Some people are upset that FSX was released today yet designed for tomorrow's hardware. They have to know this is nothing new.When Falcon 4 was released it was designed to be run on an 800Mhz CPU (the designers own words) when the vast majority of gamers had 300 & 400Mhz CPUs. Nobody had an 800Mhz except the very, very few.When Lock On was released, all setings set to max would slow any existing machine to a crawl. Add a few planes and you might as well be flipping through the pages of a book.When the IL2-FB+ACE+PF series hit the shelves, and even years later, you had only to load up the Gulf of Finland map, throw in a few planes, apply the highest res settings and watch a top end game rig cough and sputter and beg for a CTD. And here we are in FSX, same poop - diffent year. Nothing new. Most, if not all, major flightsims are released before the hardware is available to run them as they should be run. It might not be good, but it's the way it is and it's certainly not limited to any one company. I think of it as a grow option. The longer I have the sim, the more I'll get to see of it. I might as well be optimistic and have what flightsim fun I can, otherwise might as well just trash the sims and take up Counter-Strike and learn to L33T Speak about other people's mothers on the "Oh yeah?!? Well you suck!!" forums. (Not likely.)Besides, the MS community is so huge and talented, we'll be seeing much beter performance in the next few weeks and months withe the tips and tweaks they'll come out with. I bought FSX more than a week before general release and within two days I had access to tweak files that broguht m FPS up 50% and more.People really need to relax and accept that this is the life we flightsim-heads chose to live.

I have to confess, I am one of the WHINERS and indeed FSuX.I have a Fx55, 2 Gb Ram, a X1900 XTX and my sliders in FS9 were pretty much all to the right. With all the addons I have, such as GE, FE, all kind of ACs, my FS9 doesn't look "flat" or anything, it looks gorgeous comparing to FSX. With FSX to get fps at 15 I have to keep a all the sliders in the middle and if I want it to run at 20 fps I have to move them to the right and guess what, I have memories of FS2002 when I do.BTW, if you you like the slideshow it's your choice. Mine is to make things look real.Leo

>With FSX to get>fps at 15 I have to keep a all the sliders in the middle and>if I want it to run at 20 fps I have to move them to the right>and guess what, I have memories of FS2002 when I do.>>BTW, if you you like the slideshow it's your choice. Mine is>to make things look real.>>LeoI assume you mean to the left.

"Auto-gen was off, as well as water"WHY BOTHER? those are the only two things that I've seen in FSX that I'd like in FS9: the improved water and denser autogen.I don't know what people do to get such bad performance with FS9 yet get excited about their 15-20 fps in FSX. Even on my 3 year old PC I can run FS9 locked smoothly at 22 fps with full autogen, clouds etc. and no blurries, I can run at 35 fps if I want but the terrain begins to blur up a bit.Ciao, il fanciullo

This whole thing is getting silly. People are switching off the features that attracted them to the simulator in the first place. :-|

"When Lock On was released, all setings set to max would slow any existing machine to a crawl. Add a few planes and you might as well be flipping through the pages of a book."LOMAC was released in 2003 and still runs like crap on many average PCs! People are still complaining about it, three years after release!!!. For every compliment there are lots of complaints. I used LOMAC for a while, but I couldn't stand the frame rates, plus numerous bugs.Quote from a LOMAC user: "The thing that disappointed me the most and still continues to is the sim's performance and how wildly it varies depending on the situation.Particularly when overflying cities at low altitude I drop to 10 fps which I believe is unacceptable for any kind of game (unless you're playing chess)"Sound familiar? ;)