Sorry, which questions are you referring to?

Shhh! How may times have I told you two? No one's supposed to be enjoying FSX. Keep it under you hats. They're patrolling the forums! They'll find you! :)

tdragger these 2 are both GA flyers. It's not surprising.

Have you noticed the irony of people slamming MS and advocating FS9?Erm who was the publisher of FS9 again, I've forgotten...

"Erm who was the publisher of FS9 again, I've forgotten..." It was SubLogic if I remember correctly... :(

>I have to comment on this boshar:>>Are you kidding? There NO other civilian flight sims out>there which are even close to filling the shoes of FS.That's tunnel vision. I have always had other civilian flightsimulators on my PC. Take a serious look at X-Plane 8.5 sure its not the same as FS9 - FSX but there is a lot of unique charm and there are features that we don't have in the Microsoft FS series. If Microsoft where to quit the civilian flight sims scene it would leave a hole in which an investor or distributor (just imagine the stakes for Flight1, Aerosoft and Just Flight for example) could jump with extra funding and resources to catch the marketshare left by Microsoft.>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. Not while FS-X doesn't profit from dual-cores / quad-cores. The single highclocked core is on its way out. As long as the FS engine doesn't profit from multi-cores it will not scale and it will not perform the way you imagine in 2 years. (using just 1 of 4 cores that are still clocked around the same Mhz that singlecores are clocked now will not profit you in any way)

>>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/ FS has always pushed the envelope, FS9 had crappy fps too when it first came out remember?2/no it's not great, but unlike FS9 it's flyable at that instead of choppy as heck.3/at least not this version, I too wish they'd completely lose backwards compatibility for the next version and start from scratch. SLI/Crossfire shouldn't need anything from the program, it just uses the memory of both cards sharing the frames, so should run at twice the rate of a single card. That won't translate to twice the FPS of course but should improve it a bit.4/ no with all the sliders full left it wouldn't look that great, but I run them around 40% which I have to be honest does look fantastic. I'd love to see them full right but right now that's not gonna happen.5/ PMDG get better each release on FPS, maybe they can make the MD11 use the second core if we have one, then quite possibly, we'll just have to wait on release for that.Sure FSX isn't perfect, nothing ever is, remember though that FSX handles the whole world, your not going to get the fps out of something handling thousands of AI objects, try this, run BF2 and download the AIbot changer for it, whack the bots up to 20 or more and watch how choppy it suddenly gets. It's not even playable anymore, and that was on a 3Ghz system with an ATI X800. So as you see, no game will run flat out unless it's pretty old, or designed with low spec PC's in mind.The way I see it is you've got 2 choices:1/ hang on to FS9 and wait till FSX runs smoothly before buying it.2/ Buy FSX and enjoy it for what it is capable of.I chose the latter, I had my doubts from reading the forums and considered re-installing FS9 and forgetting it, having pre-ordered it I knew I would at least try it. I'm not at all disappointed overall, yes there are a couple of bugs, one of which I've seen and e-mailed tdragger about, probably others I've not even seen yet. I'm disappointed that although Landmark's callsign is there but not their livery. I'm upset they yet again left out the Thames Barrier. But with the fps I always get over London it doesn't really matter anyway, incidentally I never did get even halfway decent fps over London in FS9, at least I could fly FSX.

Not sure how you are qualified to say who is the minority or the majority with regards to the experience that people are having?? I like to leave things neutral myself and see a lot of good and a lot of bad in this new version. I think their priorities should be a dx10 patch and a multi-thread upgrade patch ASAP. In its current state, it will do nobody any good in the future if CPU development is headed in the multi-core area. Let's not resort to calling people whiners or a really excited user though as I can get that type of thing on the hardware forums over at tomshardware.com. I certainly dont need to see it here amongst the adults.

