Shhhhh .... don't criticize on this forum ;)

>The owners of this forum could opt to create a "Pros" and a>"Cons" category under FSX Forum and let people post only the>good in Pros and only the bad in Cons.>>That might help you get to the good without having to read the>bad.>>You might NOT find many postings under the "Pros" ;) I've>only used FSX for 2 hours and unfortunatley I have a long list>of pretty serious problems.>>Rob.Great idea then I can skip reading the CONS part since I am enjoying it, geeze.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

The post did not mention critics which is healthy and good-it mentioned flaming which is not. There is a difference...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

It would be different if Aces and others actually listened to what the customer wants. Sure we want better sims and we want the technoligy to move forward but what good is the release of FSX when we will spend the next 2 years figuring out how to make it the way we want it? I saw a post about FSX from Randazzo over at PMDG and he even stated without the point in mind that it happens every release. That we get the new sim and spend the next 2 years trying to tweak it out to make it run on our systems. I remember the same thing was said about FS9 that its the death of simming and framerates suck,blah blah blah. AS I stated before don't you think it would have been better to pay for an upgrade of FS9 and they could make that engine run like butter on all of our systems rather then increasing the mark and introducing a whole new set of issues? And I'm not saying I condone this type of action but the hackers are gonna be running wild on Add Ons for FSX. Its already started with the pay for this upgrade crap when we as customers just bought add ons within the last month or 2. I know I purchased 2 add ons in specific that just because of the company I know I am gonna have to pay to upgrade. So Patrick if this constant cycle is fine for you then by all means no one need to flame but it is a constant cycle at our expense. How wierd is it that we'll need Vista and a new DX10 Graphics Card that together sill cost about 700 bucks US? I mean the DX10 is gonna bring really bueatiful water, we really really really need that. Forget the fact that 99% of the users out there in one way or another bought a new graphics card more then likely just to use this sim.

>Hi, I first want to say a big THANK YOU to the owners and>moderators of this Avsim!!!! You are all doing a great job!>>Now on to the point...I am tired of entering the forum and>having to scroll way past ...Snip...>>I am a Canadian...so obviously I must apologize for this>post...lol...and this is my third ...Snip...>>What is funny is that by me saying all this I might get the>flaming responses...and I may deserve it...but I definitely>not trying to provoke it...I rarely post...but I just had to>speak my mind.>>Thank you for reading...hope I didn't bore you too much.>>PatrickI am with you, bud! Although in truth those who post here (all of them, us included) are just the very tip of the iceberg of users. What shrinks my tights is the very short time most all of us have had to really evaluate this issue. Any piece of software such as this one will require time to fit it to all the many variations in hardware that are "out there". I just wish that we, as a community, could take the time to let it sort itself out. How is this, you ask? Well we've gone through essentially the same process with every edition of FS. And eventually people do get round the shortcomings and/or find out how to adjust it to their machine.Just my $0.00002 worth (and carpers be advised that all flames go directly to the bit bucket.):D

What appears to be different in this release compared to all other releases is:1. QualityI expected a huge fps hit and really didn't think it would be flyable at 1920 x 1200 -- and it isn't. What took me by surprise are all the graphical mistakes, and applied affects that just look terrible! I could live with the fps/performance problem by "tweaking" my settings, but there is NOTHING I can do about poor programming where visual quality has MANY issues/problems.All the tweaking in the world isn't going to help here, only a patch will.I think what has hurt this release (it sure doesn't appear to be flying off the shelves as I see many many many many copies just stacked up a Fry's Electronics - no I didn't buy one, I got a copy for free) more than anything is that the dev team tried to retain compatibility with all the existing third party tools/add-ons, and didn't realize that they needed a new (ground up) approach to developing a product that would take advantage of existing hardware (i.e. multiple cores, SLI, etc. etc.).On an X6800 Core 2 @ 3.9Ghz and an X1950XTX (overclocked also), I should be able to turn up ALL the details to Max and it should at least look good (even if the fps is not very flyable). The problem is -- max details and it looks worse than FS9. Tweaking should NOT be necessary to look good, it might be necessary to obtain good frame rates, but to get the product to look good all I should have to do is use the built in settings provided by the FSX interface -- this unfortunately just is NOT the case.Look around at other games/sims -- the graphical quality is considerably better as are the frame rates. Soo, my only conclusion is that either the dev team are just not good programmers or they are trying to live with a compatibility constriction that just doesn't work any more.Rob.

