"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."That's right :)

>Mike,>> That was the funniest thing I have read in over a year. You>almost had me cleaning up my accident. lol Look the plain>fact is that this is a cycle and it needs to stop. I would>rather buy a FS a year then continue to be let down by my>magic trout. > > This is simply in a very complicated way a financial act and>the show is over. >> I want to hear some opinions about the FSX commercial. I>first had my doubts when I saw the beechcraft going up and>down like a teeter-totter.>>EXACTLY

"Hardcore XBOX, PC FPS, Playstation2 gamers wouldn't give MSFS a second thought."I disagree 100%, and here's why - speaking from the point of view of an XBOX gamer and flight sim enthusiast:By your own definition, you have identified "hardcore" gamers. These people may, in fact, have many hours to devote to gaming (like many FS fans), and often have excellent, large, high-definition televisions, great sound systems, and are willing to spend the money for the newest (and therefore most powerful) gaming systems.In their case, besides the TV, the console is maybe $400 plus some peripherals; in ours, it's ten times that much.The new Playstation is $600 but that's still a far cry from new, top-end systems.The adventure system in FSX may seem unnecessary to those users who purchase FS to fly a real-world airline, day in and day out. The eye candy is almost certainly unnecesasry to these same pilots, as are historic aircraft (just look at Bear's homages), custom scenery, and other extras.However, IMO, the presence of what seems to be the vastly improved adventure system in conjunction with what seem to be reported as intolerable frame rates look to me like a combination ripe for introduction to next-generation consoles.I've said it before. Assuming flight control peripherals were available, I'd be surprised if the people who are "dedicated" to FS would be willing to buy a top-end system every three or four years for several thousand dollars and spend countless hours tweaking but -not- be willing to spend the same money on a widescreen television (once), a next-gen gaming console, and finally fly instead of tweak - with constant good frame rates.Then, maybe I wouldn't be surprised - old dogs, you know.As someone who doesn't upgrade my PC often, I can truthfully say that in no way would I go out now to buy a system just to run FSX, but, if available, I -would- buy an XBOX 360 to run it. I think the biggest caveat would be the process by which third-party developers and others could create content.---Andrew

As for the politics-the thread "http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=121&topic_id=360838&mesg_id=360838&listing_type=search". Some less than flattering statements in that thread too."Let's not make it personal-then let's discuss based on the facts."That's what I've been doing.Since your are fair and balanced-have you considered any of my points and tried them before dismissing them? I am not the only one that is posting that the sim can actually look better without autogen, and that one can get great performance this way. "L" who you "respect" seems to be running the sim well in much the same way I am advocating.The fact is turning on any level of autogen on blurrs the textures. If you have blurry textures-you can't see them. If you have not seen them-then you have not seen one of the major differences between fs9 and fsx. Many are taking the route of reducing texures, turning settings down, all in an effort to see autogen. I suggest that better results can come doing exactly the opposite-but then I have been working with the sim for about 3 months-and really checked a lot of things out, including performance.If after actually seeing the new high res textures (many have not-ever)you still prefer the blurred textures with autogen on top and poor performance, then there are tweaks for autogen performance-and they work also. If you prefer neither of these solutions and want to get upset about it, then there still is fs9. These are facts-not opinions.You can get great performance today, experience a startling new visual improvment, and begin to see the other hundreds of improvements that have been placed in this sim, with today's hardware at good fps (like flight models-this is about flight isn't it?)either using my technique, or the autogen tweaking one . You don't have to wait for tomorrow's hardware. That is also a fact. Many are denying that any good performance in this sim is possible-that is not a fact. Now "my own fact" or opinion-I actually think the sim looks more real with the high res textures showing and no autogen(except below 200 ft.-which unless a helicopter driver you should not be spending that much time at-and in that case turn it on). I hope MS or someone else will come up with a way to pop autogen up at low altitude and remove it at altitude-that is my wish for Santa. That is for sure my opinion-and you are more than welcome to differ.I don't think this makes me in your words bezerk, or needing a session with Freud though. As for the split-I guess you haven't been around as long as I have-but I have seen this time and time and time again-and it gets real old. There is nothing new going on here -just the same old, same old.As for drinking-if you ever get to Detroit w'ell go for a plane ride-then have a drink or more. I have a feeling we agree on more things than we disagree on.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>I too bought FSX and I too was extremely disappointed at the>performance...>My opinions are my own...Mine too, well said Larry.A group of us fly together and have gone back to FS-9. FS-X may look better in a few specific areas, but for general use its 2nd best. Last time when FS-X turned its BLUR mode on, I said enough of this nonsense. I'd rate the thing as 2/10 . I just don't understand MS of late. All the money, time and talent with so many TOP beta testers willing to help produce a great app, and we end up with 7fps on top end PC's. Had planned on a new PC and Vista when its released, no more. Between the FS-X saga and previously watching Vista RC-1 do hard crashes about once every couple hours, WinXP is here to stay.

