>Staffan with all respect stay with FS9 and have fun...>But it's funny this one is huge step up from FS9 in all>fields...>If you can't see that :-lol>Do you have FSX installed just curious?>If you have based your opinion only on a few screenshots then>you will miss a lot...>>I fired FS9 up today to fly some real system stuff... but hey>it scared the heck out of me that ugly :-lol>I have no blurries in FS9 and with all the add-on stuff man>you can't compare...>>But have in which sim you are going to fly I bet you will in>the near future... ;-)>>By the way you should change your logo :-lol>>Andr

I haven't done any tweaks. Runs fine here, wish I could help Staffan and the others who are having issues. All I can really do is offer hardware upgrade advice, because that's all I know as far as computers are concerned. Whats a shame is the fact that I thought we were done with all badmouthing of this new version.. Really the original poster offered nothing by posting this, he said nothing about what problems he was having he only said that their were bugs. How about some objective data guys, no one can help you if you don't post an actual problem, also system specs help when it's relevant. Come on folks, help us help you.JeffDisclaimer: I'm not a "a really excited user" or a "cheerleader." At this point though when some one posts something like this, I can only assume that some people are badmouthing FSX just to stir something up. Let's grow up a little. I might as well state that I like both versions just fine, and I have no affiliation with either the "FSX sucks army" or the "FSX is completely perfect army." Thank you.

>""I think that all FSX cheereleaders mixes thing up here. What>we all are interested in, is how FSX behaves compared to>FS9,.....>U N T W E A K E D !"">>And don't even include me in the "WE" camp you are>delusional about>>Regards, Michael>KDFWOh excuse me,..I changed it to a more proper phrase....:-waveLet me explain my frustration over FSX,.....As many of you may know, is that I am a 2D panel full system 80% airliner simmer, 20% businessjet simmer and 0% GA simmer. And I have not yet found even one single post from a happy FL370 guy. It seams that MS have neglected us FL370 guys big time. That is why I strongly feel that FS9 have much more to offer....namely all wonderful aircraft addons, which I can fly without any single stutter in FS9.I can not even think about how all my favourite addon planes would perform in FSX.So, as long as the focus is on the GA in FSX,....why would I even considder getting it?http://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifMy specs are:Dell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HDMy work:http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

>>Disclaimer: I'm not a "a really excited user" or a "cheerleader." At this>point though when some one post something like this, I can>only assume that some people are badmouthing FSX just stir>something up. Let's grow up a little. Thank you.Same here! The "we" must stand for a bunch of kiddie armchair wannabe pilots snickering in the background. At least that's what I visualize --- at the moment.L.Adamson

>With all due respect for all of you cheereleaders,...I have>not seen even one screenshot which have made me to want to>purchase FSX. And on top of that, with only 20 fps with a>tweaked platform !!!! No thanks.>>To be real honest, when FSX is running with 30 - 40 fps>untweaked, with a massive scenery patch and when we can add>non default aircraft without major frameratehits, THEN I will>strongly considder it. :-)>Actually I have it now at the point it's running faster as FS9 :-rollI agree it's a hardware "beast" to configure...I'm not a cheerleader but just enthaustic about a new great flightsim platform where I can have my aviation dreams...I settle with my add-ons and heavy traffic and weather around the 24 fps and I'm happy...FSX has a far better sense of speed and flying as FS9 ever could be for me... I have 60 fps npb see screenshot forum and with custom made AI still around 30 FPS with ASV and 120 AI planes sitting at Heathrow with all the ground traffic...If you need any help for a particular shot or info just let me know happy to help you out...But just whatever you are going to fly have fun :-)I visit still FS9 for a certain 767 :-)Andr

...... is to spend months and month creating a new flightsim product and then a couple of months teasing the potential consumer to the point where they say....RELEASE IT ALREADY ........then we spend our $$$$$$$.....ONLY to become after release BETA TESTERS.......so far Ive spent $500.00 to have that privilage.....Im glad Microsoft is no exception...

>Truly this sim should have never been release this soon with>all the bugs and problems in it, what do thay take us for>suckers!!!!!skyking how is this helping. You say bugs then give no examples. FSX has problems we know that. If you do not list a single problem then call allthat have bought it suckers that sure is going to ralley people to your side.Just point out the problems you have had maybe ACES memebers are still around taking notes and looking over this things. FSX will be a great sim with time like FS9 was. Also the a really excited user really don't help with the same spill about nothing is wrong when there is. My advice to anybody buying FSX now your better have a monster system even with the tweaks if you like flying near bigger cities and at least 1.5 to 2gb ram period.:-)

Just curious where the "a really excited user" have said nothing is wrong with the sim? If I am not mistaken every poster at least on this thread so far with a positive outlook towards the sim has already made observations on many things that could use improvement.Andre is doing extensive work on making it work better for people.Me-I just turn off autogen and water and find it looks better and performs better that way than fs9 with all my add ons ever did-let alone all the new features opf fsx that fs9 doesn't have.Since I beta tested the thing I do have a quite a list of things I'd like to see fixed/improved-and I am surprised that many of them havn't even begun to be mentioned or noticed...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I wish mine would just get here so I could see it!! I think there should be some accountability on distribution from MS.

