>Personally I'm hoping that we have another AvSim boycott, a>la FS98. Or was it FS2000? Anyway, that was awesome.And what, pray tell, was so awesome about that? Your attitude is not doing the current situation any good.Henning| P4 3.0 GIG | Asus P4P800E Motherboard | 1 GIG DDR 400 RAM | GeForce 6600GT 128MB | 160 GIG WD JB |120 GIG WD JB | SB Audigy 2 ZS |"You know that you are low and slow when you get a bird strike from behind..."

Very un-Mike like. Hopefully just a one off.Gary

Please, someone assure me that Taildragger is 14 and his acne is bothering him. Then, I can relax and have a chuckle.Any adult supervision at Aces?Wilson

Maybe after a couple years of hard work he is just insulted by a lot of posts that have been made here recently? I know I have been....and I just do this for "fun".But if it continues I am sure we can go back to the policy of no developers posting a dialog here-maybe even drive fs into the ground like fuIII, fly, and pro pilot were done.Keep up the good work!(equally sarcastic)...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I agree...frankly I've been reading these forums for the last couple of months, and had that same "groundhog day" feeling the last week or two over the performance issues of FSX...I remember running out to get Century of Flight after reading on various forums that FS2004 was horrible, that people could barely run the program, etc. etc. etc...well, I got it, loaded it, and low and behold it ran fine...Fast forward a couple of years, and I'm reading all this stuff about sliders at 10%, 4 FPS, autogen, etc etc etc...I load it up with trepidation, start flying and although I'm 2 days in, I really like it. I haven't even looked at FPS because its running ok for me (with most sliders at 90%+). I'll get around to serious testing this weekend when I have some free time and I'm done "exploring" FSX. Now I can't wait to get a couple of DX10 cards in SLi!ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe2 gig Corsair XMS RamAMD 64X2 4400+2 NVidia GForce 7800 GT - SLI

So what Mike is venting? Doesn't he have a right? I think he does. My gut is telling me that FSX is the last we see from Mircosoft. All people do on this forum is #### and complain non stop about how FSX sucks. Imagine working on software for a few months or even years and then having people bash it left right and center. I don't know how many times we have to have threads were we have to bash FSX. Let's wait until Vista and DX10 and then talk about how much FSX sucks. And quite frankly Microsoft doesn't care about FSX as much as we think they do. Yes they have a huge FS community which buy the FS titles but I bet looking at how many units they sell it wouldn't equal a mid end title on Xbox 360.

I think all the complainers including myself have to right to critisize a product that does not even use the current hardware to its fullest.- Like i said before graphics cards are under utilised- It only uses a single core- Graphics are hu-hum ; and graphics is what it's all aboutFSX was hyped as beeing the next big thing, however it's only an average affair bogged down by the need for backwards comp. and release to market requirements.FSX is only an slight evolution of fs9 not the promised revolution.The only reason why they released this so-so product, is because there is no more comptetition in this sector of the gaming market. Almost all producers have given up on making a flight sim. Producing first person shooters and RTS games makes more money because the target audience for those kind of games is bigger.Bring back the days of Janes, Falcon and all the great Mil-sims with big ring-bound manuals and quickref cards, and up the graphics to the standard of today's games ! I will hapily pay 250-500 us$ for a "game" like that.Putting everything in perspective : A civil flight sim for 50-70 dollars is not expensive. However FSX is not the leap in quality that MS promised, no MS and "mike" have no reason to be proud at all of this production.

>I think all the complainers including myself have to right to>critisize a product that does not even use the current>hardware to its fullest.>>- Like i said before graphics cards are under utilised>- It only uses a single core>- Graphics are hu-hum ; and graphics is what it's all about>>FSX was hyped as beeing the next big thing, however it's only>an average affair bogged down by the need for backwards comp.>and release to market requirements.>>FSX is only an slight evolution of fs9 not the promised>revolution.>>The only reason why they released this so-so product, is>because there is no more comptetition in this sector of the>gaming market. Almost all producers have given up on making a>flight sim. Producing first person shooters and RTS games>makes more money because the target audience for those kind of>games is bigger.>>Bring back the days of Janes, Falcon and all the great>Mil-sims with big ring-bound manuals and quickref cards, and>up the graphics to the standard of today's games ! I will>hapily pay 250-500 us$ for a "game" like that.>>Putting everything in perspective : A civil flight sim for>50-70 dollars is not expensive. However FSX is not the leap in>quality that MS promised, no MS and "mike" have no reason to>be proud at all of this production.>You have a good point but what will we do if Mircosoft drops FS? You think another company will put a product that would equal the current FS titles? I think not. Before we go crazy and bash the hard working people at Aces we should atleast wait until DX10 and Vista or atleast wait a few months for new hardware. We all need to take a chill pill and just relax, let's not make enemies with the people who spend so much time and passion to make all this possible.