>I'm getting real tired of it-and it seems that someone that represents avsim would not get into politics (a prior thread) and be above such drivel...I don't see insults. I see an analogy which was (is) quite appropriate to FSX. The problem with some is, for whatever reason, they want to personalize the criticism of a game.

>Since your are fair and balanced-have you considered any of my>points and tried them before dismissing them? I am not the>only one that is posting that the sim can actually look better>without autogen, and that one can get great performance this>way. "L" who you "respect" seems to be running the sim well in>much the same way I am advocating.>Yes, I do run FSX in quite the same way. I certainly won't say that FSX is better in all respects than FS9 (and either do you); but it's fascinating enough, that I haven't bothered to fire up FS9 at all, lately.L.Adamson

Since your are fair and balanced-have you considered any of my points and tried them before dismissing them? I am not the only one that is posting that the sim can actually look better without autogen, and that one can get great performance this way. "L" who you "respect" seems to be running the sim well in much the same way I am advocating.Mike has given the most fair, balanced, and objective analysis of FSX yet but at the same time remained humourous.You can get great performance today, experience a startling new visual improvment, and begin to see the other hundreds of improvements that have been placed in this sim, with today's hardware at good fps (like flight models-this is about flight isn't it?)either using my technique, or the autogen tweaking one . You don't have to wait for tomorrow's hardware. That is also a fact. Many are denying that any good performance in this sim is possible-that is not a fact.The technique is to turn off that which makes FSX what it's supposed to be. That's the technique. Light bloom off. Autogen in the city off. Water cut in half. Ai traffic 15%. Other settings on default.This is unlike any previous interration of FS. I had a series of posts several weeks ago chronicling my struggles with FSX (Deluxe). I finally posted all my settings after having tweaked endlessly. The performance is poor in the city. I'm mostly relegated to bush flying where I can turn autogen on as well as the water.I have a higher end single core multi-threading system which has about as much prospects for helping FSX as does a dual core system. FS9 difference with FS8 had only to do (largely) fps wise with the volumetric clouds (as I posted in the past). My hardware changes between the two were in fact not necessary. Only a modification to the texture size of the clouds was necessary. And the change in hardware that I did finally effect was solely related to the effect ADDONS were having on my system.P4 3.6 GHz HT, 1 gig ddr ram, ATI X800XT PCIe 256 mb

I've said it before. Assuming flight control peripherals were available, I'd be surprised if the people who are "dedicated" to FS would be willing to buy a top-end system every three or four years for several thousand dollars and spend countless hours tweaking but -not- be willing to spend the same money on a widescreen television (once), a next-gen gaming console, and finally fly instead of tweak - with constant good frame rates....As someone who doesn't upgrade my PC often, I can truthfully say that in no way would I go out now to buy a system just to run FSX, but, if available, I -would- buy an XBOX 360 to run it.AndrewI think you nailed it on the head. An XBOX 360 (don't forget the $199 HD DVD addon on, hehehe) or the PS3 with FSX ported over could do the job. Maybe it's time we realize that this "game" is better suited, cost wise, to the vicissitudes of gaming than "simulation" qua computers. The cost difference is enormous comparatively which is why the fs series has always been a clique series. A lot of people buy it because, well, its the next in the series. When they try to fly it according to all those pretty pictures they see and they can't it either:(1) Goes into mothballs;(2) Is used by a very small percentage of pc users to springboard for more upgrades hardware wise because they like flight simulation practically at all costs.The problem with the latter is on this occasion the existing hardware in the pc realm will not address the capabilities of FSX (leaving aside whether it should be rewritten from the bottom up). Dedicated gaming consoles may be a different story though.

