thanks for the info tdragger, glad to hear you guys are taking notice of everything and hopefully come up with a good solution patch.

Thank you tdragger.

Thanks Taildragger for your reply. FSX has so many great features and it is so frustrating for many users not to be able to use them, even if their hardware qualifies.Jean-Paul

"One of the great things about a strong community like the one on AvSim is that you can get immediate turnaround on trial-and-error approaches. We, as a large company, would find that hard to replicate. " If I read this correctly, is it implying that MS is using the AVSIM community as a large beta test and also problem solvers for FSX? If so, then my decision ot hold off purchasing FSX for the moment seems even more sound now. I'll just wait until MS finishes beta testing with the avsim community, and issues appropriate updates/patches. Mike

I am really very impressed with your approach tdragger! It is nice to see that you have responded with professionalism (if there is such a word) stating that you care about how we all feel and that you will respond in time to come. And you are right about the "wait and see" attitude as there are also people who are happy with FSX. I am sure at the end we will all (most of us) be satisfy. Congratulations again for the most amazing flight simulator ever developed!Stelios

I am waiting with the purchase until at least March 07. I'll let this thing settle in, wait til DX10 comes out, Vista and then see how this thing performs. Also, upgrading your systems after the Christmas holidays is a good idea as well, as the hardware prices will go down.I smelled this since earlier this year that FSX would be a totally different ballgame than the previous releases. I've had the previous versions on the same day as they came out but there's no way I'm jumping on the bandwagon just yet.

Whow lets hope those Beta testers keep to their NDA's. Just acting suprised about the low fps even on current hardware doesn't help you one bit when even in every demo you yourselves did performance was a major problem.So you had a tight deadline and you didn't get round to optimising the fps, Checking the landclass data and you kept debating the 'landbridges' issue instead of fixing it. Seems to me like to many management and to little programmers.I hope the powers that be give you some extra develpment time to fix the things that should not be in any professionaly released software in the first place. If not then this will be CFS3 all over again.Lets be honest. Today nobody in their right mind releases software that needs hardware not avaible for 2 more years. Its an old concept from the days of 2 man garage development teams. Modern software runs well and looks nice with medium hardware and has options to look stunning at higer than needed fps on future hardware.Relying on newer hardware to solve your performance problems is so last century.

I think it's a trifle cynical to regard responding to feedback as a huge public beta at the buyer's expense. I have said that FSX is working okay on my PC, and it is. Now I'm aware that this is not the fortunate position everyone finds themselves in, and so I voiced my support for the intial point this thread made.The 'public beta' argument gets bandied about from time to time with software releases and it is sometimes tempting to think that this might indeed have been a decision taken, but if it was and knowledge of it didn't leak out, it would be the best-kept secret since Kennedy got shot.I would venture to suggest that there can be few items of software that are expected to do so much, be modified so much and work on such a variety of systems and components around the world, as the latest version of Flight Sim. And when you consider that, getting it to work flawlessly on a high percentage of machines, from day one, would be nothing short of a minor miracle.I bought FSX, as I have bought previous versions, in the knowledge that, like previous versions, whether it runs okay on my systems is occasionally something of a dice roll, and if I felt the need for an upgrade, it would certainly not be the first time right after having purchased the latest version of FS.So with that in mind, I still went ahead and bought it, because whether running straight from the box on my current systems, or requiring an upgrade, I always want to use the latest and greatest version of something so ingrained in the aviation field, and something that like me, most aviation fans would not be without. Because to do so means that you can actually contribute to the discussion and have an input on what transpires in terms of fixes and tweeks. Put simply, you can be part of the solution, and that is no bad thing in a compter software genre that literally pushes the envelope.I always like to equate stuff like this to the story of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress: Owing to a stupid error where they forgot to take the control locks off the B-17 prototype, it crashed on take-off while being demonstrated to the US Army and Navy representatives, killing the test pilot and totally writing the prototype off. A mistake, and we all make them, nobody is perfect. That mistake could have ended the aircraft's career right there and then and probably would have put Boeing out of business too. Instead the military reps saw the potential for the aircraft and eventually went ahead and bought it.But in combat it proved vulnerable, especially with no tail gun; so with operational experience noted, it went through a redesign or two and eventually became the legend it was, robust, accurate and a major player in the arsenal of the US. A painful growth it is true, but from that you ended up with an enduring classic that eventually proved unstoppable. So good in fact, that you can still see a development of the B-17s Cheyenne tail turret design on some aircraft in service today. Pick any other classic you like and you'll often find a similar story.

>And you are right about the "wait and see" attitude as there are also>people who are happy with FSX. I am sure at the end we will>all (most of us) be satisfy. Congratulations again for the>most amazing flight simulator ever developed!...and the others will continue their ranting, raving, wailing and gnashing of teeth... :-violin

Mike, There are definitely frame rate issues - and a few obvious bugs that could probably be easily fixed - and it will be great if the team can come up with some fixes in the fullness of time. But meanwhile I'd just like to say that after a week with FSX I have found that it can deliver usable frame rates. More important, this simulator is stunningly beautiful and represents a huge step forward from FSX. I'm still finding things that are significant improvements over FS9. Despite the problems, I think Microsoft have done a brilliant job. And one of the best things is the presence of your good self and the team on this forum. It's much appreciated. Best regards, Chris

>I hope the powers that be give you some extra develpment time>to fix the things that should not be in any professionaly>released software in the first place. If not then this will be>CFS3 all over again.CFS3 was a disaster, no question. I tried running it on the new computer a year ago - and it ran terribly, possibly worse than on the old one.FSX is not a disaster. It runs okay on my year old computer and looks spectacular (e.g. the 1 meter textures). I think I would describe it as a flawed masterpiece. With faster hardware and maybe a patch or two then it could claim to be the best flight simulator, ever.Best regards, Chris

>>>I hope the powers that be give you some extra develpment>time>>to fix the things that should not be in any professionaly>>released software in the first place. If not then this will>be>>CFS3 all over again.>>CFS3 was a disaster, no question. I tried running it on the>new computer a year ago - and it ran terribly, possibly worse>than on the old one.>>FSX is not a disaster. It runs okay on my year old computer>and looks spectacular (e.g. the 1 meter textures). I think I>would describe it as a flawed masterpiece. With faster>hardware and maybe a patch or two then it could claim to be>the best flight simulator, ever.>>Best regards,> ChrisWhat is better?FSX works like it's supposed to. They could have made the sliders go halfway up, and not used shaders for the water, and then everybody would complain about how ugly it is.

Well if they made a decent performance test and they would profile current mainstream machines to give around 20 fps (in all places on the planet) then yes they should have made an option to turn off the shaders.They didn't do a good performance test so now we have people reducing textures (again you clould let your installer do this on the fly), tweaking the amount of auto gen in the fsx.cfg (could have measured the processor speed and adjust this value based on the machine but they kind of didn't) and disabling shaders in the display.cfgThe current FS-X forum is has fan posts, basher post but most of all tweaker posts. So wat does that tell you.What if you would roll out a new program in your organisation and it gets the endusers talking about adjusting the program files to make run it decently? Would you consider that a succes? Would you actualy have the nerve to tell management that it will run okay on hardware thats available in 2 years time? How long would you keep your job when you did that?