That actually sounds kinda fun for an oversight, except for the breathing bit. I sense an xml "walk the plank" gauge brewing somewhere: Open door, unbuckle co-pilot, kick hard, marvel at doppler shift in resulting complaints.I guess a mute function would work too. ;)

"I don't understand the frustrations with FSX"You would if you couldn't even install it (there are more than a few of us in this predicament).Greg

Greg what problem you having with install? I had issues with disk 2 not picking up a file, but I cured that by taking disk2 out and putting 1 back in, then hitting retry which needless to say gave the same error, then put disk 2 back in and this time retry let it go through.edit: to those who can't see anything wrong, try flying over the deserts of the Pacific West Coast that really should be lush green fields and ranches and farms, try flying along the River Thames in London as well, or the arid desert in Norway that some Norwegians have complained about and you'll realise that although FSX has potential they lavished far too much time and effort on the missions and multiplayer.As to the VOIP, I used to use Teamspeak and as far as I remember there was no way on that of telling who was speaking.

Read the system specs of the first two people in this thread, who are very happy with FSX:"Pentium 4 Cedar Mill 641 (3.40GHz), Abit AW8D, Gigabyte GeForce 7900GTX (512MB DDR3 PCI-Express x16),Corsair XMS2 Pro 2GB PC2 6400 (DDR2 800)"and ...."Dell XPS Gen3 (3.6GHz/540FSB) | 2GB DDR SDRAM | 74GB SATA, 10k RPM (C: ) | 120GB SATA (D: ) | 512MB ATI Radeon X1900XTX (Catalyst 6.9)"Both of them have well-above-average PCs, with 2Gb RAM and 512Mb GPUs ;)

i quite like FSX. My only concern is that by the time computers are fast enough to run FSX, FS11 will be out.To date i have never played any FS maxed out and i upgrade every 2-3 years. After reading FSX has this and that and this and that and then switching them all off to make it flyable, its a little disappointing :(

Well from the "Other side of the tracks".:-badteeth Athlon3200xp(32 bit) No OC, stock cooling. Ati9600xt 256 MB 1024MB el cheapo, single channel pc3200 RAM 350W no name PSU Asus A7n8x-x Mobo 40GB maxtor HD I like it a lot. It is a lot easier on my rig than fs9 at comparablesettings. Lots smoother, I've had it for a week now, and am loving it. Hey Jeremy must be a show me state thang.:-beerchug

I agree. I have a moderately good one year-old computer (3.4 Ghz Pentium). I specified 2 Gb of RAM specifically for my music system (the instrument samples are *huge*) and it probably helps FSX a lot.Overall, I think it is superb, a masterpiece somewhat flawed by frame rate problems. However, apart from the biggest cities and airports, I can often use maximum autogen and scenery complexity and still get usable frame rates (but I have applied the cfg tweak to reduce the tree density). And what I see on the screen can be stunning. There's no other word for it. It makes FS9 look pitiful in comparison.I think the biggest plus is the high resolution ground textures. The clarity is startling. Even when descending to the lowest levels there is virtually no sense of blurred textures (by the time you're close enough for the textures to look blurred the detailed textures will have kicked in). The design of many of the textures is superb.Sadly it's let down a bit by very inaccurate landclass assignments. Two years ago I visited Manston (one of the key RAF airfields during the Battle of Britain). Sadly we couldn't fly because of strong cross winds. However, I don't recall driving through forests around Manston as FSX suggests!I was happy to see that the problem of dynamic blurred textures was almost non-existent provided I don't exceed 200 knots or thereabouts. When it does occur it's usually when I change a view, but it will usually sharpen up in about 20 seconds.I'm also very impressed by the road traffic. A high road traffic setting will bog down the computer. I have it set to just 15% but it can show an astounding amount of traffic with good frame rates. The vehicles are very detailed (probably more than necessary - maybe lower detail vehicles could help). I was also impressed at the way the vehicles follow the terrain. They conform accurately to the terrain and they pitch up correctly too. It is far, far more realistic compared to the old animation system. One criticism: very often vehicles appear or disappear for no obvious reason.FSX definitely needs more powerful hardware to fulfil its potential, but today it's still a beautiful masterpiece, if a little flawed. There are some bugs and errors that I hope will be fixed by future patches (sorry, product upgrades!)Best regards, Chris

>As to the VOIP, I used to use Teamspeak and as far as I>remember there was no way on that of telling who was>speaking.Sure, but that doesn't mean it's a good solution for FSX. There are some crucial differences between the two - in my case anyway:For one, when I use TeamSpeak or Ventrilo, the servers I use are always set up for high quality audio and I only use them with people I know and who actually pay attention to their hardware and use quality headsets. This makes voices and the people behind them easy to recognize. Not to mention the fact that they all speak Finnish natively (and most of the time quite coherently, I might add).Now compare that to FSX, where I join a server and talk with a bunch of guys I've never met before, who talk in different accents (or altogether different languages) and who come from various walks of life with a wide variety of audio hardware. There's absolutely zero voice recognition since I don't know any of them and it doesn't help that most servers I've been to use the 3,600 (kbps?) voice quality setting instead of 128,000.Edit: And before someone compares this to VATSIM, let me note that there's no comparison. Unlike most FSX's public servers (that I've been to, anyway), VATSIM tries to maintain a level of "professionalism" about it. Pointless chit-chat is limited to quiet times or private voice channels, childish behavior on the airwaves is not tolerated and audio quality is usually better (my guess being that if you're in VATSIM then you're really interested and want to invest in the experience - compared to FSX where you log in and let it rip).To me, the two are completely different worlds. Besides, if we're going to get a mute function then we simply MUST have some sort of list telling who's talking; otherwise there's a risk that I've muted someone, can't hear them talking to the tower and start talking right on top of them. That'll ruin it for everyone all over again.

