>You must have skipped fs2000 then.>>..and also these 3 other sims from 1999 where history repeats>again and again.>>http://www.avsim.com/pages/1099/guest/guest.shtml>>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgare you kidding? so during all the new generations, the top developers have basically said they probably will have to give up creating addon scenery because of the engine?and this was supposed to be a brand new engine, taking advantage of NEW technology, not like the past few versions which were the same engines using old technology. it was supposed to run better, not worse! And this is just default! My defauft FS9 has always run great, the problem is with all the addons! I can't imagine any system running complicated addons with complicated scenery and 100% Ai traffic. no way

Isn't a round earth vs. a flat earth a new technology and not like the past versions where it has been flat? As far as I know-the earth has been round since at least 1492.. :-lolhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

"The new eye candy is great-but if you have to turn it down to see the new reality..."THIS sums up FSX in a nutshell. Great post!!!"Turn it down to the the new reality"...that is worth repeating!!!Then you say.."You might have to turn down autogen (which for me is pretty cartoonish but I can understand the appeal) and the water which for me is really cartoonish and I never would want tp get good performance-but it can be had."Mmmmkay, you think the autogen and water are both cartoonish so you turn them off? And that makes you happy? Let's recap. Cartoonish water and autogen...turned off so you have none...right? You don't like them, so you turn them off, because you don't like the way they look AND they make the sim unflyable and you're happy???AND you think that what you said, is a positive post? Methinks you may be trying too hard to be positive about what you see before you that the justifications eventually become bazaar in hopes of keeping a positive outlook.Sir, what you said in your posts are absolute NEGATIVES!What you said is the equivolent of me saying...hey my wife's really ugly, but I cover her face with a bag and don't take her out in public, look how beautiful she is now that I've done that!!! ROTFLMAO.Sigmond Freud where are you when we need you!!!!Regards,Mike T.AVSIM Staff ReviewerThis may be the most insightful (and funny) post I've yet read after having flown the Deluxe version the last few weeks and posting on this board. Thank you.It is absolutely incredulous to sing the praises of a product which causes you to turn off a large majority of that which makes it different from FS9. When you want to see that beautiful water (and it IS beautiful by the way, with the reflections, etc.), or the autogen then the laudable flight characteristics become an exercise in stuttering and lose any positive characteristics ascribable to them.The ground textures in a vast majority of the areas is, well...not very nice.I can no longer run ai at my characteristic 70%. Now I must run FSX at 15% ai as it is the case with all the other traffic settings (the empty airports are one of the greatest letdowns). It's not even the case of having your cake and eating it too. It's a case of having a piece of cake and only getting a nibble.Now, I like the missions (I've completed about 8 of the beginner and intermediate ones) but it appears that my flying will be limited to bush flying in default planes (bye bye addons) where I don't have to worry about traffic and other matters associated with airports and city textures. Here I can extend the sliders a little more.I think a healthy mix of praise and criticism is warranted. Now we see above (the candor is appreciated) that FSX will run 10 to 15% slower under Vista (which I wanted to install) and DX9. No one can commit to improvements in FSX performance by the use of duo core systems and DX10 with Vista. So I don't see that much positive at all. And it is simply false to claim that a stripped down FSX is better than a fully maxed and boned up FS9. But I paid $79 (plus taxes) for this product and I'll continue to use it. I like that bloody water after all more than anything.P4 3.6 GHz HT, 1 gig ddr ram, ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe video

It's here! Yay!I don't care if it's 2-fps (hardware changes a lot over 3 years) or if it has bugs.It's new! Yay!

