOne... I couldn't agree more!DougDell XPS Gen3 (3.6GHz/800FSB) | 2GB DDR SDRAM | 74GB SATA, 10k RPM (C: ) | 120GB SATA (D: ) | 512MB ATI Radeon X1900XTX (Catalyst 6.8) | Audigy 2 ZS Sound | MS Force Feedback 2 | WindowsXP Pro (SP2) | DirectX 9.0c

I think you might be my new hero. :)

>It is such a laugh to hear people still complaining about>their FPS. Get a life (or a state-of-the-art new computer)>dammit.Not to nit pick, but the author of this thread has a very high end system which puts him in the top 5% of all the PC's out there on the planet right now.If HE is having problems, then the other 95% of machines are going to be in perma-nap land.I would prefer people tell the truth about what is happening instead of postulate on some future fantasy that might come along and make some magical difference that once again will cause the 95% of the market to have to run out and spend $2500 on a new computer system only to find out that the magic pill folks were talking out of their arses as usual and it makes no difference at all.Been there too many times with the forum "fluffer" boys. Post a screen shot that disproves the complaint or keep your "fluff" to yourself.