>You paid $4000 for a computer to be able to run a game that>hasn't been released yet?>>*:-* >>What happened to waiting for a product to be released, reading>some comments about it, and then making an informed purchasing>decision?What ever happened to designing a game that takees advantage of the cutting edge hardware available today? Informed purchasing decision? I have arguably one of the best personal PC's on the planet. At least for another 6 months, haha. What I have should without a doubt be enough. It's a real crime that it apparently will not be.

>FSX appears to be the victim of sloppy coding, not designs for>the future. Explain to me why after all this time, FSX WILL>NOT support dual core processors? Even on a Vista machine? The reason has been explained, over and over and over. There's no possibility you could have missed it, but here it is again in simple terms.Take a length of string and tie the two ends together to form a loop. Now you have a visual representation of flightsim's render loop. Once started, the loop will run forever, unless stopped manually (or by a program crash!).Now, take scissors and cut the string anywhere in two places. What do you have now? Two lengths of string that aren't connected any longer. This is what would occur if they were to break the render loop into two segments so they'd run on separate cores. How then, could you programmatically "splice" the two discrete sections of code stream back into a seamless whole?What would happen, more often than not, is that "String A code" would finish it's task and then wait, and wait, and wait some more for "String B code" to finish. In effect, your clever ploy has backfired on you, and the end result is worse performance than may be achieved with a single loop!>Others have had their work straight up stolen from them (see FSUIPC).You know this to be a fact? Have you actually met Pete, or perhaps exchanged emails with him? I know for a fact that this statement is complete nonsense, having spoken to Pete in person, as well as numerous forum and email exchanges. As it happens, a lot of SimConnect's functionality is the result of Pete cooperating with ACES in development!Beware of the pitfalls from "Hasty Generalizations" as well as ASSumptions, as those are traps best avoided... ;)

Denial is the only path when one is powerless ;)

>So MS needs to pay you back for the add ons you bought for FS9>because they created a new version? And why did you build a>machine to run FSX when you had no idea what it may or may not>take to run it why not wait until you had it in your hands to>build a new system?>>As for being thrown out of business due to FSX are you saying>you and others cant adapt to the new version? Is FS supposed>to freeze at FS9? I dont get great performance out of FSX, its>not horrid but its not wonderful either but I didnt expect it>to be. I imagine Ill be on FS9 until DX10 hardware is well>into its second or third generation. Of course you and others>have every right to complain if something doesnt live up to>your expectations and dont take this as a personal attack but>the approach you took concerning addons, developing etc really>arent the best excuse to use to rail against FSX. Personally>I think in time it will be so awe inspiring well wonder how>they fit such an experience onto our desktop computers. >No I never once said they should pay me back for addons. Please READ my post instead of just copying it into yours. I responded to the guy talking about MS stuffing $20's into the box. The $4000 I refer to is the wizbang system I bought to run FSX on. So far I've been criticized for buying it, which is ridiculous. #### yes I expected FSX to run well on it--everything thing else does so why wouldn't FSX? Ad when I bought it, all indicators were that FSX WOULD take advantage of the technology my computer contains. And yes, developers like PMDG are clear that their products will not fly in FSX. FlyTampa also made a statement similar to that on this very thread. You say your performance isn't great. Well I would concur if your system is 2 years old. But guess what? My performance sucks too, and my machine is still an infant. And someone please explain to me how it's ok to have to turn OFF autogen to enjoy a smooth experience.

>>You paid $4000 for a computer to be able to run a game that>>hasn't been released yet?>>>>*:-* >>>>What happened to waiting for a product to be released,>reading>>some comments about it, and then making an informed>purchasing>>decision?>>What ever happened to designing a game that takees advantage>of the cutting edge hardware available today? Informed>purchasing decision? I have arguably one of the best personal>PC's on the planet. At least for another 6 months, haha. >What I have should without a doubt be enough. It's a real>crime that it apparently will not be.>Simulators have always been more taxing on hardware. Go take a look at LOMAC, check the release date of that product, and then ask some of those folks what type of performance they get on average. I don't think anybody could really max out FS9's graphics options when it first came out either. LOMAC is the same way. In fact, a majority of the people who play LOMAC STILL can't max out the graphics settings.You feel that since you spent $4000 for a computer that you should be able to max out all the settings. Unfortunately, that is not how gaming usually works. You could have saved a TON of money had you done the build yourself (if you were able). A few of my tech buddies used to compete with eachother to see who could build Alienware "copy" systems for less. Last I heard, one guy beat Alienware's cost by close to $2000. lol

