I couldn't agree more! There is a Universe of potential in FSX. In the good hands it'll soon start one of the best flight simulation experiences ever!I was critic about MSFS, and still am, but I am also reasonable enough to recognize the amazing work done by the ACES team in FSX. I look forward for the developers to start feeling at home with the new platform and enrich even more an already wonderful experience!

Peter I have much respect for you, your work and opinions which I have read over time. I do not know if I am a hard core simmer by your definition. Maybe I am not, as I am getting sort of burnt out and losing interest in the product. It really is no more fun to start up the sim and fly. If I have to keep sliding, removing, adjusting this and that then what I have is FSX that doesn't even come close to FS9. I may as well chug along with FS9.I am a real life private pilot, although I do not fly anymore. When I was flying I loved it so much I could not wait to go flying and experience new stuff. As I got older health restricted my flying so I turned more to the MS FS product. I have been using it from day one centuries ago LOL, but increased usage more as time went on.In comparison to yourself and others my experience as a programmer is negligible, but I do have a concept of what its all about.The essence of what has gone wrong with FS is we get told after each release that the software is ahead of the hardware and hardware needs to catch up. I used to buy into that story but I now realize its a myth and not true. If that were so then it would be fair to say that FS9, yes FS9, would have been written to take advantage of multi core processors etc which is now the current standard. But we know that it wasnt! Granted FS9 runs better on the new processors but the code wasnt written or optimized for it, or else the sim would really be way ahead.Applying that same theory to FSX then we are to assume that FSX is written and optimized for some unknown processor(s) with the power to run it properly. What does MS know about such processors 2-3 years out? 8 core, 16 core, 10 ghz, what exactly are they telling us it is written for? Its not even written for quad which is here now alreadyI stress the processor side of it only because we are also told how CPU intensive the sim is. That we can all agree on. The only future thing we are all aware of is DX10 and it is till an unknown quantity from where we sit. I dont know what the developers know. Will that really be enough to satisfy the user? Only time will tell. So for me personally, yes I am a simmer not a gamer. I hate when flying IMC and doing my approaches that the sim stutters and sticks and when I roll out I have flown by the localizer. Even a simple thing like the logbook doesnt work properly. I could go on and on but I think its futile because things which have been reported for some time going way back have not been addressed by the developers.In closing it would seem that the code or whatever its called needs a complete over hauling and if in fact the software is built with future hardware in mind then a statement to that effect should be included in the sys requirements section : "Best used 2-3 years from now"If you made it to the end thanks for reading :-)Bill

You make good points there Bill.Microsoft are pretty much in trouble if they do and in trouble if they don't. What I mean is they have to make the simulator work in a forward direction (that improves upon FS9) and don't they have the luxury of continually upgrading every few months like I do as a developer.They have no choice but to be able to make the simulation work on all kinds of systems that are current, some very basic and some more advanced, and also make it still useable in say 3 years from now.For this reason they must have sliders and options to adjust. Daimian Clark, one of my business partners gets twice the performance I'm getting so he runs most things maxed and still gets good performance. I on the other hand have the sliders backed off. Thank God they are there or it could be ####. Hades, the older latin word means the same. Wink! is that censored to?Probably there could be a way for set-up to be a little more user friendly to help people get the best out of FSX. But let's face it we are a clever bunch and we do inform others how to set things up.I know it's pretty frustrating adjusting the sliders and maybe some kind of guide or help to this end.Yes, I agree on an ILS approach or any approach for that matter good fps is required.With that in mind I would suggest you save an ILS approach with say heavy clouds and some weather that challanges and then use this to set-up and optimize your sliders. I promise you if you take this approach, having identified what is most important to you, then setting things up will be a breeze.You could save this configuration as "My ILS approach settings" and they recall it if you later try more tweaks.Microsoft have gone to great lenthts to help us have the tools to set things up far more easilly than in the past and again we should thank them for listening and giving use the option for user configs.Peter