Thats all I'm reading all over is WHOA when I get a New Video Card and that extra 2 gigs of Ram and Windows VIsta man This is gonna blow my mind. When I get all of those and 1000 dollars or more later I will be able to put the sliders at 75% not just 50% WHOOOAAAAAA!!! Its a JOKE! Like the one post commented on North America being the great Saharra Desert. Why is it with every major release which we wait on average 3 to 4 years for there are Major issues like this. The new engine is all jacked up and the landclass? PFFFFFF Some of it is really nice and there is alot of petential here but it just seems to be a repeat of FS9. Everything looks great theres a few extra goodies from last time. It still has major issues like hey lets just forget the bridges too. And now we have a whole new set of hardware issues and everyone must skip one rent check or take out a new mortgage so we can enjoy this. Its a continuous cycle and it seems that its done on purpose. How else do you explain a desert in the middle of the US?

> Keep your fingers off of SHIFT+Z for>once! Framerate is NOT king in FS if it's playable. If I were>going to report my frames, I would be laughed at, but guys I'm>telling you I never checked.I do use shift Z to keep track of the near consistant 30 fps I'm looking for. Still kind of a test, afterall :)FPS target set at 30Auto-gen off ---- the photo-real cities look better without itWater effects off --- kept if off in FS9 also. It's a real hit on fpsBloom offMesh & terrain effects maxxed or near so.Aircraft effects on the high end.Auto-gen off & water off, will easily add 10-15 fps on my CPU.At around 30 fps, flight in FSX in very smooth, fluid, and without stutters. The city scapes below look crystal clear. Just a much improved "feel" over FS9. For low-level bush type flying, I'll turn the auto-gen up for trees. L.Adamson --- Athlon64 3800/2gig/Geforce7600GS 256MB/1600*1200*32

Janne,Good points... I like Multiplayer too. I agree with almost everything except #3.I am sure it would be helpful. But it would become unrealistic. Cause, in real life you don't know who is talking but for the self identification. If one follows the comm protocol, you should have no problem in identifiying..just like in real life. If I know on my PC who is talking, it would kill realism even if it made life easier.Manny

You don't understand the frustrations? How about going from no autogen to sparse autogen and having your framerates cut in half, even with only a handful of extra buildings and trees being displayed. If you've got an upper-mid range machine (AMD64 2ghz, Geforce 7900GT, 1 gig DDR400) and want framerates in the 20s, you basically shouldn't even bother with autogen. Try cranking up autogen in FS2004 .. on my machine, there's only a very slight framerate hit. Other than that, I am pleased with FSX. Then again, that's sort of like saying you really like your new Cadillac despite the fact that it has no seats.

I have bought the sim but not installed it. I will just wait it out for more power. I do have a good working FS9. I'm not going to dump more money into an obsolete machine, and I also want a "clean" start with Vista. I don't want to completely rebuild any new machine that I might buy now just to get by for six months.But I hope FSX 11 does nothing, I repeat nothing, but fix and include some of the things that I expected in FSX after waiting 3.3 years (which I think should have been 3.9 years). These would include.1. Significant frame rate improvements.2. Significant support for dual, or more, cores.3. Availability of a 64 bit version. (Much like "Deluxe and Standard" - After all we do have a 64 bit processor and operating system right on the horizon.)4. An included module, which includes a word processor, back up, and streamlined system to all significant ".cfg". files, etc. Alternately, this could be a streamlined system for changing values to all significant variables (which are numbered and explained), with a master save/load (by name), and reset to default, feature.This way FS Insider, or other web sites, can act as a central hub for recommended improvements for "weaker" hardware, and entire predefined library's of different setting "pages" can be automatically downloaded and installed for trial by the end users in order to easily find better performance for their "inferior" rigs.While I know people in this forum can do this, most new customers cannot or will not do these things, and this hobby needs the many "less enthusiastic" new customers to keep the franchise going.5. The incorporation of an additional module, which at the very least incorporates the features found in FSNavigator, is undockable, and contains night time dimming support.. I don't think MS fully realizes that many if not most people sometimes want to simply view, and navigate in a manner that in no way relates to the real world of aviation. They just want simplicity, and to enjoy the ride.... while knowing where they are at all times, automatic fly to and move to, and good airport data and ILS range location information. This program has earned the right to be a standard feature, just like power steering did on an automobile.Maybe it's not for pilots, but it is for people in general and newcomers, and that's what sells copies! I think they need to start thinking more about these people, and I think they completely "blew it" in this "unworkable" version (for almost all newcomers).I this version "tanks", we all may stop swimming, and I don't like that.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

I agree 100%. I can't understand why so many people are bashing fSX when it's by far the best upgrade/update I've seen since as far back as I can remember.This new version flys very, very well and it takes simulation to a new level.I fly for real and this simulator with FSX has suddenly grown up and now it can calim "as real as it gets"Peter

you won't see any improvements at all with vista or DX10. Some of our team are running it now and if anything things run worst.Peter