I don't think I will purchase FSX. I can no longer justify the expense of a new computer for a 75.00 game. FS9 will have to do for me I guess. Peter, I purchased some of your work and I enjoy it but I feel your are being biased toward FSX because it's in your best interest as a commercial developer. This is just my personal opinion and I hope you take no offense. I am disappointed by MOST of the reports on poor performance and the demo. At this time I cannot take a chance purchasing this version and it running poorly with no option of returning it. Good luck tweaking.Jason

>>I can understand staying ahead of the curve by 6 months or>>maybe even a year, but 3 years? What is the point in that?>>FSX is like a rose; to appreciate it's full beauty, one should>watch the delicate bud slowly unfold to eventually reveal it's>full, glorious majesty... :-abduct FSX is what it is and we'll all use it for it's lifetime because everyone knows that the MSFS franchise is tops in bringing it all together in one package.Rose, thorn, or weed, this is our drug and we'll continue to use it.

>I don't think I will purchase FSX. I can no longer justify>the expense of a new computer for a 75.00 game. FS9 will have>to do for me I guess. Peter, I purchased some of your work and>I enjoy it but I feel your are being biased toward FSX because>it's in your best interest as a commercial developer. This is>just my personal opinion and I hope you take no offense. I am>disappointed by MOST of the reports on poor performance and>the demo. At this time I cannot take a chance purchasing this>version and it running poorly with no option of returning it.>Good luck tweaking.>>JasonIf I were a betting man, and I could assume that you are a flight simmer at heart, I'd bet long that you'll be plunking down that $70 sooner or later. I suppose you, as will the rest of the doubtful in the thread, will just be buying it a wee bit later.Nuttin' wrong with that... :-)However, and this isn't directed at you Jason, I can't believe the lucky ones in this thread who say they have it (pre release date) and now claim they won't use it. SELL IT TO ME THEN!

FSX is like that smell that you just can't quite figure out what it is... You look and look and to no avail can you find what it is. This it suddenly dawns on you as you open the white bowl to reveal what should have been obvious...YOU FORGOT TO FLUSH THE TOILET!!!The moral of the story is, the smell of poop should be more than obvious

"It's not fashionable to like us right now"I thought you retired from Microsoft; what's with this 'us' stuff???

"This happens with each release--the only difference is the magnitude""but eventually people get time enough to see what really happened and accept it."Please stop it 'TDragger'... The last time you've guys had heat like this was with FS2000 which you finally admitted was a less than stellar release. I hope the above second quote isn't a 'screw you deal with it' statement... I hope I'm not hearing you guys aren't planning on fully fixing this mess...

FS9 ran at 30 FPS on my system at full scale when I bought it (AT KSEA)! UT brought it down by about 5! So you are wrong that it is designed for 3 years from now. Why would I want to buy a package and sit on it for 3 years?

The reports are so bad that if you are getting 6-8 FPS now (as many do in busy areas with full sliders), you will have 12-16 FPS at best when computing power is doubled!!! (If you are getting above 10 fps in busy area and have everything maxed out please correct me.) Am I the only one who thinks that the top of the line system of today should handle full sliders, bloom and all at about 15 FPS (at least)? So tomorrows systems (in couple of years) will give it a fluid 30 FPS without add ons? Is it too much to ask to have a system in couple of years (with hypothetical doubling of performance) to run FSX at 20 FPS with maximum setting and with few add ons? It won't if it is pegged at less than 10 FPS with top of the lines systems of today!! Besides, who thinks we will have doubling of speed anythime soon?

Why has it been made to work 3 years down the line, when we are here right now ? In 3 years, there will be a new FS version too down the line, with "exciting new features", and people will be upgrading to that. Then we get another performance hog, and are told to wait another 3 years to get acceptable performance. Sure the old version works reasonably well with the HW available that day, but who cares? It's old news. How many of us are now concerned over how FS2004 is performing ? We are at the junction from FS9 to FSX which would (in my logic) equal the same point in time that's now suggested for us users as the "waiting target", 3 years from the current release. Sure, there's plenty of stuff available for FS9 and in really high-end machines it performs acceptably. How about for once making a version that would perform WELL with current TOP hardware, and decently with an average machine?Tero

I don't think a patch will help.The reality is that FSX graphics are very advanced and really the code is as optimised as it's going to get!PC12 pilot explained quite clearly and rationally why this is the case. Why people can't grasp this is beyond me.FS9 is a much more antiquated graphics engine than FSX. It's not purely about how many triangles and textures FSX has over FS9, it's also the fact that the engine is designed for shader model 2.0, which allows such things as bumb mapping, enviroment mapping, etc.James

Just few details,I bought FSX Deluxe last wednesday(in Slovakia),except of autogen I have everything maxed,AA4 and AF8 and I get fps 15+(which is nice smooth comparing to 15fps in fs9).Features that I discovered so far in FSX are great,including missions,but there's much more to discover.Thank you ACES for excelllent job.Many of my ATC colleagues and friends pilots are very impressed from FSX,I mean the real ones.p.s. for those who still complain and 'cry'....just take into a account what was written in previous messages...you won't change anything...My pc is Athlon XP 3000(32bit)1.5GB RAM 333MhzAti x850XTPERaid 0 160GB MaxtorSB AudigyRado

"just take into a account what was written in previous messages...you won't change anything..."Then I guess many 'won't be buying anything either' which in turn could be the death nail for the FS franchise. If the average user is the target market who benefits off of Dual Core computers with most of their newer titles, do you honestly believe their going to put in the work on their hardware the way us simmers would for this one title???Remember the customer's always right and in this since if this product doesn't work efficiently on 'his or her' hardware you can rest assured they (the non-pilot's) 'won't be buying anything'. So in essence things are going to have to change much like they did after FS2000 or we all loose out. We the customer will change and influence the product much like we've done in the past up until now (thanks to the various wonderful add-ons from this community which breath new life into the default product). FSX has to change for the better or die from lack of sales...

"The treads from the never-pleased are the same people who slammed FS9 with the exact same comments updated to say FSX."Prove it.There are only a few threads about FS9 performance and I don't see many of the now complaining longtime posters in those threads. Just look back in the forum and try to find something or do a simple search with somebody's forum handle to look up their past.I think the only likely link between 'slamming' posts in the past by these members might be a believe in a high minimum FPS and a constant framerate.I can understand being positive and the 'the glas is half full' attitude but don't deny that there are some problems with FS-X. Be prepared to work with the program and apply fixes come 17 october.

20fps with FS 4.0 graphics! you got it!!! you've discovered sliced bread. that aside, it is good but unplayable.

>>welcome,>>>>Awesome things possible.....FSX team did a wonderful job.>>>>Look for what is dark and you'll find it but it takes genius>>to find invention and the light in others.>>>>FSX does both.>>Now, now, Peter. you must be careful. It's not fashionable to>like us right now so if I were you I'd head underground for>awhile. ;)Whether or not it's fashionable to like you guys, I think from what I saw of the first demo (and I admit to not having even tried the second as I've just built a new PC just for FSX) but from what I saw I'm looking forward to it hitting my doormat (pre-ordered from JF).Yeah so the fps will be lousy to start with, but I feel confident it will go up in time with a bit of tweaking.I ain't gonna blow sunshine up anyone's butt, sure ACES could've done it better, but who am I to complain, C++ just looks like so much gobbledigook to me anyway, I can just about programme in Basic as long as there's no graphics involved.