Well, I own it and those drop dead textures you're alluding to are incorrect in the majority of the world, thus, brown deserts for most of the US. However, the sky is indeed beautiful.You say: "My feeling is that many can't get past the eye candy to experience what this sim offers"Well what do you think FSX is? Why did the FSX team include the 'eye candy' in the first place...so you can turn it off to fly without it? Again, does that even remotely seem logical in this known universe?And yes, Geoff, FSX is PRIMARILY A TEXTURE UPGRADE. There I said it. I totally agree that the head latency (load up FS9 and Activecamera and turn head latency on) included for free with FSX is a GOOD thing as it gives more of a sense of motion. But, I've had this in FS9 for 3 years.Weigh the list for yourself.-New Sky-New Volumetric clouds-New high resolution textures-New Moving Traffic-New interactive animals and humans-New High Resolution Terrain Mesh-New (albeit WRONG) landclass-New High detailed coastlines-New Higly detailed aircraft-New Sun, lighting and shadow effects-New Wet runways-New Wave textures-New ground and cloud shadows-New Denser and varied AutogenAt least 14 new EYE CANDY thingies Then.- Head latency in the cockpit- Improved flight models and smoother gauges in the VC by default- Mildly tweaked ATC system- Fluid motion (disclaimer: must turn off or down much of the list above)Just 3 New flight releated thingiesNow, with those FACTS, tell me again what YOU think FSX is?Come on Geoff, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are NOT entitled to your own facts!Forums are here so that others, less in the know, can make INFORMED decisions before, during or after their purchase. If what they read here turns them away from FSX, so be it. If what they read here makes them race out and by 2 copies, so be it. Do a search and see how many "should I buy...your opinions please" you'll find here. The truth, Geoff. FSX is a milestone graphics upgrade with improved flight dynamics, it has the capacity to be the most spectacular release ever for the FS franchise..just not in the next 12 months. You simply cannot experience that milestone graphics upgrade right now. Peformance is poor if you start out with what you are used to after three years with FS9 right now so, you must be willing to sacrifice a lot. FSX is GREAT if you are okay with that. FSX is horrible if are not. Go from there...Oh and by the way, if you think that you will buy Vista and a DX10 card and all will be immediately well, then just don't forget that you've got to wait for a FSX 'patch' to make it DX10 compatible. FSX is a DX9 game, written for DX9 but incapable of achieving its full capacity in DX9. Again I ask...HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD? Please help me...explain to me how this is a GOOD THING again? PLEASE?Remember during the 2nd invasion of Iraq and the Iraqi Mister of Defense was on CNN telling the world that the glorious Iraqi Army is destroying the American infidels and have successfully defended Baghdad? Now, Geoff, it may have been his OPINION that Iraq was winning the war but that AH64 Longbow Apache squadron shooting Hellfire missles into his headquarters behind him along with the footage of the 101 Airborne Batallion ripping down Saddam's statues was the FACT that he was not. (edited for content)

"I like that bloody water after all more than anything"I spit cola out through my nose on that one!!! The funny thing is that the water and the sky have to be the most beautiful things in FSX!

Ok Mike-I think fsx is exactly what you said-but you did leave out quite a few on the "flight thingy's-off the top of my head-new systems like the garmin 1000, stec autopilot, the ability to share cockpits online allowing virtual flying lessons, ground effect and true crosswind landings which hasn't been in the fs series ever, random dutch roll and turbulence, better icing modelling, there are many more but but I have a lesson to teach online right now soI'll catch you later...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Ok Geoff:Ground effect, xwind landing, dutch roll, turbulence, icing all fall under flight modeling. They are supposed to be there in the first place if one wants to claim an accurate flight model.Not too excited about the Garmin 1000, though, we've had Garmin addon's by 3rd parties for years. It's a good thing if you're into that though. But us poor heavy pilots are still left wanting. An FMC would have been nice too! BUT, you're right the dual cockpit thingie I totally forgot about. I like that, and that is something truly groundbreaking that can be experience now. One out of twenty ain't bad! :-badteeth Enjoy teaching your class. Teaching is the most noble profession, IMHO, and I commend and envy you for giving so much of yourself to others.I enjoyed our debate. It's great to see that intelligent disagreement need not decend to idiotic and sophomoric squabbling when two passionate lovers of our hobby can debate with respect and civility! Enjoy!

How are you comparing FSX AS_RELEASED to FS9 with add-ons? With all those extras FS9 looks and feels awesome, I know that from personal observation to be FACT, but for pity's sake, FSX looks SWEET on my machine OUT OF THE BOX! I see your point, fine and good, but the fact that your point (keeping FS9 + addons) is a good one does NOT make my point (FSX being the greatest out-of-the-box FS ever) wrong!-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifCurrent system: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), 2 SeaGate Barracuda 250GB hard drives, Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumKlipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 speakers, NEC 20" CRT, Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2Please note: System specs are for reference in tech forums only and are not to be taken as meaning anything else.Doing so will result in eye-rolling, possible teeth grinding and perhaps mild internal chuckling.Happy Flying!

