Well Ian, its obvious you took the $3000 computer part personally. I took it a little personal too when people starting calling me 'stupid' for buying the thing before the release of FSX. Of course it I truly were 'stupid' I wouldn't be much of a businessman and therefore unable to afford such luxuries as $3000 computers. That is where I was coming from with my 'jealously' post--not attacking good folks who can't afford such wasteful things.Let me clarify it further: I never called people who can't afford a top of the line rig "Poor losers". Only that people who criticize those of us with these machines as 'stupid' are likely just jealous and little else. And another thing Ian: Don't wax poetic about "why does everyone have to be vindictive" and "why's everyone acting like a child" and then be a smart a$$ throughout your entire post about the $3000 computer thing. You could have just posted your response and have been done with it. but oh no, you gotta take your digs. Gentility aside, you know what? If I had 6 kids, I think I'd be spending more time with my kids and less time being a smart a$$ on a forum. Of course us rich snobs would probably just send them to boarding school and be a smart a$$ anyway.

Pike. I mentioned this very thing in a post of mine in another thread several days ago.

Mr. Fox's website already has 2500 hits and the product was officially launched yesterday. Who are these happy bunnys and why are they tweaking fsx? Have we ever heard of any gaming software which requires so many changes and tweaks even before it is released??The tweaks have really helped, who were these happy bunny beta testers and why they could not suggest even these simple changes?? And...arent most of these testers now in the new avtaar-the MS a really excited user gang! Just because you beta test a product you dont have to defend the indefensible. MS should have some shame and give $20 out of every sale to Mr. Fox and others who tweaked and made a game playable in a few days time which the MS coders tried their best for 3 years to make it unplayable!!What big rocket science was required to give an option during istallation to run these batch files for "performance mode" installation or something like that??Eons back everytime my school results were delcared my dad would look at me in askance. My replies then was very MS like...Papa next year I am going to stand first in class! You see I was always built for next year!!

The

"Eh, don't sweat it, Bill. This is all very understandable and I suspect it'll settle out soon enough. Thanks for helping out provide focus, though!"I find this reply extremely patronising.I would really like FS*X to fulfil it's potential. I can see it's got potential but I don't much enjoy sitting and looking at potential, I'd much rather see results.What I don't understand is why does this game perform so badly even with sliders turned down.I loaded the 2nd demo on my friends new PC, he's heavily into gaming but not flight sims. He was appalled by what he saw in terms of graphics/eye candy vs.frame rates.He showed me some of the games he plays: FarCry, F.E.A.R, Call of Duty 2, etc. etc. all graphics maxed out and running at 50-60 fps.I tried FarCry on my 3 year old PC, it ran smoothly and the graphics were breathtaking. If you've never played it I highly reccommend it, you even get to fly a hang glider! The water effect is amazing!So, back to FS*X....... chug..chug..stutter.....stutter....stutter,just what is it that's eating up those frames, I just don't see those cutting edge graphics that I see in other PC games. I mean what's the big problem with the autogen? FarCry renders every blade of grass! let alone trees and animated animals, birds etc, amazing AI, effects.....Ciao, Il fanciullo

Dillon,In your post above you write - "It's really hard to say who has FSX installed with complete satisfaction (I will anyone professing something like that is very delusional to say the least but that

>So, back to FS*X.......>chug..chug..stutter.....stutter....stutter,>just what is it that's eating up those frames, I just don't>see those cutting edge graphics that I see in other PC games.>I mean what's the big problem with the autogen? FarCry renders>every blade of grass! let alone trees and animated animals,>birds etc, amazing AI, effects.....>With topography mesh at full or near full for every slider, I just nailed a near perpect 30 fps flight, which was stutterless from takeoff to landing, with the new retail version of FSX. I didn't fly out of a full-fleged airport with every building possible, but it still had many buildings and the control tower. The purpose of the flight, was to head over the mountains & check out the default mesh. The city below, was also one of the photo-real areas.Auto-gen was off, as well as water. But city scapes look great this way, as major 3D buildings are still there, but not a lot of look a like 3D houses. The whole look and textures were impressive!In fact, the retail version performs much better than the demos. Load time is also much faster.L.AdamsonAthlon64 3800/ 2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32 res.L.Adamson

Auto-gen was off, as well as water. But city scapes look great this way, as major 3D buildings are still there, but not a lot of look a like 3D houses. The whole look and textures were impressive!In fact, the retail version performs much better than the demos. Load time is also much faster.So you shut off two of the major features of FSX and got good frame rates? Are we supposed to be impressed with this? Ultimate Terrain, 70% ai traffic, mega additions, fsg mesh, full autogen and max settings for FS9 would give me a superior look by far to FSX stripped down and excellent fps in FS9 with addon planes like PMDG 737 or 747.P4 3.6 GHz HT, 1 gig ddr ram, X800XT PCIe 256 mb card.

I can't speak for Larry but as we both fly in the real world I think we are more interested in smooth flying, lack of stutters, smooth working gauges, and terrain that resembles and matches more what we see in the real world. As Larry mentioned in another thread one can get xplane like performance and a lack of stutters that I haven't seen in the FS series since fs4.Little lego houses and trees can look nice and add atmosphere-but the the actual flying part is what more interests me...However-if I am going to do some low flying I am prone to turn the autogen all the way to the max-and live with 15-25 fps-and it can also look great.If I want to do serious flying simulation I am prone to turn it off.It sure is nice to be able to save configs so you can do this rapidly!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

No way FS-X is a replacement for FS9 + addons.FS-X has some nice features, night flying, mountain flying, detailed VC, etc, but frame rate is very unacceptable too often. Its no replacement for FS9 plus a decent package like Vancouver + or FSG Mesh and UT Canada / USA.FS9 + addons = sharp 1920x1200 with solid 25-40 fps+, with settings maxed out.FS-X = 1280x1024 often blurry with frame rates under 10 just too oftenI think most sim fans will want to buy it and use it where its best, but its no replacement for FS9+ and I dont see that changing for a long time.

What I get a kick out of, is the excuse that there's no multi-core support cause they ran out of time. :-lolAddons are what drives this hobby, it should be very interesting to see what happens to the market in the next couple of years without hardware that can run this version beyond default.I hope it all works out in the end. I love this hobby.

>>So you shut off two of the major features of FSX and got good>frame rates? Are we supposed to be impressed with this?>Ultimate Terrain, 70% ai traffic, mega additions, fsg mesh,>full autogen and max settings for FS9 would give me a superior>look by far to FSX stripped down and excellent fps in FS9>with addon planes like PMDG 737 or 747.>FS9 doesn't have the glossy photo-look textures of FSX. Nor, has it ever been as smooth. I've had all those FS9 add-ons you mention, and will add FS Genesis mesh to FSX as a starter.I've been flight simming since the invention, and certainly know what I'm looking for. As stated before, I'm a pilot who greatly enjoys mountain flight. Since this sim re-creats the look and feel, then I suppose that's what's important. It's ME that has to be impressed! And I am.L.Adamson

Wow do I remember those days :)The propilot forum back then gave us some idea of what WW3 might be like lol. Lots of fun though. Incredibly the propilot forum is still active though I don't think anyone actually flies it anymore.Regards Pete

It's not false at all, when FS9 first came out I took a friend from the Internet over London to show him what it looked like, we were getting really crappy framerates. London has always been a hog, it still is, but at least now I can fly over it. Just a shame they screwed up the Thames and missed a few major landmarks. But they missed them in FS9 too.

You must have had a crappy computer cause mine ran ok.