FXF3 Honestly I am knee deep in your Bull Dung and I might drown. ITs a beautiful picture of warm summer breezes and fuzzy litle warm tingly feelings I only felt when I was 13 and sleeping. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

"1) High fidelity FDE's already existed prior to FSX"Yes they did for a price usually. Never really found the pitch/statbility issue right landings and xwind correction not to mention random turbulence, thermals, and dutch roll just not there."2) Smooth gauges already existed for the VC (for more than a year!)"You must have a different version of the sim than I did-imho smooth gauges haven't existed since fs2000 (remember the patch-they turned down the sensitiviy on them so the out the window view would stutter less). I never used the 3d cockpit view before fsx for this very reason-and the 2d while better was still too jerky for good, precise control.That was the one thing xplane had over fs-no longer."3) I don't have blurries in my scenery now with FS9 (I do with FSX!)"You now have the option to take care of that with frame fiber command. Of course, as mentioned, autogen and water are the two things that takes a terrible performance hit now because of the huge variety and type,so if you crank these up your computer will try to retain flyability by blurring -and the textures are the first to go.I am convinced many haven't even see/experienced how beautiful these textures look because of this. I know it took me a while to discover them-because once I was an autogen junkie too. "4) Missions. You mean Adventures? Need I say more???"No missions which are a considerable improvement to adventures. As someone who has faced a number of emergencies in the air-this is the closest I have seen in any sim of duplicating the whole experience. Of course there are also fun ones too-and there is the power-something for everyone. When people start creating and uploading ones of endless variety, this sim will have a direction and reality it has never had before.5) Hi-res terrain. You mean like FSGENESIS, already existed?Yeah-except this goes to 10m-quite a difference wouldn't you say?Pilots kinda worry about the terrain thing-nice to see such greater detail.6) Photo real ground textures. You mean like GEPRO? No because the resolution is much higher on fsx. Fly Ge pro at 150-200 ft. and then fly fsx with them cranked up. I can't wait till Ge comes out with a fsx version though."7) Detailed Airports? You mean like the hundreds we already have?"If you compare a typical class c,d airport you fill find not only are they more detailed looking, but that the representation of actual buildings are better. Then add in the high detailed class B-sure I bought a Detroit add in for fs9 for 25 bucks or so and got 6- 8 fps in fs9-now I have a payware quality Detroit included in the default and get 6-8 fps there-saved some money here. Not surprised about the fps with such detail. I think there are 40 included high detail class B now X $25 each....8)" New Instrumentation? They appear with each new addon aircraft" True-the difference would be in the default now."9) Dual cockpit...This is good." Its more than good. I would have payed $70 just to get this for fs9"10) Moving car's n boats are nice too...but a must have? Nope."Personal preference-but I see both all the time when I fly, and they it sure adds an immersion level not to be flying over a photograph as I think you put it in another post, but in a live world"11) A round world...and this dramatically changed the sim how? - if they didn't tell you, would you really know? (yes I know you can zoooom into outer space now)." Well it kinda effects navigation....Now you are right-with tons of additions fs9 can be pretty good. It still doesn't land right, or fly right (stability)-but you are right-if flying for you about taking off-setting an autopilot, and watching the scenery-fs9 is probably better for you right now as long as you have bought/invested in of those addins.But start addding up the cost of some of the new stuff that would have to be added to fs9-lets see a g1000 add on,local scenery for Detroit, lax, ksan, -(I think there are about 40 like this), multiplayer/shared cockpit module, much higher resolution mesh, textures (whoops can't add these resolutions to fs9-it does't support it), missions...I was looking at some add ins yesterday for both fs9 and fsx. $25-$40 seems to be the going rate. You can find fsx deluxe as low as $49 if you look around. There are a lots of "add ins" included. Again, if someone had come out with the shared cockpits for fs9 alone I wouldn't have hesitated to buy it for $49.My whole point of course is there is a lot more going on than not being able to crank autogen/water up and run the sim decently-which is a fact. If one can get past those two issues-there is a heck of a lot new, improved, and waiting to be discovered in this sim...and yes maybe in a year or two the autogen/water won't be an issue anymore.How long are the runways at your airports?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Well, with my rig I don't see anything above 12-15 fps with all the tweaks in any bulit up areas.Bush flying I can get 20-25I only just purchased this PC after my last one died.....it was specifically for FSX too ;(