>1/ FS has always pushed the envelope, FS9 had crappy fps too>when it first came out remember?This is a wrong statment.Why is it that this always comes up? It is widely known that FS2004 actually had better performances than FS2002. The big issue was that the backcompability was awful, with black ND

>tdragger these 2 are both GA flyers. It's not surprising.He, he, GA flying is what "bored" airliner captains go back to, if they're still interested in flying around retirement age. :D Not talking Cessna 172's and Piper Warriors here, but rather high performance kitplane/homebuilt's that many of these people spend a few years putting together. I've been in the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) for many years, and there is a high population of retired commercial & military pilots who like getting closer to the ground this time around----but fast!RV's, Lancairs, Glasairs, Harmon Rockets, F1's with or without glass panels are the norm. But it's still GA!L.Adamson

I have to admit that I am one of those individuals who have found FSX to be less than all of the hype made it out to be. I will agree that the graphics are nicer, but as usual it comes at a cost, which as usual is our money falling into the sales register as we are forced to upgrade our machines.We return to two versions, why? Although there are more aircraft they really are the same sad old versions, especially when you compare them even to the freeware that is available, for instance the Tinmouse 737's. can they not programme some form of FMS for the heavies?I sat here comparing the release to that of AOE 3 last year, when it instantly needed patching to dispel some of the issues. Now up to 1.09, so something was not finished and often we seem to have to pay to be unofficial 'beta testers' of software.I read where people say, well in two years time the PC's will have caught up; what just in time for Flight Simulator 11. Things change we all want more, but then the shelf full of commercial add ons suddenly becomes worthless. Take heart though FS9 ones will soon be coming out at fabulous prices as in the past.Looking at the way the graphics are going, with this and other recent games make me wonder how much work is actually going on to make it acceptable to the X-Box market. A question, now who owns that? This is often apparent that subtle changes are made to software for that purpose, for instance Ghost Recon and other similar programs become more shoot-em-up rather than needing the thought input as before.It is also interesting to see that some things will be much better running under Vista. Conspiracy or what?I have bought each version of FS in the past, I even bought a PC when FS5 came out as it was not produced for the Amiga, but this time it lasted less trhan an afternoon as I returned it to the store for a refund. Luckily as installing I thought that I had not dumped the 90gb of FS9.I would love to see what can be achieved on a 1ghz pc, FS98 or what?So I shall wait and doubtless will invest in the software again in the future as things like patches appear and find it on the second hand shelves for half the price as people get it from Santa and find it does not suit the purpose, an expensive slide viewer in the worst scenario.I just wish that people would not see honest thoughts, whether or not they are gripes, for what they are personal impressions and not just be insulting.Oh one question, why could I not close the menu bar and why do the brakes keep saying on despite checking that my CH pedals are cfalibrated?So do not fly too close to the sun.John

I think you'll find that a large portion of bored airliner pilots fly gliders, at least that's been my experience much of the time, since gliding offers a challenge that can't be solved by pushing the throttle forward :-)

Staffan you are right. Fs9 on default settings or slightly lower would run smooth on my machine and I didn't even have start of the art. FSX perf is not comparable. I'm not sure why people dismiss all this as being "normal" cause I see nothing "normal" here with 7 FPS.

Interesting that the Microsoft representative here on the forum would choose to crack a joke instead of seriously answering the questions.

What questions? If a person's PC isn't up to running the software because of a lack of RAM, slow processor or graphics card that isn't up to snuff, the only question that poses is why are you trying to run a dragster on unleaded?It's no secret that the recommended specs for software printed on boxes is and always has been akin to something written by the Brothers Grimm. the top and bottom of it is that it will run on those spec machines, but as ever with flight simming, you're always pushing the envelope in terms of the kind of computer you need to run the latest product. FSX is no different in that respect to the latest Doom, Far Cry, or whatever software you care to name, moreso with a massive 3D environment like FS offers.You just have to get your hand in your pocket and accept the fact that cutting edge flight simming, is, and always has been tough on your pocket.