>The technique is to turn off that which makes FSX what it's>supposed to be. That's the technique. Light bloom off. Autogen>in the city off. Water cut in half. Ai traffic 15%. Other>settings on default.>And that itself is nothing but personal opinion. IMO, the sharp city scape textures for FSX, are very realistic looking from the air. They didn't come close to the sharp photo-real FSX look with FS9. Now, why would I want to add a bunch of cartoon looking buildings to what looks so real? Many of the higher buildings as well as those at airports are still there with auto-gen off; but at least with auto-gen off, it's not a bunch of fake looking houses on top of the photo-real textures. The difference is like looking at a photo with auto-gen off, versus a painting with it on. If your preference is to simulate driving through the auto-gen cities at street level, then by all means keep it on. For a more realistic look from the air, then "off" IS more realistic. Please remember, FS9 did NOT have the high resolution photo-real textures that FSX is capable of!If your preference is to sit at water level, then water "on" effects might be the way to go. Yet, from the air, the water effects vary significally in appearence, and sometimes look quite phoney. It was the same with FS9, and in both cases, I prefer "off" with water enhancement for the gain in frame rates, and overall look from altitude.Therfore, I certainly don't need a constant drumbeat of someone telling me, that I'm eliminating features, when in reality, I've found and use many improved features.And what does all my real flying involve? It's climbout over the city scapes & up over the mountains. And then the reverse. If I thought FS9, had the more realistic appearence, then I'd stick with it. But it just does not. FS9 is not as "fluid" in motion, nor does it have the much improved "feel" of air currents that FSX does. Water off, autogen off ----- unless back country mountain flight, where I'm at tree top levels. Thats my real preference & end of story. L.Adamson

Therfore, I certainly don't need a constant drumbeat of someone telling me, that I'm eliminating features, when in reality, I've found and use many improved features.Don't take it so personally. No one is beating a drum for you or at you.Adding mega addons/texture changes to FS9 accomplishes the same (or better) without any significant frame impact (with autogen on full). The water is a significant feature of FSX. Turning it off is not an option. So its low in the city and higher in the bush. And bush flying is all about visuals.

I was speaking of prior threads...and take a look at Santanu post above-where he gives totally incorrect information-and is quite insulting at the same time. It's kinda on the record around here lately.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

FSX out of the box can blow FS9 out of the water period. Now lets take the price point of $70.00 show me what FS9 can do thats a lot better then FSX remember anything over 24fps in FSX is really not needed.Now having said that why do we go on and on about both this Sims just buy the one you want or keep the one you want and enjoy it. :-)

FSX out of the box can blow FS9 out of the water period. Now lets take the price point of $70.00 show me what FS9 can do thats a lot better then FSX remember anything over 24fps in FSX is really not needed.At the blow out stage FSX is unflyable. Out of the box with full settings max everything FS9:- can use 100% traffic with MyTraffic- full cloud cover (with texture friendly clouds)- max autogen and max everything else- run the latest addons ( ex. PMDG 747)- add about $70 UT (Canada or US) and Active Sky and FSX is left in the dust at default.People who have purchased it and registered their copy have every right to criticize the performance and use it concurrently with FS9.I just tried FSX today by turning traffic up to 70% at KSEA parking with autogen off, water effects low 2.x, low (replacement) textured clouds, rest of settings default, with default Baron - 3 fps.P4 3.6 GHz HT, 1 gig ram ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe

Lets see $70.00 for the PMDG 747 which tanks my FPS in FS9 to around 16 at any big airport.Another $120 for UT for the world if not more, and $40.00 for my traffic. Plus $20.00 for FS9I said you had a $70.00 price point. So FSX still wins. Now if I added all this to FS9 it would tank my FPS just like the PMDG 747 did.You need to be honest about it. I priced it.1.The PMDG 747 is $70 for both packages or $50 for just the one.2.UT $30.00 per pack not sure what world coverage would be at least $120?3.Active Sky is $37.774.My traffic is $35.005. If you have to buy FS9 its about $20.00 in most places.Seems like its about $173 to about $280 for that addon package.