> The meal is already cooked, so the choices are to>either go hungry or enjoy it as much as possible.>>Discussing it, ragging on it, cursing at it, or screaming>about it isn't going to change anything about it.So true. We "all" should have learned this by now after FS9, ;) Regards,KendallDell 8400 3.2 GHZ H.T.800 FSB/2MB L22 GB 533 DDR2X800XT 256MB/Cat.5.13's6x Adaptive AA/16x HQ A/FIntegrated SoundDual Monitor: Dell 2405/1905CH Yoke/Pedals

I am looking to buy a new machine. Should i get an AMD64 5000 dual core, or is FSX made to work better with an Intel processor?

From all of the posts on this forum and benchmarks from various sites, it's clear that the Intel Core2Duo is the processor to get. You will most likely also need a new motherboard and memory.Jim Karn

No worries Man - I tell it like I see it - too many CIC's and CA's to go any further

When i bought fs98 there where stutters. In Fs2000 !!!I had 5 fps on final That one was totally unflyable !!Then came fs2002, that one was better MS got a lot of critics after the release of fs2000 , so they had to focus on frames fluid and fps. I cant understand why i have to wait 2-3 years before i can use a product to its fully potensial with hardware thats on the market today ???? For sure i will buy the next version !!! IF i can use it !!And if i can use it i am going to buy addons for it !! for this and coming versions of FS .Lennart

"One can either moan and complain that things aren't exactly as you would like, or you can work to change things for the better." Rick this is not ment as a personal shot, so don't take it that way, you were just the one that typed it. ;) This is the biggest problem I have with this whole thing. We all paid good money for this product so why should we have to change, fix, and tweak this to get it to even run acceptable ? It's almost as if buying a brand new car then taking it home and having to buy an engine, and tires to make it run. We paid money for this, it's the developers just to make it right. IOW, we paid them to do a job and they failed, but that seems to be ok with everyone, so we will just fix it for them. doesn't make sense to me.Dan

However we try to satisfy them to such an>extent that the cost of the new version exceeds the value>you'll get from paying the price.>>Sorry tdragger - I am still laughing SO muchPerhaps you may want to re-read your comment and potentially re-phrase it

Common Myths Propogated by the a really excited user.1. Most Ridiculous: FS application is a one string application and the "string" cannot be broken and rendered. Guess what, the Level-D sim guys had "broken" the string years back and where rendering..yes you guessed it right, in different computers altogether.2. Most Optimistic: When the demo and beta came out, a really excited user started yelling from roof top, this is beta, final release will have super smooth frame rates. They happily forgot that a beta is always faster than the final release, but what the heck, who can tell them? After all they were FSX beta team so that makes omniscient in programming!!Final Release came out-as slow as it gets so what was the optimism again-FSX is designed for 3 years from hence, once DX10 and vista comes it will run super smooth again!!3. Most Hypocritical: Never mind on full pax load+full gas+full flaps+gears down you can make the baron or for that matter any aircraft climb at 700fpm. Yet you'll find fan boys shouting how great the flight model is and how veteran real world pilots they are so again the claim of the omniscient pilot. Visit condorsoaring and check out the flight model of those gliders. You'll know what 2 boys could achieve in PC flight simulation which MS with 300 team could not achieve in 25 years.4. Most annoying: Your post count is less than 1000 so you know nothing!!

Well Santanu-Your post got me curious. I don't know any Baron pilot that would climb "full gross with full flaps, gear down" and you didn't state the temp/pressure conditions-but I did hunt up the "Climb-balked landing" table for the Baron which is calibrated for full flaps, gear down and a climb of 90 knts-about as close as one can get to your scenario ...On a standard day at sea level the chart shows a climb rate of 700 ft/min. at full gross with full flaps and gear down....I just set the sim at San Diego which is sea level-set standard temp and pressure in the sim's weather-climbed out at 90 kts. with full flaps and gear down and got....700 fpm....You mentioned 700 fpm-sounds like we are all in agreement.I assume your other positions are as well taken as this one..Best,http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159931.jpg

Put it out of its misery............

I gotta tell ya this post has been one of the most interesting ones I have read in quite sometime. But all of this boils down to one thing. Microsoft does this on purpose. Plain and simple! It's the business and profitabilty aspect of the whole issue. Microsoft made millions off FS9 and it wasn't through the sim. Its through hardware. On gods good earth why would one design any type of product that is fully useable in 2 to 3 years? Why would customers buy a product that is only 20 to 40% efficient. Like Peter said is it useable Yes it IS! Can you run it at 6 FPS Sure you Can! Did you buy it to run it at graphics lower then FS9 after we waited 4 years for the next best thing? No We sure didn't. See I don't have answers to tech questions. I had to buy about 400 dollars of add ons for FS9 at near the end of the FS9 lifespan due to the release of FSX to make it what I wanted. It took 4 years for developers of good add ons to make it what we wanted, when it should have been that way in the first place. Honestly after the time we waited I really don't see what took so long for this release. Theres nothing super special with it. It looks to me as if the sim just went along with the tech upgrades of the existing years that passed anyways. All I heard about FSX was oh man your never gonna believe it. You know what I do believe? I believe that Microsoft knows exactly what there doing! How else can you explain that they can't even get smooth FPS on there own dang commercial? All I gotta say is that if you want to continue to be a part of this hobby , please start saving money now. Taking out your second mortgage or start the re-fi on your house. Because it will be another graphics card, another motherboard, more ram and more 3rd party addons to get this sim to be what we want it to be. Oh ya and you can probably only expect 1 patch from microsoft for this sim and you can get that in 2 years.

