After 11 hours of testing FSuX I see it as a $70 texture package with some very nicely done new aircraft. The trouble with that concept is that I'm not even sure I like the new texture tiles. Very often the tiles come together to form a hideous looking jigsaw puzzle. The landclass in many places is just dead wrong; the deserts are bright yellow, places that are jungle in Africa are semi-arid plains and one more time, the water textures are way off. I get the impression that the scenery was designed to look exciting, not realistic.Well, you say, there will be add-ons to improve all that. Well, I say in return, what was the point of buying FSuX?I've had 11 hours of flying FSuX and I just kept asking myself, what exactly has the ACES team been doing up there for three years? I think MS really screwed up this time when they ignored their core market in favor of the wider gaming market.FSuX goes street in the USA in 2 more days and I predict this forum will become a very noisy place.

Did you notice the multiplayer with shared cockpits, tower view, missions, smoother gauge response , multiple views and head latency, better flight models, new avionics (g1000,stec autopilot), sharper vc views and faster instrument response there, ability to save multiple cfgs depending on the performance you want, new detailed airports of shareware quality....Just some differences off of the top of my head that have nothing to do with textures...You might want to check out some of my real compared to fsx pictures in the screenshot forum as far as how it compares to reality.By the way-I agree on the water. I leave it at 1x not for performance-I just don't think the fancy water effects look that real.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Your "creative" misspelling of FSX in the title competely destroys any credibility to the content of your post.

The trouble is there are potential fixes that are tantalisingly mentioned by people but not broadcast in detail.I've heard that the landclass can be imported from UT, which would be a major improvement (I'm supposing), and that the cloud textures from Activesky an be imported. It seems FS204 aircraft can be imported, and I suspect that general ground texture files can be imported (converted first, I guess, to the new format) from Ground envronment, which would mean that you can have the looks and maybe closer to the speed of FS2004 with the mesh and cockpits of FSX.I'm hoping the knowledge will be shared (if the processes are possible) so we can get there in the end.Persoanllly, I'm torn. I can get it to run kind of accepibley, and I do like the look of it (more solid, somehow). I like the touches like trees around the fields and the traffic on the roads, but there's too much blurring too soon, and the landclass is not so good.FS2004 with UT and GE and a good mesh, looks better, but only over a certain altitude. I find the autogen too basic, and the ground textures a bit too blurry all even close up. Maybe we can find a solution by either bringing stuff from FS2004 in, or moving from FSX back to FS2004 (though I'm betting that is;t possible).

I agree with MasterBlaster in the following area:"FSX goes street in the USA in 2 more days and I predict this forum will become a very noisy place."I think this forum will be full of very dramatic comments by mid-week .......

I'm glad I won't have any internet access for at least a week starting tomorrow. I'm not sure my heart could take it :-) .Doug

>Your "creative" misspelling of FSX in the title competely>destroys any credibility to the content of your post.Amen, Brother Bigun!!If someone were to walk up to me and begin addressing me as "Hey stupid" They better doggone -well be a good aquaintance.Now MasterBlaster, there are alot of new or seriously revamped features in FSX, and the VCs are drop dead gorgeous for default aircraft, surely you can see that? If you think that the FS dev team wasted 3 years + making a "$70 texture package", then you must chop down the largest tree in these woods, with a herring!-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifHappy Flying!

Gotta are with the other guy--you can't use childish terms here and expect to be treated as credible. ####, I've logical arguments about FSX's problems and been belittled. I'd edit it now and save yourself the trouble.....

>Your "creative" misspelling of FSX in the title competely>destroys any credibility to the content of your post.Why would my "creative misspelling" affect the credibility of my content?By the way, I didn't coin the expression FSuX, I wish I did. It's already in widespread use throughout the internet and if you haven't seen it yet you likely spend all of your time here.

>Your "creative" misspelling of FSX in the title competely>destroys any credibility to the content of your post.Why would my "creative misspelling" affect the credibility of my content?By the way, I didn't coin the expression FSuX, I wish I did. It's already in widespread use throughout the internet and if you haven't seen it yet you likely spend all of your time here.

Darn it!I'm sorry for double posting, I press the Post Message button once and nothing seems to happen so I press it again.That will be the last time.

I have to say I disagree, I like it, the tower controller option and shared cockpit is great fun. I like the way everything looks now. One thing I am disappointed about is the rain on the glass, there isn't any, why drop that ACES? But so far I've not been disappointed, and FSX automatically hiked a lot of the general display settings to about 75%, and still flyable, which to me is more important than FPS counter.

If someone were to walk up to me and begin addressing me as "Hey stupid" They better doggone -well be a good aquaintance.Obviously you would but there is one very important difference: he's addressing a THING. Don't take it so personally.

First off, I have to say that I do not have FSX...yet. I imagine sometime over the next few weeks, I will join the masses. I read a fair bit about multiplayer and multplayer experience is what I enjoy the most. If not for that, you might as well play solitaire. What really annoys me the most about this release is the rewrite on the multiplayer. I know the time had come for a rewrite but where do we do multiplayer now? And don't even try to tell me GameSpy!!! I'm not knocking it, but we have run our own FSHost server for our VA for sometime. If I upgrade, I cannot fly with my friends.That is like Microsoft creating a new version of Microsoft Office and saying that it cannot open any documents from a previous version. If they had to upgrade the multiplayer, at least they could have incorporated some form of interface so that you could fly with FS9 users. We still get together with some FS2002 users. If upgrading means I can no longer fly my usual shared skies...I won't be running for my copy.My two cents,ChuckCYXU

:-roll..really?..:-rollThanks Len. :-)-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifCurrent system:Pentium 4 Cedar Mill 641 (3.40GHz), Abit AW8D, Gigabyte GeForce 7900GTX (512MB DDR3 PCI-Express x16),Corsair XMS2 Pro 2GB PC2 6400 (DDR2 800), 2 SeaGate Barracuda 250GB hard drives, Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumKlipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 speakers, NEC 20" CRT, Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2Please note: System specs are for reference in tech forums only and are not to be taken as meaning anything else.Doing so will result in eye-rolling, possible teeth grinding and perhaps mild internal chuckling.Happy Flying!