Very good post!Just one correction though:"The facts are most can't run FSX in all it's glory right now above 6-10fps"...is not accurate. It is true you can not run FSX at a new highly detailed airport, or highly detailed city in all it's glory without getting 8-10 fps. But you can run it everywhere else (which is the majority of the world) and get great fps-and all the astonishing improvements.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>>but I don't think I've seen a single post stating that "everything" about it is greatThere is a couple guys in here both with names starting with the letter "G" that think FSX was delivered from on high by Christ himself and nobody better dare speak badly of it. I cannot fathom how some MS a really excited user keep blabbering that FSX is the best thing out there??? Who wants to buy FSX if you have to fly out in the bush with everything turned down just so you can get it over 20 frames?? This mentality that it will get better in time when hardware catches up in about a year is flawed. Why waste fruitless time over the next year with it then? Why not stay with FS9 like I am and upgrade in a year or so? Oh because the birds in FSX are great and the visuals are just sooooo special... ya whatever, that is subjective at best. Objective is the crap performance the castle in Redmond gave us.By the by, Jon D, awesome post! I now return to the FS9 forum, good day.

Yeah-heaven forbid someone speaks the truth without hurling insults!..and by the way-the bush pilot mantra/slogan isn't accurate either-you left out GA pilots which are the majority of air traffic at least in the United States (60% vs. 40 commercial airlines). I believe the other user you are refering to name begins with a J-so it appears you are not accurate here either...Since you bring up religion which I think is innapropriate-are there as many on the fs9 board trying to rabidly convert users to give up fs9 as there are here trying to trash fsx (and I am not speaking of legitimate complaints)?Didn't think so...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

"There is a couple guys in here both with names starting with the letter "G" that think FSX was delivered from on high by Christ himself and nobody better dare speak badly of it.":-lol

Keep in mind that there are probably a lot of us not saying much because we know our hardware can't handle FSX with acceptable performance. It's frustrating because it's not as simple as just buying a new motherboard/CPU or upgrading the graphics card - any upgrades (at least the graphics card) may be throw away money because we don't have hardware available for DX10.I always thought MS made most of their sales to casual users with off the shelf hardware like HP or COMPAQ. Will FSX even run on those types of PC's?Dale

"Since you bring up religion which I think is innapropriate-are there as many on the fs9 board trying to rabidly convert users to give up fs9 as there are here trying to trash fsx (and I am not speaking of legitimate complaints)?"Geofa this statement has nothing to do with anything... I don't understand why you wasted time writing it... FS9 is an established sim that's had its day when it was released. You guys do a very good comparable job starting whole threads calling people 'whiners'... No you

1) I have not called anyone a whiner or stupid and I didn't start this thread (another innacurracy?!)-I have however called some people rude and insulting ...and they were/are. Their posts speak for themselves. 2)I respect your opinion-why can't you accept mine. "Ranting" as you call it over a piece of software you don't own and saying I am in denial, -is there a reason for this? I mean-honestly-I really don't care if you like fsx or not-why does it seem to be so important on your end to convince others that they will not? I think they can make up their own minds. It does bother me though when statements are made that just are not true...which leads me to:Your post is again full of inaccuracies -I never told people "to turn off autogen"-I posted that the sim looks great without it and one can get xplane like perfomance this way. I posted shots with my frames of all three to demonstrate this-seems to have been helpful to some.I did not post that you can not fly over cities and major aiports-I posted that the new highly rendered airports/cities (I think there are about 40) will drop your frame rates to 8-10. There are a lot more major cities/airports in the world than that last I looked....Your beta tester innuendo ....oh my....I would like to appologize for being an aviation/flight sim enthusiast though if that is helpful.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Please!Will those who "don't like FSX and will never, ever buy it, or have bought it and taken it back already..."PLEASE migrate to the FS9 forum?Let those of us who do like FSX use this forum to help othere who do like FSX exchange information, tips and tweaks?Thank you in advance for your cooperation..." ;)

I have to comment on this boshar:>Afraid that>Microsoft will pull out of the flightsim market. The thing is>that judging from the state in which FS-X is released now I'm>seriously thinking it would not be a great loss.Are you kidding? There NO other civilian flight sims out there which are even close to filling the shoes of FS.And I have to say to everybody with poor performance- poor performance is NOT a bug that can be 'fixed' by programmers without simply removing features. It will be fixed by better hardware. I have turned down the graphics, and it still looks better than FS9. The flight models have been improved as well- It doesn't seem as touchy with the pitch. FSX is a great leap forward, but will naturally take some time to catch up to.