>And someone please explain to me how it's ok to have to turn>OFF autogen to enjoy a smooth experience. Who said you have to? Perhaps if you spent more time reading and less time fulminating, you'd have noticed the very simple tweak that you can make to the fsx.cfg file to reduce the number of buildings and trees to a somewhat more reasonable level?In the TERRAIN section, add these two lines:TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1500 // was 4500TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1000 // was 3000These two lines are not in the fsx.cfg by default, but as you can plainly see, the default of 4500 trees per cell is perhaps a bit "high" for most user's systems, as is the default of 3000 buildings per cell...Simple, eh?

I guess it would be fair to give everyone my system specs ad the performance I'm getting out of the demos.FX-602 x 7900GTX in SLI mode1 Gig Mushkin DDR400 PC3200 RAM (been advised that 2 gigs is optimal for FSX)Sound Blaster audigyMotherboard---don't know the model, but it was the best option offered by Velocity Micro.Now for performance:With everything to the right--yep 6 FPS, even 4 FPS. Occasional peaked above single digits. Ok, so lets be resonable you say.With adjusted sliders to Medium-High settings: 15-18 FPS. Smooth is 24 FPS. That's TV standard. Yes, many of us lived happily with 15-20, and yes you can easily fly with 15-20. But were any of us really 'happy' with 15-20? I went one further and adjusted sliders down to low settings. No autogen, no reflections, etc....ugly in other words. Wow, 33 FPS. 33 FPS and a world that is now uglier than my suped up FS9. Yes I said uglier. Because with Ground Environment, Flight Environment, Active Sky, and so on--I think FS9 looks better than a dumbed down FSX. And guess what? I get 50 FPS unless it's 8:00 a.m. at one of Fly Tampa's awesome airports. Then I get 23-24. And trouble is, if FSX is a beast out of the box, how do you expect to ever be able to run AI traffic programs, or detailed aircraft, or mega airports? Anyway, after all my griping I just wanted to show an example of where I am coming from. I'm not here to mindlessly b*itch. I'm not here to say "FSX sucks" and leave it at that. If you want to criticize me for having bought an expensive computer, fine. Just remember that if a rig like mine ain't running this thing, your dusty Dell sure as #### isn't either.

>And someone please explain to me how it's ok to have to turn>OFF autogen to enjoy a smooth experience. I fly at higher altitudes, therefore, I never really see the autogen. Who says you have to turn off the Autogen?There are a few recommendations here for tweaks and whatnot.

I think you might be misunderstanding me, Manny. We've been looking at *all* the feedback the new release is generating, good and bad. The trick with a brand new release is filtering the noise from the signal. If you look at the AvSim threads for example, it's difficult to tell who has the full product, what their real system specs are, what their settings are, etc. Much of the data is there but it's often incomplete and mixed in with lots of speculation and editorial. The cost to mine the data is currently very high. That's why I'm suggesting we all wait it out a bit. Heck, the product hasn't started to be sold in great numbers yet. How do we know the issues being reported aren't anomolies?Plus, there are a few folks who aren't really interested in assistance, they simply want us to admit we screwed up the release. Naturally we're not going to do that because it serves no purpose. What we will do is what we do with each release. Specifically, monitor feedback using a broad set of data (web forums, tell_fs email, product support calls), look for trends, assess broad cutomer impact and decide how to address it. I know some people want us to react NOW but that has been proven to be ineffective in delivering *comprehensive* solutions to user problems.

Hi Pike,Not being disrepectful here at all....but have you installed the retail version and tested it on your machine yet (some folks have been able to pick it up, are you one of them)? I'm honestly curious as to your actual experience with the code and you're machine as your the first person I've heard of thats dropped that kind of money on that level of hardware. I would also love to hear your experience with some of the texture tweaks and your machine...Thanks and looking forward to your report...assuming you get the new version :-)/edited for speling :-) /oops...just read your post below. I guess we were typing at the same time. Thank for the report...