When I had FSX up and running before it crashed and would not let it load again I loved what I was seeing and doing with FSX. I can't wait until I can get some fix so I can load it again. David. Asus A8N-SLI Mother BoardAMD64 939 CPU1GB MemoryReaeon X300 Card

I wish people would stop banging on about fps. FSX at 15 fps is so much smoother than fs9 at 20fps. It's not frames per second tat matter people, it's how smoother the sim is. I don't post often in this forum because most people don't have anything constructive to say, but when i do it's because i either have a problem I can't fix myself, or because I'm sick and tired of people moaning about how fs doesn't perform for them. I have an AMD 3100+ sempron processor, ABIT NV8 mobo, 1 gb of ram, ATI x800gt vid car, and I run at an average of 20 fps in fsx. With itlocked at 15 I get constant smooth performance with high autogen, high scenery complexity, large terrain detail, water at 1x low (not bothered about water to be quite honest), AND i have not problem at all with the sim. I suggest that most people with probelms are actually having problems with their computer rather than FS. Just my 2 cents.Aaron

Geofa point in case you comming in behind anybody that complains about FSX with a rosie picture that all is well. This is the first time I have seen you post that things were not all that great in beta.I have not read all your post so I may have missed you pointing out somethings amiss about FSX. Why should Andre have to do extensive work to make it work for people?I'm thankful he has and left my thanks to him on one of his post. We all understood that it would take a monster machine to get it up to great FPS thats not the problem. Its a lot of things that should of just been plain seen which I guess were. So now we wait for patches I'm not just talking about the vista one either.I'm thankful he has and left my thanks to him on one of his post. This poster was off the wall though about his comments and I posted my feelings about that also.

>The easiest way is to jump over to the screenshots forum to>get the idea. There you have all the evidence neccessary.>:-waveGeofa was asking to see YOUR FSX screenshots that support your hypothesis......oops! I forgot... you don't own a copy! :-roll

