Peter,I'm not passing personal judgement, but the h.e.l.l word is considered rude and not to be used in polite company where I live in rural America.Parents tell their children it is swearing when they are not in fact talking about h.e.l.l. And yes, it still gets used sometimes anyway. I'm just answering your question, not trying to be the language police. I agree with you on your orginal point, Peter. I think FSX is an excellent release with huge potential. I know a lot has been made of what hardware will it take in the future to run all folks' add-ons. Only time will tell for sure. Whether you agree FSX has taken the right path or not is irrelevant. It is out now, and we will see what hardware, DX10 and all the other variables bring.For the 4000 time, FS9 is still available and you can have both installed on your system.Tony

Yet another excellent post, Peter!I have to say that I was initially a little bit disappointed, but only after I hit Ctrl-Z to check my frame rate. Unfortunately, most people think that if you can't max all the sliders out and have 30+ framerates then it is not a good simulation. They couldn't be further from the truth. FSX looks and 'feels' simply stunning, even on a medium-low/medium-high setting on a mid-range workstation.Tradionally, every release of FS had to be tweaked. FSX is no different.I don't even want to think about what is yet to come, once the first high-quality add-ons and DX10 are released. The hundreds of nitty-gritty improvements give me a much better impression of flying for 'real'. The traffic, birds, textures, autogen, mesh and views. Yes, for some they're just a useless feature, but you can turn it off, if you don't like it. Also, I didn't notice any of the annoying FS9 problems, like stutters and blurries. Changing views happens almost instantenously without a 1-2 sec refresh. That said, there are many, many technological advancements that noone seems to notice.Happy Flying,Pat

You are quite right Peter.FSX runs pretty good with a good processor today. And there is no reason to complain about FPS. Fly the FSX on your old machines today with the sliders to the left and when you upgrade, you can fly with the sliders to the right. Enjoy the FSX.There is no need for addons which really creates trouble with FPS and what not. And then the "Hard Core" folks tend to fiddle around with sim and introduce artifacts like jerkiness and what not. Good idea Peter. We all should learn to enjoy the sim as is. No need for addons. and thanks again for reminding us silly people who insist on running addons on this fine flight sim. Your reasoning is so sound.;)Manny

Backwards compatibility is something that's always mistified me from a developer standpoint.Several reasons...new tools are or will be needed to make addons work (in theory), for each new version, unless you're using old SDK's which work to some degree, but...ultimately you still need (presumably) a new gamepack or model compiler or something in addition to all that, to speak generally.In general, most, if not all, addons do not work 100% in the manner the developer intended using 'backwards compatbility' to begin with. Have a search around and you'll find both users and developers basically "hacking" or dragging their stuff over to the new sim only to find out that a texture won't show correctly, or this, that, and the other thing.There's always a new directory structure to deal with in addition to all that along with a host of other 'admin' stuff once you've figure out what the new formats are....I could go on and on.In short, I agree also that it is not needed, and am not even sure it really means anything...is it even there to begin with in the true sense?For the user, do they really want an old addon to work in their new sim, or do they really want an older product which they already enjoy to be "updated" for the new sim, with some enhancements to reflect the new changes and maybe some new features if they were left out? In short it seems alot easier and quicker just to use the new format if the tools to model and texure remain the same and we have good documenation as to how to 'compile' or make our stuff.It seems alot easier to learn a new way rather than to learn a new way in addition to having to learn a new way of interfacing old stuff as well.That's my honest and more direct assesment of that situation, that Robert tried to convey in his PMDG forums (did a fairly good job though), as well as some other developers..LOL.I will also add though, that regardless of how hard we are on each other (developer/beta member) and ACES, we are still a 'family' and we'll always support them just like they've supported us throughout this new release. To be frank, I'm not even sure how they could do what they did to get this release out the door given their grueling public schedule amongst all the other issue they had. I'm not going dwell on the technical issues/bugs nor dispute them, nor would ACES or any other beta member, but the bottom line is they will and are continuing to make the sim and our community better as we go along now, rather then just wait for the next version.

