It's the same 4-5 people who are generating 90% of the whine, no surprise there, and no big deal. I have no problem with opinions which differs from mine, but the constant repeating odd rhetoric is sometimes just...mind-boggling. It's hard to try to understand what they think they are getting from it. It's the internet alright...

Great support post 'TDragger', why don't you answere the questions posted below instead of giving Bill a pat on the back??? We are all ears... :-)

Yeah-its kinda fun to relive it again! http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Want an easy way to stop the 'rhetoric'? Try answering or having a take on the questions I posted. That'd be a start.

Dillon you don't live in Blain do you... I remember Minneapolis got the bill for the last stadium back in the 80's. Now the state of Minnesota, the county, and the city of Blain will take part financially in the new stadium. The Vikings have their own jet and millions worth of a yearly budget. It's certainly not fare tax payers who aren't even sports fans are forced to cover the cost. For what they pay the players the Vikings could build their own stadium. I could go on and on about where and how the money could be better used but that's a whole other topic for another place. We are certainly not that fanatical and command that kind of revenue. I also feel people in this community would carry the weight and not force the public to pay for our hobby. Every season the Vikings have excuses, I could see if they went to the Super Bowel. I remember Dillon you don't live in Blain do you... I remember Donte Culpepper stating if they got a new stadium they'd go to the Super Bowel... What is this now extortion??? Yes the FS community is a better place, fights and all... :-)

I'll try Pike, just copied and pasted them, reading for the first time now.>>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?<<1. You're right, it shouldn't be like that.2. I don't get 6 - 10 FPS anywhere even with full sliders, see my post further down the forum or in the screenshot forum.3. Have no idea what you're talking about, I don't know computers that well.4. No, I don't have ground env. pro or fepro, but I've heard great things about them, anyway I can't answer that, and either can the majority of those who have read your challenge I'm guessing, which is probably why I imagine no one has been able to respond. I do have AS6 however, and I'm able to use it in FSX with no drop in frames. Also, I'm not sure if FSX looks better with all that stuff, but if I had to guess I would say, probably.5. Yes, I stand by PMDG in all their work, I definitely think we'll see the MD-11 available for FSX as well as their 747, they are awesome at what they do and they will deliver.JeffJust want to say that I've answered all questions honestly, for queston # 2, please ask me for a screenshot anywhere in the world so I can prove it, Manhattan and London might be pushing that number however.

I'll give some of these a shot:First, I've been on here for 9 years and I'm in one of my posting phases. I usually just read the fun. I've been through Pro-pilot, Fly, Fly 2 and FS9 releases. I'm working full time from home for a large company and have plenty of time on the internet as I daycare my infant and 2 year old. I registered on Avsim many years ago, but recently got divorced and stopped simming for over a year. My logon no longer worked so I re-registerd last year just in case some may ignore me due to my register date and number of posts. I'm one of those who prefers to feed his family rather than own a 3000 dollar maching, but I've never complained about someone else buying one. Jealous, yes, I'm sorry my wife and I can't afford one to meet your high status. Sorry about that. I'll try to find a better job.1)I got a machine (500 dollars + 400 in upgrades over 2 years) to run default FS9 about a year and 1/2 after release, it still can't run well with all the add-ons, especially over a city. Who knows what hardware will come in the next year or so, but considering the rate of advancement we could me maxed out in a year even with all the add-ons. Then again maybe not...only the future will tell.2)6-10 is not acceptable, but it's been like that for many of the releases initially (FS9 had stutters and the clouds and autogen were killers), at least for me. FSX seems a better performer at lower fps than FS9 and previous releases so at least that's good news as it lowers the bar a bit. Seems some are getting good performance at better than halfway. Patience and tweaking are the key. May not be for all, but some are persistent.3)The multicore conundrum is interesting. Multicore best suits multitasking which should bode well for some add-ons like ASV and Radar contact. Question is, how do you multicore a sequential program like FS? It would be a bottlenecking nightmare at least from my understanding. Technology may solve this problem, the competition between AMD and Intel is good for the consumer. Multicore is not the answer to the brick wall in processor speed, then again if I knew what was I'd work for AMD and intel, or at least giving them a call, maybe then I could afford that 3000 dollar machine.4)110 dollars worth of add-ons better make fs9 look as good if not better than FSX. Problem is, I can't fly over a city with those add-ons even in FS9. I can't, but then again I can't afford a 3000 dollar computer, the CFO keeps denying my request. Also, for those who fly in areas not covered by those add-ons, would you say they use FS9 or FSX? Which looks better?5)Who knows....they don't run smooth on FS9 for me, why would I expect them to run smooth in FSX? Not a dig on the developers but just my current situation as I'm not good enough to own a 3000 dollar computer, though I really wish I could afford one.6)I don't think MS markets the game that way. The developers have been open and honest in stating how they design the game. The FS marketing I've seen does not use this in their ad-campaign. I didn't see the full sliders in FS9 until....and I don't expect it in FSX either. Then again, who can say what the next year or so will bring?7)All this arguing over FSX and FS9 seems counter productive, the name calling is childish and the assumptions are asinine. Seriously, why the vindictive responses on both sides? Some are enjoying FSX some are not. Why is everyone so concerned with everyone else? I've been through 5 terrible two stages with 4 different children, I have 5 teenagers (2 live with me), a 2 year old and an infant. I could have them all type posts in the forum these days and no one would be the wiser. These whining, not whining, he said this that guy said that, would you stop touching me, he hit me, he took my toy etc......Okay ranting over. This dad is resting and awaiting his chance to either love or hate FSX... Christ is coming on Wendesday to hand deliver it.Did I say the nicotine patch is beginning to lose it's potency? 24 hour time release my A##.Ian.

