You are really clueless...

ROFL!!!The collective stupidity of some of these people makes me fall over laughing!If you base your decision on purchasing a product entirely on a TV commercial then you're stupider than you give yourself credit for.I've played FSX, and based on EXPERIENCE WITH THE SIM it is in many ways FAR BETTER AND CERTAINLY MORE REALISTIC than FS9.Unlike you I'm actually qualified to say that.James

"You got a link handy to back up that claim?"Jens I hate to say this but you must be 'Brain Dead' in your perspective on this situation.Facts:1. Microsoft wouldn't show up at all the Avsim conferences if they didn't read these threads. Inputs here are very well known. Microsoft is too big to bother with meaningless websites. So there is the marketing departement right there. 2. Do a search and read the highlights at various Avsim conferences where the MS reps have stated repeatedly they read these forums (you do the search I don't have the time, prove me wrong). It would be foolish for anyone on the Aces team not to read what customers are saying. Anyone would be a fool to believe any of them don't. Jens imagine yourself in a business; would you not read what customers are saying about your product??? 3. I personally worked with different developers and Microsoft with their monitoring software to see what we simmers were doing with the sim. Who do you think was processing this raw data. Depending on what side of the tracks your on with this debate you could always say nothing remotly transcended into FSX. From the sounds of it you would disagree.3. Here's a link below that all but spells it out our allegedly growing relationship with Aces/Microsofthttp://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=53773TDragger in certain situations all but pleads the 5th and back tracks on statements made many times by other MS reps in the past.

Unfortunately all they really do is clutter up the forums, hence making it more difficult to read the constructive threads.James

>Jens I hate to say this but you must be 'Brain Dead' in your>perspective on this situation.>I thought Jens was spot on, and wondered where you're coming from?This is NO situation! It's a flipping entertainment title! Labeling people "liars" and "brain dead" for a silly thread such as this is beyond me!So what are we worrying about here? Which toy entertainment tile is better? Jeeze, what an embarssement to humanity...L.Adamsonedit: the **** with the spelling errors

L.Adamson first off I wasn't labeling Jens himself but more so his comments. Anyone this deep into Flight Simulation can't be brain dead as this hobby takes more than a little aptitude within itself (flying, hardware tweaking, patience, etc). L.Adamson this is very simple. TDragger is now stating there's only a few members on the team that actually read these forums. I'm stating that's not true and providing examples to back up what I'm saying. Microsoft has been around this community for quite some time and is just now openly talking to us in these forums. That wouldn't happen in the world Jens is painting up. Jens came at me and so I came back at him. He challenged me to prove my point and in the spare time I had I presented my case. L.Adamson what the heck are you talking about here??? Anytime some of you guys read something you don't like you come up with all this meaningless theoretical babble about how this is only a game. When it's your point that needs to get put across everybody better bow down, listen, and ooh heaven forbid they have an apposing view. This is a discussion forum; we come here to agree to disagree (get over it). :-roll"So what are we worrying about here? Which toy entertainment tile is better? Jeeze, what an embarssement to humanity..."With 3758 post to your credit you got me beat. I would say this is more than a toy to you as your spending time in here as if it was a job. These comments are better suited to you as you've had more than your share of slams against others over a perceived meaningless toy... :-lol

What the heck has happened to the constructive discussion of flight simulation in this forum? This whole thread is a disgrace from geek posturing behind keyboards to absolutely inane name calling disrespecting the Aces developers.Question to Tdragger or anyone: There's got to be somewhere where mature adults are discussing the pros and cons of FSX without this childish banter?Before anyone takes offense please realize it was intended. Though I will say it's pushing me closer and closer to restarting my pursuit of real flight and getting away from flight simulation. There's not much name calling at the airport lounge and much more respect for one another.Disgraceful thread.Ian.

>>Before anyone takes offense please realize it was intended. >Disgraceful thread.>>Ian.By taking part in this topic you have included yourself in your 'self opinionated' assesments of character.We live in a land of free speech and if you don't like reading these sort of topic's then don't.Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it's up to you whether to read it or not?

I took some nice screen shots of FSX last night and will get them up on my web site. I finally got it looking pretty good, unfortunately frame rates are still low at large airports (like SFO) 8 fps. Autogen has been completely disabled (at first I thought it was missing something, but after a while and at 1000'+ it actually looks better without autogen scenery). I turned ON blooming and found that to be actually very well, but again it does provide a big frame rate hit.Cons:1. Weather, not a gradual change, instant on/off and sudden changes.2. Pan around 3D view and I can catch scenery & objects loading with black & blue squares.3. I have 2GB RAM and it is not all being utilized by FSX and video card is 512MB so plenty of texture room even at 1920 x 1200.4. ATC still brain dead -- sent me off on heading 065 out of SFO forever -- seems to have problems with close waypoints.5. 3D cockpits, many missing active buttons -- i.e. altimeter adjustment6. FMC (I couldn't active it, maybe just me)7. Traffic (road) stops, stutters, starts, stops -- very odd8. Cities don't blend very well, still stick out and building texture still on/off which can make them appear even more unrealistic9. No way to know what level of Anti-Aliasing FSX supports, I'm guessing it is 4X as that is the only one that seems to produce the best results when AF is turned on.Pros:1. Dusk lighting is very well done, especially on water2. Detailed AI Aircraft reflections on the water (impressive)3. Blooming was done well (most software seems to over bloom, but FSX got it right)4. Fuel delivery is nice and so is push back5. cockpits are better than FS9, but not as good as 3rd party6. ATC routing appears to be better for AI7. Crains! Was surprised to see it around San Carlos, but well done.The biggest weakness in FSX is:1. Poor performance even when one has hardware well beyond mainstream and as testing has shown that the current top end hardware is still NOT being utilized (RAM, CPUs, SLI/Crossfire).2. 3D object blending -- still NOT good and very unrealistic -- this has always been a problem with FS since the introduction of textured scenery.The biggest strengths in FSX is:1. Support for additional 3D features found in most mid to high end video cards (except SLI/crossfire).2. A more lively world (too bad it has to be toned down so much to obtain reasonable frame rates)What I hope to see out of FSX dev team:1. MUCH improved support for multi-CPU systems (dual core is common, quad core is about to be released).2. Better use of system RAM (64 bit version perhaps for Vista 64?)3. Support for SLI/Crossfire - as in actually use not "compatibility"4. Serious improvement to 3D object blending with sceneryFSX can be salvaged, clearly it has received A LOT more negative exposure than any prior release of FS -- do the right thing FSX dev team -- you're almost there, drop another year of hard work into this and reclaim some of those lost resources working Vista and you can visit forums like this and others and read the praises.