Having read the various reviews by trusted authors here and elsewhere, all I can add is "here we go again." FSX will, I'm sure, be a wonderful sim experience someday, probably about 6 months before the next one is released. A few people will spend a lot of their free time coming up with the tweaks and fixes and hardware recommendations from which we will all benefit, and I thank you all in advance. As I get older, and life gets busier with children, etc., I am less inclined to spend a disproportionate amount of time tweaking, uninstalling and reinstalling instead of flying. I've got FS9 tuned to as close to perfection as I can imagine. I have a high-end dual-core computer, but will probably opt for a nicer video card. And spread across the 3 screens of the Matrox Triple Head2 Go unit, it has never been more immersive. I can see the runway on base leg, and the scenery panorama afforded with 3 wrap-around screens has made this die-hard IFR pilot fly a lot more VFR. When I want to fly, which is almost everyday, I can, and do (family asleep!). I'll still do the tweaking, it is fun sometimes and I certainly strive to enhance performance as much as anyone else. But completely starting over, with a sim that requires so much attention - pass, for now. I will watch and wait. No GoFlight, no Level-D......I can't imagine.I will use FSX selectively, with very few add-ons, and take advantage of some of the new features which sound appealing. I am attracted to the shared cockpit online feature, though I'm more than just a little skeptical of what making on-line flying even easier to access to the masses is going to attract into sessions where people might be trying to accomplish something or just be with friends. Just last night, on the WestCoast ATC 24-hour server, flying the instrument approach to Reggio Calabria in Italy, we had a guy just suddenly join the session and "buzz" us with his hot new add-on aircraft. He showed up on the active just as I touched down. You can guess the result. It wasn't even an advertised ATC session. He was clueless, probably very young, and said he was new to flight simulator - no kidding. He found the IP address on FSHost. Why, in all the world he chose to show up right where we were, or how he even knew we were there, I haven't a clue. I know that's what VATSIM is for. Geoff's comments about flight dynamics are also an attractive reason to try FSX, as is the enhanced terrain textures, the nicer virtual cockpits and some of the new aircraft. But for the time being, mine is a 2-sim world dominated by FS9. It's working well, wonderfully in fact, and FSX has yet to mature. When, if it does, I may jump ship.Regards,http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

Good post, Peter...I agreed with what you said 100%.What I find amusing is that several months ago, the "hard-core" simmers were vehemently condemning Microsoft's drive for more "eye candy". I'm willing to bet that if I dug through the old posts for enough time, I would find plenty of posts taking the posisiton that graphics aren't important, as long as the flight model is correct. :-lolWell, from my point of view, the flight model has improved a lot, but the complaints today come from a wide range of people that seem obsessed with being able to render absolutely every tree, bush, bird, cloud, and building possible. This is the sort of thing that drives a developer bonkers...people spend months telling you what they want in a new product, and when you give it to them, they tell you that you did it completely wrong. Despite the fact that you did exactly what they asked. People are funny that way.But in the end, this is only the short term. All the noise will die out as people either fall back to FS9 or learn to actually turn the sliders down (how many people are unwilling to do that simple tweak!). Eventually, people will dig a bit deeper into FSX, and find the things that the "hard-core" sim pilot will find appealing. I know that the initial knee-jerk reaction seems terribly bad, but on the other hand, FSX is flying off shelves (pardon the pun). Give things a few weeks, Peter...then take a look at this forum.-Ivan

I won't be upgrading to FSX for now because I can't run FSX at a comparable level of detail to FS9 with comparable frame rates. The relatively minor enhancements in flight modeling that you mention just aren't enough of a selling point for me, especially when I have great aircraft in FS9 such as the RealAir SF-260. Do I want to run a sim at 10fps when I can have one that runs at 30fps and looks better? I've tried the demo, and I am not convinced that 10fps in FSX feels "smoother" than 30fps in FS9.Things like autogen are important to me for a sense of immersion and speed at low altitudes. I guess that probably disqualifies me from being hardcore, but there you are.Now, I understand that the ACES team upgraded the visuals to a shader model, which is the reason that FSX takes a hit when doing side-by-side comparisons with FS9. I won't knock their choice. I'm glad they are moving forward. I wish they would dump backwards compatability altogether and just go crazy with the engine. I think the biggest selling point for me in this version is the level of detail on the ground textures, which look great.My plan is to buy a new PC in 8 months or a year and give FSX another try. If FSX doesn't scream along with top-of-the-line components at that stage, then I give up.

Since I wasn't around for FS9 at all I was just curious if FS9 was patched like FSX is going to be. Seems to me like FSX Vista/DX10 patch is either being forgotten about or ignored due to the fact that people don't want to put up the money to upgrade their hardware/software.Was FS9 released just before a new operating system was about to be released and had to be patched to play on it and it's new built from the ground up DX software?? I highly doubt that. I think people have to be a little more patient. I know it's very hard and I am not one of those patient people that's why I am in here every day looking to do anything I can to play this game right or go to FS9 and play that right.

>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.You know, I would be perfectly happy if they released a professional version that the FAA would allow to be certified on applicable hardware for an Air Training Device. I'd love to log some hours in my sim, and then that would make it all worth while. As of now, I have yet to see an FAA certified Microsoft Flight Simulator anywhere. I don't think they exist. This is why companies like ELITE Simulations, SimKits and etc have to release proprietary flight simulator software to work with their equipment.just my $0.02

The big change is that ACES has made the strategic choice to listen to hard-core simmers to develop a version of a game. This is indeed a strategic choice and much less a tactical one. This is very unlike typical MS behavior and should be commended as such as well, although this is really marginal business. The simulation is now pulled by hard-core simmers rather than by gamers and this is good. This is the way everything should be in fact. What the Heaven! This is why I was an avid Fly! pilot back then.