Thanks for that Peter and I do understand. I know you will get a lot more feedback which will be good.I noted your suggestion on the wx for ILS approaches, but I fly with real world weather and when on line with vatsim, and I pretty much have to fly with what I have and not embarrass myself, if you know what I mean :-) Thanks again for your time.Bill

to the moderator and avsim staff... why in God's name is H.E.L.L a bad word and why deemed a swear word here? It's certainly not an usuitable word to be used in the UK in any circles and I mix in some very high class circles indeed. It's perfectly normal word used in the Oxford English and used constantly in RP, the Queens English and uppre class circles. There is nothing imoral or wrong in associating H.E.L.L. as something to acssociate bad things with. In fact, it is most respectful to God to use the word H.E.L.L. in this context as a reminder to others that H.E.L.L. is something we certainly don't want. This kind of census is having a very adverse effect and if we for example removed all words in the bible that included H.E.L.L. then the bible would be very demished in vaule and it would be against the will of God. So please be more respectful to God and those that follow Him and use censorship in a correct and respectful manner. JMOPS: there are words that should be censored. H.E.L.L is not one of them.

Sligth miss-understanding there Bill,I assumed you'll be using real weather which is why I suggested you set-up an ILS config that assumes the worst or toughest conditions for your computer. Doing this will ensure you won't get a slide show next time you try this approach IN ANY CONDITIONS. In other words, you know in advance now what is tough on your specifications/computer so all you have to do is set-up allowing for that restriction.This way you'll always avoid a slide show on a tough ILS approach.One more point to note. Make sure you set this up over a busy area so you are confident you have set things up that really will ensure the limit of your system is balanced to be set-up with the demands you'll be putting on your system.This is how I set things up and this is how I avoid any stutters and poor frame rates in all condition.All common sense only on hind sight of course.Peter

>to the moderator and avsim staff... why in God's name is>H.E.L.L a bad word and why deemed a swear word here? It's>certainly not an usuitable word to be used in the UK in any>circles and I mix in some very high class circles indeed. >>It's perfectly normal word used in the Oxford English and used>constantly in RP, the Queens English and uppre class circles.>>>There is nothing imoral or wrong in associating H.E.L.L. as>something to acssociate bad things with. In fact, it is most>respectful to God to use the word H.E.L.L. in this context as>a reminder to others that H.E.L.L. is something we certainly>don't want. >>This kind of census is having a very adverse effect and if we>for example removed all words in the bible that included>H.E.L.L. then the bible would be very demished in vaule and it>would be against the will of God. So please be more respectful>to God and those that follow Him and use censorship in a>correct and respectful manner. JMO>>PS: there are words that should be censored. H.E.L.L is not>one of them.Could not agree more!!! People take offence to everything around here.

With all due respect, you have spoken for maybe .01% of the customer base for this product. While we can all sit here and argue the semantics of just what in the he... er, heck this program package is, the other 99.99% of the users still think its a game, and will treat it as such.I'm perfectly capable of tweaking it and eeking out acceptable performance, but I know people who are interested in FS that would be lost. Geniuses at my job who could spend a week detailing the finer points of carbon fiber composite prepreg applications in aerospace and beyond, yet wouldn't know a .cfg file from a third grade book report. Who will speak for them? Is FS then destined to evolve into a professionals-only product, where eyecandy is frowned upon? While I appreciate the positive points in your post, Peter, I do think it's unfair to imply that the hardcore simmers are the only ones who matter. We can decipher actual system requirements from the alleged ones posted on the package, but I would bet good money a vast majority of FSX purchasers are going to flip out when they install it on their proprietary, prepackaged-for-the-family HP or eMachines systems and see the slideshow.Just my opinion, FWIW.

Couldn't agree with Bill more!So as a purest, FSX is where it is at! Why don't we just go back to lime green wireframe aircraft and horizons then if flight dynamics are all that matters, or just purchase X-plane? Sorry, I can post identical screen captures from the same spots with my add-on enhanced FS2004 and the out of the box FSX and there is no comparision. Oh, did I say add-on. Not only do you have to wait 2-3 years for the hardware to catch up, but you also will have to spend some more cash to put the additional upgrades to this software package to make it preform and look the way it should have right out of the box. Add-ons should consist of new aircfaft and high grade scenery, not default ground textures and sky effects. This should be part of the base package. The base ground textures in this product have always been horrible. Why can they not fix this! It's a graphic file! Why do they choose to use a crappy one instead of a good one?I bought FSX and I am one of those who will mess and tweak it, and pump dollars into upgraded textures and meshes, and then along will come a new PC a few years down the road and then FSX will be a great sim. So I will look at my purchase as an investment.But I have learned my lesson. Sorry Mr. Gates, but I will not be purchasing Vista! I may be willing to buy a beta release of a game of yours, but I will not gamble with my operating system. Vista will come into my world when the above new PC is purchased years from now.JS