I had to re-register to this forum as I lost my password some time ago & the e-mail address was an old one from a long time ago. I had been a lurker for some time & had to weigh in on this topic. I have purchased Microsoft's Flight sim series stuff since the late 1980's when they came on 5-1/4" floppys...The old Farts like me will remember those. Whenever there has been a new release you either have to upgrade or wait for the community to hack the living daylights out of it to make it better. Computing has been like that since as far as I can remember. ####, half the fun is tinkering & tweaking with hardware & software to make it better. To the naysayers that want it to run better out of the box either start tweaking & playing around with it or put it down & walk away & wait for the community to do their wonders. Like Peter said it does run out of the Box, but if it is not acceptable than start tweaking it.I got an email from Microsoft the begining of this year wanting opinions on what features are important to us & as some were implimented it seems they skimped on many others. (ie.. Flightplanning, sids/stars, SDK/terran tools being user friendly), that is my big dissappointment right now & hopefully things will settle down & we can all enjoy the latest sim.SlackAdjuster Gigabyte GA-965p-DS3Intel Allendale E6400 OC'd 3.48 GHZ 8X435FSB (for everyday use)Corsair XMS2 6400 2x 1GB 5 5 5 122x Hitachi 80gb Raid 0Sapphire X1900GTAudigy 2Leadtek WinTV 2000Windows XP Pro SP2

>3. Most Hypocritical: Never mind on full pax load+full>gas+full flaps+gears down you can make the baron or for that>matter any aircraft climb at 700fpm. This post is so full of stupidity! A week ago, I saw a post on an X-Plane forum, where the writer claimed that the FSX 172 could climb at 2000fpm sustained. And the was the supposeable FSX flight dynamic review, for the X-Plane users to read.Well, I knew that that was rediculous! In reality, the only way to show 2000fpm was to yank the yoke back with very adequate flight speed, and then it would bleed off tremendously fast to a stall condition if you continued with the yoke pulled back. The truth is, that at sea-level and under gross, the simulated 172 will never get close to 700fpm for any sustainable amount of time, using the conditions you state. I made an *** out of that poster, and I'll do the same to you. Cut the crap with such generalizations, or become a name that many will just ignore.L.Adamson

I bet if you bought a new cadillac you wouldn't be saying that. Tweaking it and lets all spend lots of time tweaking hardware and messing with overclocking wasn't what I bought the sim for. I bought to fly in it , learn from it and enjoy the community discussing the art of flying not tweaking the sim. See unlike you and I mean no disrespect towards you or your comments and I admit I do not know your circumstances. I have been with Falcon AT, FS and all of those since 3 1/2s and 5 1/4s and I am only 29. But I don't have alot of time like old farts with a career in the aviation business and 2 kids and a wife. If I buy a game that comes out in 2006 and I also bought a new HP AMD 64 X2 , ATIX1900 GTX and 4 gigs of ram with my computer tweaked to the bone I want to run a sim , game whatever that was released in 2006 notin 2008. This cycle has to stop. And although FS9 is not perfect after a fewaddons its very colorful and very enjoyable. And as I asked before, why didn't microsoft spend the last 3 years on improving an already semi stable platform? Although the engine was in need of work and the sim an overhaul I bet it would have been alot more productive and beneficial to the community as a whole and we would have recieved it sooner. And although its arguable that FSX is an overhaul to me its a step in the wrong direction. It is better to some aspects but it has its own set of fairly complicated and in depth issues tha will take the community 2 years to figure out. Its called more ram, DX10 Vid cards, higher CPUs and so on. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would spend which is now about equivelant to $5000 dollars in total over the last 5 years to improve 1 single sim, game or better said 1 of my hobbies just to improve my expirience. This includes 2 new computer, Vid Cards, Ram, addons and tack on about another 1,000,000,000 dollars for medical bills from my ailments from sitting in the same chair for 3000 hours.(Joke HAHAHA) Thats on top of my saltwater fish tank (100 gallon reef), My R/C hobby, my akita and the list goes on. I want my Commodore 64 back

> Yet you'll find fan boys>shouting how great the flight model is and how veteran real>world pilots they are so again the claim of the omniscient>pilot. And so the "armchair pilot" say's... :-roll