George hates FSX:You contradict yourself in this post->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)Uh- So an engine sucks if it has low FPS? I understand you probably know nothing about programming, but I can assure you the engine is just fine. It's much more complex than the old engine, with more detail, no naturally it will suffer on today's hardware.>The data is sloppy & un-refined.It's a consumer product- not a military database- what do you expect?>The Flight models are as linear as ever & overpowered (A321)The flight models have improved considerably. I don't care about the Airbus since I've never flown a real one- but the 172 flies alot more realistically now.>No sloped runwaysOk, I agree for sure that would have been nice.>No Self Shadowing in VCHow can you complain about framerates but want more detail? People would just complain even more!Allow me to rant and say the reason for reduced performance now is the hardware is not optimized to take advantage of the engine. Compare the old water with the new water- there is just no comparison, but there is a performance hit for those shaders.FSX has everything for everyone- They truly made a game that appeals to hardcore simmers and leisure gamers alike. I'm willing to bet that the leisure gamers are tenfold the hardcore simmers, yet they still support the simmers with SDKs and everything else. FSX is better than FS9- If you put the two side-by-side as if they were both released today- FSX is better. FS9 has been around 3 years so it has more support, but it's not a better product.

>Tradionally, every release of FS had to be tweaked. FSX is no>different.Here's a quote from a Fly II review from 2001:"The scenery itself is superior to that of the original Fly. However, the downside to this is that the game runs sluggishly even on high-end machines, much like the latest Microsoft Flight Simulator."5 years later, we enter the same cycle again. People need to relax and give FSX some time mature.

>>Tradionally, every release of FS had to be tweaked. FSX is>no>>different.>>Here's a quote from a Fly II review from 2001:>>"The scenery itself is superior to that of the original Fly.>However, the downside to this is that the game runs sluggishly>even on high-end machines, much like the latest Microsoft>Flight Simulator.">>5 years later, we enter the same cycle again. People need to>relax and give FSX some time mature.I don't understand one thing. Why people keep saying "it must mature, wait 2 years, remove autogen etc." Is FSX a kind of french wine or game construction kit? Nope, it's a computer game which has to work right out of the box on 90-95% of systems specced as on the box. If you accept a not working product, you just give permission to publishers to release buggy, underperforming games. If it doesn't work for you, don't fool yourself, just return it.By the way, IMO XPlane is much better platform when it comes to flight model etc..P.S. Peter, I refuse to fly FSX, because I find textures medicore compared to GEPro (one of main reasons I don't fly it now), not to mention horrible landclass.

Thanks for your comments Peter. I was a purchaser of Flight Environment and it, with Ultimate Terrain, some texture upgrades, fs genesis mesh with 70% ai traffic made FS9 a rocking good time on my uppper end non duo- core system.Unfortunately, for FSX it is another thing altogether. Porting over Ultimate Terrain and just activating the lights with FSX I was faced with a crushing slide show. Everything on in UT and FS9 with a PMDG addon I had easily 22 fps upwards. FSX has required me to tweak unnendingly, with ai traffic stuck at a paltry 15% with settings in FSX (autogen off for example) which make it look like a dieting FS9. The city flying is horrendous without stripping away those things which are supposed to make FSX different from FS9. Yes, bush flying can be run with some pumped up settings but I'm not the biggest bush flyer.This has serious ramifications for addons. I used to be a big purchaser of addons but the spiggot will now stop. I'm tired of blowing a g note on a new system just so I can get this series to run as it should run. Oh, I'll take it flying around and fly some missions but I will start to put my money in other entertainment such as High Definition media.Ultimately this series has to rework the code from the bottom up. It's bloated and passe. Every new aspect is tacked on with greater and greater overhead but less and less efficiency in processing that overhead.P4 3.6 GHz HT, 1 gig ddr ram, ATI X800XT PCIe 256 mb card

Thanks for pointing out the clutrual differences between the UK and the USA. I guess we are not really talking the same language at all.I was never once told H.E.L.L was a swear word and wouldn't dream of telling any of my children it was. It's never used in the UK on the front of a sentence as is often the case in the USA. We tend to say That's like H.E.L.L. and it simply means something one really does not want to have around them.We ofen say work today was H.E.L.L or in uppercurst circles we would say "it's been a hellava day today" which is a colourful way of saying the USA swear word which is not a swear word in the UK at all.It's probably a standard swear blocker in the code here so I won't take it too offensive that we Briish can't use our normal "Queens English" which is obviously very different to standard American English.Exuse the joke but I'm sure a lot of well educated British would say "that's a hellava job the Americans did on changing our language and telling us what is the correct use of words is and what defines a swear word...... LOL"I guess also, there is a huge difference here in the UK with regard to swear words in general. We don't take offence at the word but rather the intention of the use of the word.For example if you said to somebody in the UK "You have no idea what you are talking about" this would be veiwed as very rude.On the other hand if you said "H.e.l.l. you have no idea what you're talking about" we would be no more or no less offeneded. Tone would matter more to us here. In fact because of the colourful metaphore on the front of the sentence we would probably recognise the latter version as more frustrating and take somewhat less offence than being told directly we have no idea what we are talking about.As we often say here in the UK "America and Britain are two great countries seperated by a common language."Peter