>I guess it would be fair to give everyone my system specs ad>the performance I'm getting out of the demos.>>FX-60>2 x 7900GTX in SLI mode>1 Gig Mushkin DDR400 PC3200 RAM (been advised that 2 gigs is>optimal for FSX)>Sound Blaster audigy>Motherboard---don't know the model, but it was the best option>offered by Velocity Micro.>>Now for performance:>>With everything to the right--yep 6 FPS, even 4 FPS. >Occasional peaked above single digits. Ok, so lets be>resonable you say.>>With adjusted sliders to Medium-High settings: 15-18 FPS. >Smooth is 24 FPS. That's TV standard. Yes, many of us lived>happily with 15-20, and yes you can easily fly with 15-20. >But were any of us really 'happy' with 15-20? >>I went one further and adjusted sliders down to low settings. >No autogen, no reflections, etc....ugly in other words. Wow,>33 FPS. 33 FPS and a world that is now uglier than my suped>up FS9. Yes I said uglier. Because with Ground Environment,>Flight Environment, Active Sky, and so on--I think FS9 looks>better than a dumbed down FSX. And guess what? I get 50 FPS>unless it's 8:00 a.m. at one of Fly Tampa's awesome airports. >Then I get 23-24. And trouble is, if FSX is a beast out of>the box, how do you expect to ever be able to run AI traffic>programs, or detailed aircraft, or mega airports? >>Anyway, after all my griping I just wanted to show an example>of where I am coming from. I'm not here to mindlessly b*itch.>I'm not here to say "FSX sucks" and leave it at that. If you>want to criticize me for having bought an expensive computer,>fine. Just remember that if a rig like mine ain't running>this thing, your dusty Dell sure as #### isn't either.The FPS one see in the movies are not the same as the FPS you see in a video game. T.V./Movie has motion blur integrated in, videogames do not (most of them).

Well, my cardkey still works and Microsoft is still paying me. Until someone else moves into my office I still plan on coming to work! ;)

>>And someone please explain to me how it's ok to have to>turn>>OFF autogen to enjoy a smooth experience. >>Who said you have to? Perhaps if you spent more time reading>and less time fulminating, you'd have noticed the very simple>tweak that you can make to the fsx.cfg file to reduce the>number of buildings and trees to a somewhat more reasonable>level?>>In the TERRAIN section, add these two lines:>>TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1500 // was 4500>TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1000 // was 3000>>These two lines are not in the fsx.cfg by default, but as you>can plainly see, the default of 4500 trees per cell is perhaps>a bit "high" for most user's systems, as is the default of>3000 buildings per cell...>>Simple, eh?The guy I replied to said he turned off his autogen. Thats who.Perhaps you should take your own advice before criticizing me?and yes, I have implemented that tweak, with only moderate results. Not enough to change my mood about this release. Thanks for trying to help though.

Thanks. And I have to hand it to the NaturalPoint folks for getting TrackIR drivers working with our new API and camera system so quickly. They've been great to work with.

>I think you might be misunderstanding me, Manny. We've been>looking at *all* the feedback the new release is generating,>good and bad. The trick with a brand new release is filtering>the noise from the signal. If you look at the AvSim threads>for example, it's difficult to tell who has the full product,>what their real system specs are, what their settings are,>etc. Much of the data is there but it's often incomplete and>mixed in with lots of speculation and editorial. The cost to>mine the data is currently very high. That's why I'm>suggesting we all wait it out a bit. Heck, the product hasn't>started to be sold in great numbers yet. How do we know the>issues being reported aren't anomolies?>>Plus, there are a few folks who aren't really interested in>assistance, they simply want us to admit we screwed up the>release. Naturally we're not going to do that because it>serves no purpose. What we will do is what we do with each>release. Specifically, monitor feedback using a broad set of>data (web forums, tell_fs email, product support calls), look>for trends, assess broad cutomer impact and decide how to>address it. I know some people want us to react NOW but that>has been proven to be ineffective in delivering>*comprehensive* solutions to user problems.No Problem Mike.Just FYI.My system.1. Core 2 Duo. E6600 OCed to 3.3Ghz. 2Gig RAM, nVidia 7600XT 256MB. 19" CRT Monitor (I am yet to attach the 24" Widescreen to it)FSX runs with almost everything to the right (90%) and I get 15-20FPS and runs very smooth. and FSX is specatcular.ISSUE 1: Not much room for AI and other addons like Fly Tampa. ISSUE 2: Future h/w is in Multi core...so no solution from the Hardware front on the horizon.I look at MS Fsim as a Flight Sim operating system with the add ons as applications running on the Fsim OS. :)Manny