>sorry what is your point - apart from slagging someone of>because they have an opinionMy opinion, is that a bunch of opinions stated on this forum recently, resemble kindergarden talk. No substance, and just an attempt at making some point with crude or childish language. And, as I'm older and wiser, this is my stated opinion!L.Adamson

>>>this release has been a tragic wasted opportunity, it>could>>>have been great and its a pile of dogs doodoos>>>>your post is a tragic wasted opportunity, it could>>have been great and its a pile of dogs doodoos>>>>And don't even tell me you don't see the point...>>>>>>>sorry what is your point - apart from slagging someone of>because they have an opinionThe point IS that the original post is a pile of dogs doodoos, his post is a pile of dogs doodoos, your post is a pile of dogs doodoos and my post is a pile of dogs doodoos... Apart from a small group of normal human beings in here the rest of us all suck and should start being constructive and mature and leave the pre-school stuff at the other internet gaming boards - Or shut the #### up. I've enjoyed reading the avsim forums for quite a while, but right now it's hard to get past the...big pile of dogs doodoos...//Bjorn

Here's my frustration list with FSX:a) The fact that suddenly the FS community is divided between the FSX fans and the FS9 ones.:( Comments like: "Well 5 fps is the price to pay when approaching EGLL but you get to see cars moving around, and that makes me more progressive and looking into the future than you FS9 close-minded geeks".c) The persistance of folks who bought FSX and are about to spend some $$$$ hoping that FSX will run better, trying still to explain FS9 fans that they're smarter.d) The appearance of the first "promotional stuff for dummies". Check Avsim's home page. Did you know that for the first time an Airbus is included in FS???? WOW!!!!

C'mon guys. We've spent three years tweaking the heck out of FS9 for every last FPS. Isn't anyone looking forward to three more years of tweak-fly-tweak-fly-buy-addon-tweak-fly?If I had a tweak log book, it would rival my flying hours. :)My FSX opinion is that they've taken the current engine and added more into it - which of course would result in less FPS on the same hardware.Until a new scenery engine is developed (flat world, covered in textures with mesh has the wall with me), version-to-version won't be any huge leaps. I'm MOST curious about the changes that we don't see and what the guys with the SDK's can NOW develop in FSX that they couldn't in FS9.The add-ons will make this product stand apart (or not) from FS9.

considering the devs did not grasp the problems associated with your "round earth", especially with addon scenery, I'd say it is a step back. Again, you seem to be grasping for straws when you wear the ACES cheerleader uniform

Oh my....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Doug, I have the same machine specs as yours except for my>256 meg X800XT, and only 1 GB of system mem.>>Do you think getting another gig of mem and going to your vid>card would be worth the money with running FSX in mind?>>Anticipating your reply.>>Thanks>>Mitch R.Mitch...... and all the rest of you....This is the gist of the gripes. Just wait untill you upgrade something. I upgraded the Vid card and now have re-install problems and it looks like I'll have to re-install XP because of this. We are in the process of getting The Bahamas out and I don't really look forward to this.I bought it, flew it twice and now have to re-install the os because of a hardware upgrade.Joe WatsonFREEflow Sceneries

>>Doug, I have the same machine specs as yours except for my>>256 meg X800XT, and only 1 GB of system mem.>>>>Do you think getting another gig of mem and going to your>vid>>card would be worth the money with running FSX in mind?>>>>Anticipating your reply.>>>>Thanks>>>>Mitch R.>>Mitch...... and all the rest of you....>This is the gist of the gripes. Just wait untill you upgrade>something. I upgraded the Vid card and now have re-install>problems and it looks like I'll have to re-install XP because>of this. >We are in the process of getting The Bahamas out and I don't>really look forward to this.>I bought it, flew it twice and now have to re-install the os>because of a hardware upgrade.>Joe Watson>FREEflow Sceneries----------------------------------------Hello Joe,Sorry to hear about your upgrade woes! I saw Doug's tag line for his system and was contemplating those two areas of upgrade. I ordered two more gigs of system RAM yesterday and will see if having three gigs will make FSX run smoother. I might also invest in the X1950XTX part. Sounds like a video screamer! I'll first see what happens with having three gigs of memory and report in the hardware forum. I have no performance issues or beefs with my X800XT. It's been a fantastic card to date.Cheers!Mitch R.

ah i see you're grown up and nobody else is well done you truly are superior to everyone else, you must be because you say so.

Please get real, these days people expect to get the product they are sold when they pay for it.This cute flight sim world you live in doesn't exist apart from in your mind.If i spent my money on a car for which the advert and salesman said would do 100 mph but i get home and it only does 50 mph i wouldn't be too happy.Your suggestion is that i should spend my time and money upgrading it until it does what i wanted in the first place.Products should not be so blatantly sold on features you just cant use. (autogen and water reflections)The recommended spec should have read 'a super computer you may buy in 2008' although this game seems to rely on cpu grunt and not much else so given that we are going to multi core rather than outright grunt per core i cant see any amount of tweaking making it work smoothly and look like the screenshots. Those screenshots and box shots must have had single digit fps, gentlemen we have all been had, its the emperors new clothes.