If you feel like you've been ripped off, you have a couple of options:A. Try and get your money back. B. Wait until it is sorted out/you have equipment that can run it (depending on your issue with it).If you choose, option A (and succeed in getting a refund), you will no longer have been ripped off, end of problem, if you don't get your money back, either feel annoyed, or see option B.If you prefer option B, you really are no worse off, when FSX is to your satisfaction, you can get into using it, at that point you'd be buying it anyway, so you've not lost any cash. In the meantime, if you want to run FS9 (as it seems to have been renamed by everyone), then there is nothing stopping you from doing that.Now, having said (or rather typed) all that, here's how I see it:Flight modelling is far superior in FSX, although I suspect it is actually not too different from FS9, just better because of the way the air mass emulation is affecting how you fly along, this makes flying more challenging and actually gives FS a point to having a glider in it (way to go, only taken 25 years LOL).Frame rates are not so hot (although I can live with them mostly on my rig). Much of this is clearly the decision to incorporate graphics features that are advanced and so that's really the culprit, not bad programming. I can distinctly recall earlier versions of FS having graphical no go areas (slider-wise) for computers I had at the time, so this is nothing new. Which means what most people are really #### about is their computers not being up to snuff (although granted, we are talking pricy upgrades and some stuff not quite available yet, so some #### is justified). However, you can run FSX if you like while you wait/save up, it just won't be as pretty as it potentially can be.AI is a bit shaky in places, and this too is nothing new, all versions of FS with AI planes in them have treated most of us to a plane coming in the other way at some point, and I personally solved it in FSX by hacking Ultimate Traffic about until it worked in FSX. Doubtless a better version-specific edition of that and other traffic add-ons will come out, but frankly, since it kind of works OK the way I've done it, I won't be buying another traffic add-on until at least when Vista and DX10 are out. But there you go.Default aircraft: Some people are slating the default aircraft, but the virtual cockpits in FSX are pretty good on the whole and the interface is much improved, certainly they have better fidelity than (for example) the PMDG 737 and 747 (and I say thet being a PMDG fan BTW). some have complained that they look 'cartoonish' I personally don't agree with that, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I do think it's about time MS/the developers admitted that airliners have FMCs and put one in there (even FS98 had an add-on one available and that's getting on for ten years ago now), no airline pilot flies from a hand-held GPS and even if they did, GPS is not approved for approaches (although that is coming soon in the real world, subject to approval - I know this because I worked with someone, in a small way, on the development of one such system - but it's still a bit secret, so sssh!)External models are good (spotted one or two minor glitches on them, but nothing that's a deal-breaker for me). 2D panels are becoming a bit like a fifth wheel these days, but they are there and they are okay.Scenery; This is a contentious point, a lot of developers are bemoaning the fact that the SDK is not very helpful for them, they have a point (I personally did complain a bit on the 'tell the devs' email address and FS insider about this) but, I think that much of it will be down to finding new methods of working and there are rarely any problems that are insurmountable in the real, or simulated world, although with regard to that ethos, don't hold your breath waiting for Warp Drives :-)Not that thrilled with the water effects myself personally, but some might like them.In the meantime, some have texture blurring issues, not me personally that often, but they are there for some. so granted, FSX may have issues there. I suspect DX10 will help matters, but without a copy on my drive, that can be nothing more than speculation on my part.Autogen is improved a bit, but then again, it's still nowhere near as good as dedicated 'real' scenery, and personally I never have it on anyway, because I think it looks cack. For those who do like it however, it seems to be a bit of a RAM hog, and thee are fixes posted to improve matters, so that one is a personal choice really.Living, breathing world? Cars on the roads are pretty cool to look at, but another RAM hog. Ships? well yeah, but I must admit I had a bit of an 'Admiral Nelson' moment over the English Channel - this is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and on 100 ship traffic I found myself paraphrasing the Admiral, because 'I saw no ships' either. and I'm fairly certain that Southampton docks generally has more than five ships in it.The sky: as a flight environment not many would argue that it's vastly superior, weather downloading works well too, but I think the choice of clouds could be better than it is for given conditions. so on the whole, not bad but still room for improvement (visually anyway).Birds and bees. I've not personally come across any animals in FSX, although I believe some have seen them, although I'm more interested in the possibility this present to use that system to have people walking about 'airside' at airports, since this is something you have to be aware of when taxying in the real world. So again, potential possibilities, but at the moment, invisible eye candy for me.Missions; the demise of easily constructed adventures in FS9 was a real mistake (it was possible to do them but it was a proper pain in the ####). Now they are back and very welcome too, there is a lot of scope with them and this is very good news indeed. Good Decision MS/Devs.Multiplayer: Not tried this with FSX yet, but many have reported issues with connection and given that FSX has huge potential as a training device with the ability for two people to occupy the same aircraft and fly as P1 and P1, or just for fun. This is cool but evidently needs sorting out a bit. Guess we'll have to wait and see on that one, some online games never get this sorted out (SH2 springs to mind).To sum up my opinion, a rip off? Not really.An improvement. Not in every area that it could have been improved in, but there is much to applaud and some things to boo and hiss about. Bodes well for the future would be a fair assessment I think.Needs tweeking a bit? Certainly does, largely with a patch called Vista it seems.Some kind of MS global conspiracy? Well, based on the fact that they completely arsed up the SP2 release, I hardly think Blofeld is in charge at MS headquarters, so I doubt it.Released too soon? Maybe, but I'm glad I have it anyway.I think that's a fair assessment, of course some will disagree. I haven't taken FS9 off my drive, but when the PMDG aircraft get up and running and I don't need it as a proxy for installing stuff to transfer to FSX, there won't be much keeping me from deleting FS9.

staffan, I have no idea what you are talking about, I am 37000 guy too and still fly a lot with FS9 but it looks increasingly flat and boring even with every of the wonderful addons you are mentioning and they are indeed wonderful, but are not giving you a sense of real movement in a three dimensional space like FSX. Just utilizing a static screenshot in order to judge a programm seems not sufficient for me and makes no sense. I have no stutters at all, even at low fram rates with the sliders middle right. Fs9 does not even use the fifth part of the amount of autogen that FSX USES, FS9 Trees basically disappear directly after takeoff, FSX Trees are still visible from very high altitudes. ... so I just suggest to go the Fs9 forum and get your message out there... maybe with time you'll come arround,,, would be glad to see it. Yesterday I flew a 737 into Ketchikan at 29 Miles Wind in FS 9 and FSX and the plane in FS9 was hardly ever moving. FSX gave me ride, I nearly got nauseas. I know we all hate low Framrates, but there is always a trade off...