Just imagine ....

[normada 0]

... you want to buy a new car on your local car seller and the sales manager promises you that your new car will have a very low fuel consumption, only 0.5 L/100km but only with that new "next generation" fuel type, available next year.He also told you that with current fuel types your brandnew car will suck around 30 L/100km and if you want to have your car with that low fuel consumption it must be equipped with a special device that makes the low fuel consumption possible. The sales manager added that you have to pay for that additional device and that this device will reduce the effective horsepower output, which finally makes your car very slow.Due to the fact that this sales manager is a honest man he also told you the truth about that special "low fuel consumption"-device: Everytime you open or close your car, break the speedlimits etc some informations about you and your car will be send to the car manufacturer.Whispering the sales manager finally told you that this special device and that new fuel type are not tested yet (work in progress) and no one can say if both things will ever work with your new car, but he will give you a special discount of 30% if you buy that car today.What would you do ?Would you buy this car and hope that it will consume only 0.5 L/100km once it is equipped with that special "low fuel consumption"-device and that "next generation" fuel type is available next year ?Well, i did and i´m waiting for next year !Ron

[Chock 17,769]

How about if you stopped imagining, because you realised that it would be required and got your hand in your pocket and bought some of this fuel instead of complaining that it doesn't run on your old stuff?Because the reality is that it's available now, it's called having plenty of RAM, a decent hard drive (or two), with a fast throughput, an up to date motherboard that has ditched AGP, and a decent pci-x graphics card (or even two bridged together).

[MD83 1]

I agree with you .... :-boom

[normada 0]

>How about if you stopped imagining, because you realised that>it would be required and got your hand in your pocket and>bought some of this fuel instead of complaining that it>doesn't run on your old stuff?>Because the reality is that it's available now, it's called>having plenty of RAM, a decent hard drive (or two), with a>fast throughput, an up to date motherboard that has ditched>AGP, and a decent pci-x graphics card (or even two bridged>together).i already bought a PCI express graphic card (Nvidia 7900GT 512MB) and a brandnew harddisk (SATA2) last week only for FSX. Processor(Pentium D @3.2Ghz) should be also fine as weel as 3Gb RAM.Didn´t know that DX10 graphic cards and Windows Vista are already avalable, if so then sorry !!! My comparison above was constructed on the fact that DX10 graphic cards and Windows Vista are not yet available.Seems that you have exclusive access to the mentioned hard -and software. Be lucky. I get something around 10-12 FPS at KSEA with not all sliders fully right and all the resizing packages available installed. Do you think that my system is to weak for FSX, if so which systems used the ACES developer during developing FSX when the recommended hardware and even the software are not yet available ?Can you live with a slideshow of 10-15 fps regardless where you fly in the world just to not to say that MS/ACES has released a not so good FSX when it comes to performance.Cannot understand why everyone believes that VISTA and DX10 will be the allmighty things when it comes to FSX. Is DX10 faster than DX9 or was there any difference in speed between DX8 and DX9? I think no, only the features has changed (Shader models, texturing etc) between the different releases.

[n4gix 4,956]

>I get something around 10-12 FPS at>KSEA with not all sliders fully right and all the resizing>packages available installed. >Do you think that my system is to weak for FSX, if so which>systems used the ACES developer during developing FSX when the>recommended hardware and even the software are not yet>available ?No, your "expectations" are simply too high!Might I suggest that you run MemStatus and actually SEE what FSX is throwing onto your system with the various settings? ;)Using this tool you can properly configure your system such that you won't "overload" either main memory or your video card's memory...http://www.nuclearplayground.com/NuclearPl...ound/MemStatus/

[Chock 17,769]

There is no need to be facetious, I didn't say anything about having vista, or an upgraded DX, I merely pointed out that they are not the only things you can have to improve the performance of FSX. And all the components you listed mean nothing if they are not selected using care and attention with regard to how they perform in concert with your motherboard and indeed each other, with attention paid to compatibility, throughput rates, voltages, cooling, power supply, RAM clock speeds, RAM quality, supported clock speeds, clearances etc, etc.Where on the box for FSX does it make any of those promises you alluded to in your post? All it says on my copy is 'Works great on Windows XP, works even better on the upcoming Windows Vista' The second part I can't comment on, but the first part is true, because it does work great on my PC with XP, perhaps not as smooth as some people who are obsessed with getting 50 FPS would like, but I can fly around in it without any stutters and enjoy it, with the majority of the graphics cranked up to my satisfaction, which is my definition of working great.It would be foolhardy to expect that a brand new program which attempts to replicate something as complicated as flight dynamics, not to mention the entire surface of the planet, could be expected to have no flaws or glitches in it. This is no surprise, and nor was it a surprise with many previous incarnations of FS.But what really annoys me is people coming onto the MSX avsim forum with snide remarks about it not working, when it is not Microsoft's fault, but simply down to the fact that the person making the comment does not have suitaable equipment on which to run the software. What it amounts to is the fact that many people's 'whizz-bang PC that runs FS9 okay', is perhaps not quite as whizz-bang as they thought it was, and it is up to them to upgrade it (which was what my original reply was about if you care to read it properly).But keep in mind that FSX is a progression from FS9, and doubtless any hardware will have to progress too if it is to keep up with that progress. Is this Microsoft's fault? Nope. No amount of complaining and moving display sliders about in the hope of finding a magical combination that makes things somehow better can alter the fact that an obselete computer is an obselete computer.I'm not trying to suggest FSX is perfect, indeed I have posted comments at the tell MS email address, and to FS Insider with some installation concerns I have, and offered suggestions. But (to allude to your original post) my Land Rover doesn't run on batteries, nevertheless, you don't see me putting posts on forums slagging off Duracell do you? It's not meant to run on them, and neither is FSX meant to run on a computer that was okay for FS9.In addition to which, 15 frames per second (which you say is what you are getting) is hardly a slide show when you consider that movies run at 24 frames per second.I'm no huge fan of many things Microsoft has done and doubtless will do in the future too, but I think that much of the vitriol that is being levelled at them with regard to FSX is not deserved.

[Guest]

Boy, these FS analogies get really old after a while. Can you at least compare it to something besides a car? Maybe a boat or a Tickle Me Elmo.

[mthomas935 0]

How about a boat with out a bottom?

[Chock 17,769]

Hey, the boat does have a bottom, it's just that it's a glass bottom and it apparently doesn't display in FSX with some graphics cards. :-)

[normada 0]

What i

[Guest Tingoose]

RonI'm with you. I had no intention of buying FSX until I'd heard early reports from those who couldn't wait and based on the reports I'm finding on this forum, and there are plenty to read, I'm not buying it. Why not use a car purchasing analogy, or any other purchase for that matter, there's no getting away from it. . . FSX quite clearly has performance issues, not to mention a few other issues too, like the latest one that's pooping up now: landclass. I had hoped that high quality payware would be ported over soon, but with the performance issues, I suspect there might be some delay. This in effect will be another issue, unless you are happy with defaults, which I am not.