I do own FSX.It doesn't run worth a darn on my machine, unless all the sliders are to the left. So be it! I suppose I need a better machine.Compared to FS9, what really does anoy me is the lack of larger lakes, larger islands and poor coastline. You would have thought MS could have at least put something out equal to FS9 in that respect.Call it whining if you like, but I can't afford to spend a lot of money trying to get coastlines and lakes in FSX to look as good as FS9.Guess I'll be stuck with FS9. Guess that's not such a bad thing.!

I just need to make it clear: I don't even have FSX yet, but I do value the opinions of the community as a whole. If someone with a Core Duo, latest graphics card, 2 gigs of ram, etc. is having performance issues, I stand up and notice. I don't expect to run the sim with full sliders right, but I do expect to run it at medium settings without such nagging "features" as stuttering and blurries.But what really gets me about these "wah wah whiners!" posts is that someone has the audacity to say that YOUR opinion of the sim running on YOUR equipment is somehow invalid just because it's not fluffy bunny happy fun ball. Everyone has different standards. There was a great post recently about an individual making a long flight at single digit FPS and loving every minute of it. According to his personal standards, it was wonderful, and that's great! I personally couldn't stand it but that's just me. I don't presume to tell that person what he can and can't enjoy, and I certainly think it's presumptuous to corral all the posters with negative things to say about the sim into one group stamped "whiner".Heck, I just might be one of them come tomorrow.

The thing about those calling negative posters 'whiners' is that as yet, not one has offered valid counter arguments to the problems legit posters have stated. They just say you are a 'whiner' and say FS is great and thats it. To me, that's no more valid than people using the childish FSux or Microsux thing. That's ridiculous behavior on both counts. As for buying a $3000 machine, well I suspect those that think we're stupid for doing so only wish they could afford to themselves. I agree, there are alot of things to like in FSX. And yes, performance in remote areas is more than acceptable. After adding an extra Gig of RAM, I notice less stutters and better texture loading. Like I said, there ARE alot of things to like. But performance is terrible anywhere but the boonies. And that just isn't acceptable. (And I say this after spending $130 for extra RAM, using FSAutostart, running a clean gaming profile upon startup, regular defrags, spyware removal, and registry mechanic.) (Did I mention using tweaks too? LOL)I do have some questions I would love to see answered by someone on the other side of this argument:1. How does it make sense to say this sim is designed for hardware 3 years down the road? What's the point? Should we just wait three years then? Won't there be another FS by then? Do you plan on buying a computer in 2/3 years for FSX--or do you think it would be with FSXI in mind?2. How did 6-10 FPS ever become acceptable? Microsoft states that with the best hardware available today you can get FSX halfway. How did halfway become acceptable?3. If FS is never going to utilize multi-cores, how will it ever be able to run full out? What about SLI/Crossfire utilization?4. Do you have Ground Environment Pro? Flight Environment? Active Sky 6? If so, do you really think that FSX with all those sliders handing left looks better right now? If so, would you be interested in seeing side by side comparisons? Not saying you have to buy those three things--only that for now FS9 with those installed is better, and most importantly runs better than FSX. (In fairness, it would cost $110 to get all three installed on FS9--and that's alot, but then I spent $130 on a RAM upgrade to a 3 month old computer, so I say its even?!) Realize, I'm not arguing that the default 2004 looks better than FSX. Of course it doesn't. And maybe it isn't fair to say that with $110 worth of addons, FS9 looks better. To me, the important issue is *performance* in all areas, and all phases of flight. And right now after owning FSX for a week, I can make FS9 look AND perform better than FSX. 5. Do you think intensive 3rd party software has room to run on FSX? Think we'll ever see PMDG release the MD-11 on FSX? Think it would run smoothly?6. Repetitive question, but I really want this one answered:How many other game developers have ever stated that their game is designed for hardware 3 years down the line? How is it right to create and market a game with these amazing visuals and yet make it so that without going at a slideshow pace, you'll never see those visuals on your computer screen? Whew! I'm honestly asking someone with a different point of view than I to answer those questions (Tdragger perhaps?). I look forward to the response.

You speak the truth! I agree with every one of your points. What moron designs a simulator for a computer yet to be manufactured. Why sell it to us now? For all the hype of the ACES team listening to the community, it's pretty clear they've got something stuck in the ears. They've clearly ignored the #1 request---> Good FPS and smoothness.I guess I'm a "whiner" because I'm not even 30% happy with the sim and I bought a $3800 computer just to run it. And I DID try to take it back to the store. If you've opened a software package at GameStop, they won't let you return it unless you get the identical item. So, could those of you telling the "whiners" to take it back find something more intelligent to say? If you're happy with our new "scenery simulator" that really impresses me. I don't see how a stuttering 10-20 FPS can give any simluation of flight.

Haven't seen this much religous battleing since the Pro-Pilot versus FS98 days! And it's all for something that doesn't even really fly...:-lol

Pike, excellent points, excellent indeed. I suggest you copy/paste that and send it in the email that tdragger wants us to send reports to.