>My view is that, like most things in life, it's a matter of>two steps forward, one back. In the end, we're getting closer>to an imaginary goal, but it's all a great adventure.>>Personally, I love the new graphics, the new ground vehicles>and the new multiplayer mode. Sure, MS have almost completely>ignored AI and we've still got the dreaded "five minutes",>plus slow taxi speeds etc. Not to mention the very (very) odd>switch of active runways which meant I almost collided with a>Gulfstream head-on coming in to land while taking off from the>same runway! But it is supposed to be fun, isn't it?Hey! The switching of runways doesn't just happen in the sim. I was flying some friends around Tucson (real life) and was going to do a stop-n-go at KTUS. The tower controller moved me from runway to runway four different times before settling me into an approach opposite an MD-80. My friends were a little nervous, but I let them know that we would be contacted any moment, and sure enough I was about 1/2 mile out when they moved me to the parallel runway 11R. Soooooo, maybe MS didn't get it wrong after all? ( a little humor?)Take care!Johnny

PikeDo 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?It would be a pleasure to answer this one. I had a number of problems when I first used FSX Deluxe some 1 1/2 weeks ago. It took a number of tweakings to get some semblance of decent frame rates flying out of KSEA. This is with an unfortunate loss of even a credible amount of decent ai traffic (15% and it's quite barren) no autogen, etc. My settings have been posted in other threads.I love the lights in Ultimate Terrain, US/Canada and Alaska. So I ported it over to FSX, shut off all the settings in the config except lighting. Started up at KSEA and I was literally faced with a slide show. I got stuck looking certain ways until it finished redrawing. I finally managed to gimp into the air at a paltry 8fps and it got so bad, with the 737 stuttering and frames dropping to 1 and .5, lol! whenever I turned towards the city that it was completely unflyable. A mess would be a better description. Those lights, whenever my plane stuttered though, were just beautiful - that was UT. On FS9 with full tilt graphics, full config of UT and any PMDG product I'd get beautiful views and nice frame rates.So what do I think of addons and FSX. I will not buy them. I use to be a huge purchaser of them but it's finished. This version will cripple things like UT, FE, or render them a shell of what THEY could be.P4 3.6 GHz HT, 1 gig ddr ram, ATI x800XT PCIe 256 mb.

>How did you actually measure who is in minority?>''per his note ... he did a small sampling of notes in the forums .. comparing positive to negative comments .Regards,Vernon

UT was released for FSX already? And people were worried that their favourite add-ons wouldn't be ready for a year. Nice! Go figure. I guess performance isn't that good? UT works well for me in FS9 except near cities. Maxed sliders, nah, but close. I have to drop a few things down to fly over a city, doesn't look as good but I'm used to it. Ian.

UT was released for FSX already? And people were worried that their favourite add-ons wouldn't be ready for a year. Nice! Go figure. I guess performance isn't that good? UT works well for me in FS9 except near cities. Maxed sliders, nah, but close. I have to drop a few things down to fly over a city, doesn't look as good but I'm used to it.No it isn't released yet. I simply ported it over. When Installing I simply pointed it at FSX and then added it in the scenery section. As I stated I didn't want anything except the lights. So I turned everything else off.

Oh, ok. Well, maybe when they release the FSX version they'll come up with something. Here's hoping.Ian.

>Yeah-its kinda fun to relive it again! >http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgYes, just like old times! :DJust loaded up the "ready for sale" version. With auto-gen off, and water effects off,('cause I'm going to fly around 30,000') but all mesh at near max or close too, the flight out of Seattle up over the mountains to Mt. St. Helens went very smooth. Maintained close to my fps limit of 30 the entire flight. Very fluid (thought I was flying X-Plane :)) and no stutters what so ever. It was in the CJ, and a very good sensation of flight. What I did notice, is that loading times were far faster than previously. Since I actually am a "mountain man", the default's mesh is quite good, and added terrain mesh will only get better. Then perhaps this sim is just what I might want. As with FS9, mesh scenery only had small fps hit's. I'll make an assumption that it might be the same here. L.Adamson-- Athlon64 3800 2gig/Geforce7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32

You are still a shill without a doubt-how dare you enjoy the sim!..(me too)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/...t.jpg:-beerchug