First of all sorry for my English (it's not my native language).For all of you, who say that FSX is so good: take in FSX Keikira LGKR airport in Greece. Look at http://www.airliners.net/ for real photos and compare it to what we see in FSX. Where is that beautiful approach from the sea?Next, change the camera view and look at LGKR from above. Look at the coast line. Very impresing stright lines ;) Most of small islands look like triangles or squares. Ok, forget it for a moment. Lets go to LOWI Innsbruck. Take fall as a season. Look at the mountains. Those are Alps right? So what those ugly (looking like sand) textures are doing on the mountain's peaks. The same textures we see all around (look at LIRF).Forget it one more time and go to Poland. Across the country flows realy big river Vistula. Not in FSX. For some reason there is no river Vistula in FSX;) I'm not saying FSX is bad. I'm aware and I understand that hardware requirements are bigger that in FS2004 but...how MS could make such errors in sceneries and textures? Europe during fall doesn't look like desert. You are saying that water is beautiful, that the sky and clouds look great. But such effects one can see in old IL-2 Sturmovik simulator. In IL-2 even clouds drop shadows on the ground. So, don't tell me that FSX is so great. It is good, has some new features but in my opinion FSX was released far too early with a lot of bugs which we have to correct by ourselves (all of those tweaks) or wait for add-ons (and pay again to see FSX looking as it should look).Best Regards

this release has been a tragic wasted opportunity, it could have been great and its a pile of dogs doodoosand i really really really want to love it but its beaten me, it is in fact complete and utter rubbish and should be

>this release has been a tragic wasted opportunity, it could>have been great and its a pile of dogs doodoosyour post is a tragic wasted opportunity, it couldhave been great and its a pile of dogs doodoosAnd don't even tell me you don't see the point...

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.ThanksMitch R.

>>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 opinion

>@ Mike T - spot on as always Mike. If FSX had to be run with>nothing more than a blue sky and a one color brown texture>with nothing else but the plane, they would cry that its the>best thing ever released.>>@ Geofa - problem is Geofa that many here ONLY have this sim>to indulge in their fantasy of flying. Many don't have the>luxury of piloting their private plane around in the real>world like you. So many here do want everything turned on and>expect to have everything turned on when they bought FSX so>that they could have a great immersion factor. So stop beating>your bloody drum of, turn this off and turn that off and this>as well and hey what do you know, she flies good.I strongly disagree. I'm into "eye candy" as much as anyone. It's always been about 50/50, as I figure that what I'm seeing out of the windows/windscreen has to be as important as flight modeling. X-Plane finally included some excellent terrain mesh, which has greatly raised my interest with that sim.As to FSX, I'm running auto-gen "off" most of the time, with the exception of mountain bush flying. This combined with "water effects off", easily gives a 10 fps increase, while getting rid of those stupid looking auto-gen houses crammed on top of crystal clear photo type city land scapes. IMO, these photo type city scapes look far more real with auto-gen off. I was very impressed flying out of KSEA this way, and quite disappointed when adding auto-gen for a look at the difference. Auto-gen off looks real & auto-gen on looks cartoony! Therefor, I'm not giving up anything in the way of eye candy with this setting "off".Water effect. I always kept this off in FS9 too. While it looked interesting for some areas, it could also look very fake in others. With it off, in FS9, it also greatly increased frame rates. I prefer frame rates of around 30.With auto-gen off & water off, I find the climbout out of KSEA, or my home airport of KSLC to look very amazing with the new city textures combined with the default topography mesh, as well as the much improved resolution. In my mind, it's a lot about eye candy, and FSX is certainly keeping my interest. Geof, as I have, has noticed that certain "off" settings actually look more like real flight. That's all there is to it.Is everything perfect with FSX? Of course not. But at the moment, I'm getting some very smooth and stutterless flight out of this sim. Combined with the much better texturing, I feel like it's quite a treat as far as "eye candy" goes. Combine that with some added flight modeling, and it might be quite a while before I fire up FS9 again.L.Adamson