>You have a good point but what will we do if Mircosoft drops>FS? You think another company will put a product that would>equal the current FS titles? I think not. Before we go crazy>and bash the hard working people at Aces we should atleast>wait until DX10 and Vista or atleast wait a few months for new>hardware. We all need to take a chill pill and just relax,>let's not make enemies with the people who spend so much time>and passion to make all this possible.I agree with you about that no other company would pick up producing a good civil-sim. However i have been running fsx under Vista rc2 and let me tell you it's worse than under xp.However that's mainly due to the Ati/nvidia drivers for Vista that are not mature yet. Vista on the other hand has a much bigger memory footprint than xp and more overhead, so don't expect any FPS increases with vista and current dx9 graphics cards.DX10 will not change the quality much, the only improvement for fsx with dx10 will be the higher datarate throughput so you will see less pop-up and that kind of problems. I can't see that a game that uses only part of shaders 2.0 abilities will all of a sudden use everything of shader3.0. That would require one huge patch.Waiting for new cpu's will not help either, as fsx is a single threaded affair and the trend for the coming years is upping the number of cores instead of the mhz..The makers of FSX should listen to the justified complaints and make sure that FS11 does make use of multi-core and all the capabilities of graphics cards at that time. I will hapily hand over my money again to MS if they do that.So if anyone involved with fsx reads this : Think of all the complaints as constructive and make sure fs11 is what fsx was promised to be. I and i think many people with me, would happily hand over double the price for a real state of the art product. The current fsx is a state of the Previous year game, sadly.

Sick and tired of reading the silly logic that instances in flightsim can't be cut to run on multiple cores and then joined back again. Any Level-D simulator cuts a flight instance into 4 or more seperate compters and joins back again to give the pilot one flight instance!! 1. Had MS re-wrote the archaic code then FDE could have been in one core, GUI in other core tied to GPU core. The performance would have been amazing. We could have had much better flight dynamics with better and more detailed look up tables. 2. CPU power is always limited, why in the world MS wanted to show us the billy goat that too borrowed from zoo tycoon? The fact is with this version MS has moved away from flightsimulation to world simulation-a la GOD without ofcourse having the efficiency and programming skills of GOD.Why do I whine? Well why not? I spent for years every avialble free hour on this hobby. Staying awake whole night just to fly in vatsim with my friends in US. Delaying my company's IPO (yes serious as that) because of lack of time in actual work. Ignoring kids and wife and what have you. Right now for the last 8 days building 4 computers of various configs just to test out which one will run fsx the fastest!! Does MS ever feel what it makes us folks go through? Just days before launch they discover thread priority settings, to cut time they borrow graphics from old outdated games-looks like a venture of some teen age kids operating out of a garage on dad's credit card budget than the world's largest software company!!

>Personally I'm hoping that we have another AvSim boycott, a>la FS98. Or was it FS2000? Anyway, that was awesome.Why, does the truth hurt that much?I have FSX purely because I am flightsimming most of the day and wanted to see what it was like? Now, I wish I'd saved my money!I spent 4 hours loading and activating it yesterday including four calls to the useless support dept in the UK.Never had that problem before with ANY other game!My verdict after three years of development.................Very very poor.I always thought that the title of ACES was an acolade to people who are experts? At

>You have a good point but what will we do if Mircosoft drops>FS? You think another company will put a product that would>equal the current FS titles? I think not. Before we go crazy>and bash the hard working people at Aces we should atleast>wait until DX10 and Vista or atleast wait a few months for new>hardware. We all need to take a chill pill and just relax,>let's not make enemies with the people who spend so much time>and passion to make all this possible.It's not up to the 'so-called' ACES to drop Flightsim it's up to MIcrosoft and now, I would think that they won't be best pleased that ACES? have turned out this joke, for us mugs to buy.Not including the money that we have spent our hard earned money on dual-core and new hardware only to be told that it's no good for FSX.Oh well, it's not the first time I have been caught, I suppose?

I hope it *is* the last we see from Microsoft. I hope someone else can get a foot up and become a viable competitor and dust the asses of the M$ team and then we'll see a flight simulator worthy of the name. How perverse to make a product for tomorrow when we want to use it today. And then when we can run it tomorrow, to introduce another version that will work sometime in the distant future.Imagine if all software worked that way. Why not do your best to make a program that works on todays hardware and let tomorrow take care of itself. Taildragger you're losing the plot. Don't forget, people have shelled out money for this product and are entitled to complain if they are not happy. And as for 'Groundhog Day'. When FS2004 the only proble I had there was the volumetric cloud setting. Other than that it flew well. . . .nothing like this time around.

Well we have:X-PlaneFlight GearThe old Fly!2 code3 projects that are not quite as sophisticated as FS9.5 (FS9.1 plus the 3rd party add-ons)or FS-X but in a world where the Microsoft Flight Simulator is gone these projects and their source code are readily available for a new player in the market. With Microsoft gone there is even more money to be made for the current competitors or a new flightsim publisher.There are already add-ons that let you import FS9 scenery into X-Plane (there was some Beta software from the same developer that did this for Fly!2). PMDG started by making add-ons for Fly. There is an emerging add-on market for X-Plane.I would still prefer a good working modern FS-X (that does support dual/quad cores and Shader Model 3) with adequate FPS. When Microsoft can't deliver this to me and decides to throw in the towel or switches to making FS-X 360 for X-Box thats a shame but I would rather have them quit the flightsim buisness then go making half a*ssed efforts that waste my time and money.

Dave,There doesn't seem to be much UK banter on these boards unfortunately. Its interesting to read that the UK experience wasn't very good and I can't understand why it would take you 4 hours to load the sim? I can understand how the UK support dept might give you hassle but as a UK representative I'd just like to say my experience of loading and activating were fine, and done in less than 15 mins.Its fortunate that my experience went okay, and I hope the other UK customers don't have a problem either but I must say I haven't been anything other than impressed with the experience(s) I'm getting from FSX, it's blown me away.Maybe I'm easy to please I don't know but either way I feel your frustration. If my setup had taken that long I'd have posted an angry message just like yours.Why are there faulty codes out there? How does that happen?Nels