>Please get real, these days people expect to get the product>they are sold when they pay for it.>>This cute flight sim world you live in doesn't exist apart>from in your mind.>>If i spent my money on a car for which the advert and salesman>said would do 100 mph but i get home and it only does 50 mph i>wouldn't be too happy.>>Your suggestion is that i should spend my time and money>upgrading it until it does what i wanted in the first place.>>Products should not be so blatantly sold on features you just>cant use. (autogen and water reflections)>>The recommended spec should have read 'a super computer you>may buy in 2008' although this game seems to rely on cpu grunt>and not much else so given that we are going to multi core>rather than outright grunt per core i cant see any amount of>tweaking making it work smoothly and look like the>screenshots. Those screenshots and box shots must have had>single digit fps, gentlemen we have all been had, its the>emperors new clothes.>Your analogy is pathetic. The correct interpretation is that the salesmen sells you a car that goes 100mph, then you take it back to complain because it doesn't. Only, after some dicussion one finds you've been trying to do it in a muddy field, in first gear. It's YOUR job to choose a nice bit of tarmac so that the `car` will do what is claimed for it, and to learn to stick shift, not to blame the salesman or the car maker for your own absence of skill or knowledge.This is just another example of the absolving of personal responsibility in todays society and an absence of even basic intelligence. Blame everyone else but yourself. I seem to recall we used to have better quality analogies in these forums, too.But that is not to absolve MS from some culpability. None of this would be a problem if FSX was released solely for DX10 and the backward-compatibility was consigned to the skip of history. Instead the ACES team seem to have stretched the interpretation of future-proofing to the very limit and perhaps positioned the requirements too far - on equivalent settings FSX performs more poorly on my computer than FS9 with addons. But if the sim is designed to meet future needs then how come we have never seen any benchmarks of performance undre Vista? Now, finally Phil Taylor clearly provides a caution that reflects what I have been saying for some time - Vista will NOT help FSX performance. It will do the opposite. 10-15% performance loss is simply not acceptable when performance is already marginal. In fact a drop of 1% is unacceptable to me because of the design choices made in FSX development. So Vista is rendered irrelevant to simmers unless/until DX10 actually brings some benefits - and of course until simmers reach deep into their pockets and compensate for the shortfall by hardware purchases.I'm not interested in blame. Just results. Vista is NOT going to be the panacea. Now we know that. Quite the opposite.DX10 might be, but at what cost? And when? So, for the time being, the foreseeable future, we are stuck with FSX under XP SP2. At the very least the ACES team could address these performance concerns. I hate to say `patch` but that is exactly what is needed. Frankly, If I were running the ACES team I'd put DX10 development to one side because, as things stand, DX10 will have naff-all relevance to a product that will be in the Bargain Bins before DX10 impacts on it. The old marketing adage still holds good - `you never get a second chance to make a first impression` And here's a real analogy, one that works: FSX is nose-up in buffet, about to go into Deep Stall, tail blanked. Urgent remedial action is required by the pilot if disaster is to be avoided. That respray and engine upgrade waiting in the hangar is no use until the aircraft is safely back on the ground and under full control...I urge the ACES team to take onboard some of the suggestions made in these boards - in particular GeofA's suggestions for advanced setting control using the GUI. Clearly there are settings that can be applied to the FSX.cfg that can strongly influence performance, so apply them in a conventional manner - through the menus.We are the tip of the iceberg (oh another analogy). When even the diehard community cries `foul` then frankly the Developers has better bloody listen or else FSX DVD's will be coaster-fodder in a matter of months, and once that momentum is gone, it will NEVER be recovered.Meantime, I'm going to keep FSX on the hard drive as a benchmark testing tool, an occasional diversion, but for my sim flying I'm going back to FS9 unless/until this performance problem is addressed by the people who are responsible for it. I can't be bothered to struggle around the edegs of the performance envelope scrabbling for a pathetic 0.5 fps extra. It's just not worth it. And Vista doesn't figure in my future, so DX10 performance advantages, even if they are there, don't impact on me at all.ACES: Fix what I've GOT, not what I might have.Allcott

Can't say I've been had, so there goes your theory :/ I knew from the get-go that I wouldn't be able to turn all the bells and whistles on. FS2004 was that way when it was released and every indication pointed to a similar experience this time around aswell.I still bought the game because I *knew* even without all of the sliders at max I'd get better visuals than I do in FS9 (and I do); I *thought* the shared cockpit feature sounded interesting (and in the right company it IS great); and I *hoped* that the multiplayer code had been improved (and it has been - it's just the GameSpy lobby that blows).FSX isn't perfect, but very few things in life are.

I have a fairly standard computer, P4 3.0 GHz with HT, and FSX runs like a dream on my PC.That's with Autogen on normal, scenery on normal, water at 2.X low (which still looks incredible), road traffic 5%, most other traffic 10%, and most other settings at least medium to high, at 1024x768.I'm getting 20fps on average, and in FSX that's more like 30fps on FS9. The graphics beat the daylights out of FS9 with a whole lot of scenery addons.Dude if you have any doubts as to the graphics improvements in FSX check out the comparison screenies in this thread: http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92413&st=0The actual comparisons are on Page 3.James

A lot of people don't realise that some of the tweaks for FSX can actually double your framerate without ANY difference being made to the quality of the graphics.Hard to believe, but there are certain tweaks that will amaze you with how much performance you can squeeze out of the sim, whilst maintaining the same graphics settings and quality, except for maybe the autogen.One example is the autogen tweak, which allows you to control the maximum number of trees per cell, but won't affect autogen much overall. What I mean to say is that general tree areas aren't affected by the tweak, only the densely forrested areas are. In general reducing that setting will only affect those areas but tree autogen in the sim still looks much more real.You'll be surprised how much you can get out of the sim and how well it can perform despite looking a thousand times better than FS9. The thread with the comparison shots I just posted below will convince you.James

Tweaking FSX to get FS9+addons performance? I'll wait to see some addons like PMDG, LDS, ASv6, FS2Crew and 90%+ AI traffic and if the tweaks still do the job, I'm trashing FS9 the same day :)