"Is FS then destined to evolve into a professionals-only product, where eyecandy is frowned upon?"You have a good point. It seems strange that most of the precomplaints of fsx was that it would be more of a game (xbox)(enter animal mantras), and was only about eye candy and gaiming, and had nothing "serious" to offer.It is apparent now that fsx is filled with many subtleties which enhance realism-which may only become apparent to many by turning down the eye candy-at least on moderate or below present systems!Missions where pilots can train for real life scenerios, the ability to share a cockpit and teach a lesson to someone on the other side of the world, and all the things Peter mentions above certainly is not about eye candy-and true-ultimately that may turn many off.Perhaps it is as you say destined for professionals only-but I doubt it-because FS can be customized for each end user-and there will be a flood of products out that will allow that. Perhaps there will even be one that will reduce the reality processing to the fs9 level so the eye candy can be turned up!Me-I'm finally enjoying a landing that feels like a landing, and teaching flying procedures and lessons to student pilots, and being able to finally have a pitch stable aircraft and be able to fly with instruments that don't jerk all over the place. And surprisingly I am becoming a 3d cockpit user because finally the instruments are smooth enough to fly by. Sure-to get this-I have to turn autogen off-but when I want to sight see and enjoy the autogen I can always turn it back on and go visual. Like Peter said-the trick is to save different settings for different types of flying.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Peter, you ask,"How can anyone that calls themselves "hard core" knock this fantastic product?"I tell you why. Dare I say it?It's inefficient (poor engine, low fps)The data is sloppy & un-refined.The backwards compatibility doesn't workThe ATC isn't improved.The Flight models are as linear as ever & overpowered (A321)No weather improvementsThe Map & Flight planner use GUIs from the mid 90s.No damage effectsNo sloped runwaysNo multi national ATC recordingsNo Volumetric clouds No Self Shadowing in VCNo Control surface movement during replays& the SDK is inferior to FS2002s....just off the top of my head.Most of the features that are 'good' are too slow to use. Like Bloom.But hey, we have Giraffes ;)Even though they use segmented animation.I enjoyed the missions for a day though.So stop being a phony cheerleader & come join the Darkside :)Cheers,George hates FSX

just testing the swear words filter: You tried and if you do it again you will be gone for good- Moderator

I agree with Bill too.FS-X is just disappointing too often. Sure I could find some area and plane combos where framerate is fine, but those are the exception. To suggest its better if you recompile textures, update config files and turn off options seems proof of a poorly planned product?The FS-9 experience with addons exceeds FS-X.FS-X could have been :+ 38m-76m world wide mesh where available+ Accurate Landclass + Accurate shoreline, river and major roads+ Accurate placement of airports+ Option for moving cars on roads+ Option for ground airport trucks+ MissionsThose improvements would have had little impact on frame rate, offered a much better out of box simulator for everyone. FS-X as delivered is CPU limited, and in the next 2 years the best most users will own is a 4Ghz dual core with a DX10 video card, and that will not solve 6fps FS-X frame rate issues.

Hi,Even on my low-end system I find FSX a cut above FS9. No slight to anyone intended but I wonder what FXS would have been if they were able to develop it and disregard backwards compatibility. Is backwards compatibility holding FS back? I get the impression that people don

One thing is for sure, and that is that Flight Simulator is probably the one game out there that doesn't have to be dumbed down to appeal to mainstream gamers. Flight models are configuration files that are easy to adjust, and there's always going to be a PMDG or LDS to satisfy the really hardcore niches. Really, Microsoft could wrap a redux of Crimson Skies around this engine to bring in the gamers, and as long as they keep that moddable sandbox we've been enjoying since the first addons for FS4, they're gold. FS is a great family game, in that parents don't have to worry about sex and violence, not to mention that it has wonderful educational materials. Because of this, however, new folks will be trying it out with no concept of what we grognards do to get it running. I just don't want to see MS fail to get a significant return on the investment (which could determine whether we see a FSXI). By being such a pig, performance-wise, FSX could turn off as many people as the cool, flashy commercials attract. That's what scares me and why I have such a problem with FSX-- not so much for myself, but for those outside of this bubble the community exists in.