Double post, sorry - site is taking some hits I guess.Rob.

The graphical quality is your ATI cards fault. ATI has problems sometimes with DDS textures just a fact I love my ATI card but I it does have problems. Now with your system you should be able to get low to med level settings with good results on 1920x1200 res. I look at Lockon as another built for the future Sim and its 3 or 4 years old I still can't run it with every thing maxed out. Remeber what ACES said no computer built today will be able to run FSX maxed out. Not evn your overclocked one.Me 2 tried of the flames.

If one whinges at whingers, does that make you more or less of a whinger? :-lolSeriously though, if nobody here whinged and everyone was in happy land while doing major reconstruction work on FSX themselves, MS might think everything was rosy with this release and in turn not bother to do anything about it. Whilst the rants themselves may not be constructive, it sends a pretty clear message that all is not happy out there in FSX land, which should in turn inspire MS to do something about the issues, particularly performance-related, being reported. And if MS wants to properly quantify these issues first, there are more than a handful of people around here who will provide quantitative data for their analysis.Gary

I would skip reading the "cons" part then. I don't have time for flaming and worthless drivel, which is 50% of the con posts to begin with.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

I'd be pretty surprised if Microsoft weren't already aware of these issues. I find it hard to imagine that their internal testing and those folks BETA testing didn't bring up most of the issues that have been provided. If you go to Microsoft's feedback site you can see how "bugs" and issues are addressed (or not) and closed.As far as a patch or update...not sure that will happen soon, but it probably will happen within a year -- my money is on the Vista update. But Vista is being rushed to market also. Seems to be the trend at Microsoft, ship now, fix it later. Which is unfortunate, because that shows signs of internal problems.Microsoft Studios do regular updates for games like Age Of Empires, Rise of Legends, so maybe they will do the same with FSX -- I'll have to check to see if their is any "Check for Update" feature built into FSX -- didn't see one initially, maybe I missed it.I agree on the "good product" -- if a product is good, the good to bad post ratio is usually at least 60/40 (60% good, 40% bad). What we have here appears to be 20/80 (20% good, 80% bad). If you go by statistics, there is clearly something not right about FSX.Rob.

This is not ATI's fault -- how did you come to that conclusion? ATI have traditionally produced better quality images than nVidia. In fact, ATI can do HDR and AA, nVidia can only do one or the other, but not both at the same time. Think you need to read up more on ATI, especially the X1950XTX.My X1950XTX works very will with FS9. To say a product is released for "future technology" is pretty naive. What future technology? How can a programmer code for future technology that doesn't exist? Please explain that to me? There are NO DX10 boards available yet to programmers, not even Microsoft.I'd be happy if Microsoft had coded for current technology like Dual core CPUs and existing SLI/crossfire hardware, but they really didn't, no SLI support and no crossfire support and very limited multi-CPU support.A product needs to earn positive feedback, FSX has NOT earned it.Can they fix it, yes, will they fix, probably, will they fix everything, probably not, when will they fix it - who knows, but my guess is around the time Vista is released.Rob.

Flames burn asses when they need burning. How does anyone who has made, developed or created anything know if it's fit for purpose? How can they know what to fix? The norm for companies in this day and age is to positively elicit feedback from its customers. It is recognised that this is vital in order to do well as a compnay. If you can't stand the heat (of flames) stay out of the kitchen. If you're satisfied with FSX as it is then I can only conclude that you have low expectations. Your chances of enjoying a patched FS in a year's time is more likely to happen as a result of complaints.