AllI have been reading all the posts concerning the performance of FSX. Some are spot on and others are spot off and some are just complaining because that's who they are. The truth is that the autogen is a dog, no doubt about it. The good thing is that we have some very smart folks who visit these forums and I wouldnt doubt for one minute that they are digging in right now to figure out how the pieces of this sim fit together. When they do, I truly believe you will begin to see posts that pertain to a fix. Some of the fixes may be better than others but nonethless, the fixes are coming. I personally dont know if the autogen issue is poor programming or its just a case of too many objects and high polygon counts. If you look at what was created and modified by both novice and professionals for fs8 and fs9, it shouldnt be hard for anyone to agree that a fix is on the way. I am sure someone somewhere will find a reason to tear me a new one for posting such a god awful post and remind me that MS is to blame and the community should not have to fix their problem. I think even the most optimistic would have to agree that MS could have had a more options in the autogen department. I dont have X yet but I will be at Best buy at 10AM on the 17th.Just in case I hurt anyones feelings by using the word "faith", you can substitute for this if you like.RegardsBob

Bob,Point is, MS should have fixed this prior to release. Having to rely on tweakers and modders is stupid. You think after FS2000 they would have learned. Nevermind everyone having to delete the autogen xml file in FS9 when it came out. MS did not learn the lesson in this regard.

>Bob,>>Point is, MS should have fixed this prior to release. Having>to rely on tweakers and modders is stupid. You think after>FS2000 they would have learned. Nevermind everyone having to>delete the autogen xml file in FS9 when it came out. MS did>not learn the lesson in this regard.And if the autogen file wasn't there or tweaked, you'd be complaining that there wasn't any, very little or that it wasn't realistic.Its easier to start big and go less, than start with nothing or little and go big.

I was impressed how fast the FS community migrated from FS2002 to FS2004. Now that I have had FSX installed for 5 days I can see FS2004 will be around for a while. Don't get me wrong....I can see FSX in the long run may be brilliant but until those DirctX 10 video cards are released and down to a affordable price FS2004 will live on.We already know duo or quad cores aren't really going to make much of a difference. It's going to come down to the video cards.One other point, if the key to running FSX is running Vista well count me out.FaxCap

You can't run DX10 without Vista. So, anyone not willing to go with Vista (I'm one of "those") is stuck with DX9.Doug

Bob, Overall good post, I agree with everything you say except one. I have been vocal the last few days after seeing the results with this version and the early release. In the past I have done nothing but attempt to further our hobby and have fun while Im doing it. I guess I resent being labeled but so be it. I have said my piece with regards to how this product performs. Its sub par, and it should have been far better given the time they have had. In this day and age it's evident from several other graphically intensive games I have an enjoy that it is possible to make it work. What I think most of us are fed up with is that MS can't come up with an enjoyable product right out of the box.No patches required. No tweaks.No "fixes"No workarounds.It should frustrate ALL of us that once again we are going to have to pull this one out of the fire on our own. I agree there are tons of talented folks who already are tweaking the files towards improvements and we will see great things. I for one would rather it be different I guess.Hornit

The poster does not even own FSX yet.Spend $70,play around with settings for hours and then figure out how much $$$$ you have to spend to make it enjoyable to fly.Let us know how you feel then.

Hi AllYep I do agree with all of posts so far I really do. I guess I am just trying to make the best of it. Geoff had a post about the autogen fading etc when above 150ft. I tried it without the autogen and is wasnt bad. I live in Washington State and I really was disappointed in fs9 with it's lack of ability to populate the forests. I think everyone wants to see their home area look like it does in reality. When I fired up the demo and saw all the trees I was so excited until my frames hit 11. Some fella just released some lower polygon trees and I have them installed and it is a noticeable improvement but I would like to see more work done in this area. The sim has potential. Dont get me wrong I too believe MS could have done better, but I am not optimistic that they will fix it at least any time soon. ThanksBob

Hey JimJamI just noticed your post after I posted my reply. I have no problem paying the $70 really. I do believe that this sim will bear fruit really soon. I too was a little disappointed but there will be improvements weekly. Again, we have some bright folks out there. Hang in there.Bob

>>but I am not optimistic that they will fix it at least any time soon. I have been watching the forums and have not seen any ACES guys posting. I have been to their blogs they write as well and have not seen nothing posted there about the initial reactions to FSX. I think they shut the door to the bunker up in Redmond and sealed themselves away :-lol

WHY OH WHY is everyone comparing FSX to other 3D games? I've been playing FPS games pretty much all my life (I have Quake 4 on my HDD now), and I know that there is NO COMPARISON.You may as well be comparing apples to oranges.There are vast differences and if you can't see them then you can't pretend to know what your talking about. The ONLY WAY FSX can look as good as it does is for computer hardware to do some catching up. When you really analyse how many polygons, textures, and effects exist in the FSX World your brain would explode.Oh, and wait till games such as UT2007 etc are released. Quite simply the best and latest computers today won't be able to handle them, which is why they are first being released on consoles.James

Yes the autogen is a dog as you say :-) Well I got my FSX last night and started out at 4.x fps in KMIA with default settings....After that I turned off the autogen since I had read posts here...And yep they are right ..FPS jumped to a whopping 6.x Again I :-) I hope when you plunk down your $$$ you will have a better experienceBillP4 @ 3.4HT/1GB Ram/ ATI X700 pro pci express...not a great system but I expected better

>>>but I am not optimistic that they will fix it at least any>time soon. >>I have been watching the forums and have not seen any ACES>guys posting. I have been to their blogs they write as well>and have not seen nothing posted there about the initial>reactions to FSX. I think they shut the door to the bunker up>in Redmond and sealed themselves away :-lol Or taking well-deserved vacations.

Tdragger, You guys DO deserve a vacation. Somehow though I wish for once that release dates were driven by when a product is truly ready and not by suits. I've been around a while and this is not the first time. In the not so distant future all our hardware and your tweaks will catch up and this sim will shine the way it should. Looking forward to that time. For now I'm going to enjoy FS9 for a bit longer :) Have a great vacation!Hornit

default setting? 4 FPS?