"A report by the US Justice Department. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Joseph Biden were/are trying to pass a law criminalizing thedistribution of bomb making information, both online and offline. This will interfere with the right of individuals to impart and obtain information. Bomb making information has many legitimate uses."http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/speech/ What, in your judgement, are legitimate uses for bomb making information?

>FXF3>> Honestly I am knee deep in your Bull Dung and I might drown.>ITs a beautiful picture of warm summer breezes and fuzzy litle>warm tingly feelings I only felt when I was 13 and sleeping.>MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>> Very colorful post can you point anything out that I have said that has you knee deep in Dung. Sorry if FSX does not work for you it does for me.If this has you knee deep in dung what can I say?

>Let's face it, the safe way to go is the way that FSX went. >They simply assumed that net processing power would increase,>and left the details to the hardware manufacturers. It's a>dangerous practice to get into the habit of optimizing for a>specific technology or piece of hardware...it's easy to find>yourself burned. >-Ivan>Hold it right there. Who is saying making FSX multicore only here? What we are all saying is that FSX should've used more native threads. It will only incure about 5% penalty in singal core systems, but boosts performance by 40 to 60% in dual core systems. I am speaking as an 20 year real time system control software architect.

>No replies to my post, so I'm starting to think I'm right on>both counts. Can someone from the optimistic crowd please>refute these points?>Gary I cannot refute those points. I think you are pretty much on.I wouldn't say I'm in the optimistic crowd or the pessimistic crowd. I am really in between. I for sure feel the same way as you on those two points.Yesterday I viewed the roadmaps for Intel and AMD. I did not like what I saw. All multi-core oriented.Microsoft wanted to bring in the "average" user into the FS world with this release. The average user has average hardware. Therefore, the average user is out of luck with FSX.I run FSX well. But your guy with a P4 3.0 and a 6600GT, he's out of luck. He doesn't know about tweaking or care about it. He's out of luck. So much for bringing in the average user! Sorry to be so negative. I like FSX a lot, but I see this design goal of Microsoft not being acheived.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

Quantum physics and fs, interesting combination. Throw in some branes and multiverse and you might have something there. Maybe that string isn't vibrating like it should. Interestingly, Nova had a show on black holes last night detailing the energy they release and how they are formed. It's obvious why that forumula creates a singularity, but maybe others might not know.Ian.

Okay, enough about FSX. It sucks, it doesn't suck, who cares. At the end of the day, the happy are still happy and the miserable are still miserable. I've said my last word on FSX, and at this point I simply indifferent.On to more exciting things my friend. Howell-New Lenox, IL is K1C2 - RWY 5/23 is 2362x50 and 13/31 is 2877x50. Frankfort, IL is LL40 - RWY 9/27 is 4203x50. I live about 1.5nm from both of them and the approach to LL40 goes right over my subdivision. LL40 went private though, but I know the owner. Both are visual approaches in Chicago airspace.As I said, all previous words aside, you make it down...drinks and room and board are on me (flying's on you!)

>>Hold it right there. Who is saying making FSX multicore only>here? What we are all saying is that FSX should've used more>native threads. It will only incure about 5% penalty in singal>core systems, but boosts performance by 40 to 60% in dual core>systems. I am speaking as an 20 year real time system control>software architect.Well yes, but Ivan's point was that at that time (2004), it was not clear that multi-core was the wave of the future. Thus the decision was made by Microsoft to not optimize the new sim for multi-processors. We can't have 20/20 hindsight now.I wish Microsoft had used more native threads too, but I understand why they did not, given the year we're talking about. Actually, I would have preferred they re-write the whole thing, and wouldn't care if it delayed it until 2008. I'm sure the marketing department did care, though. :)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

LOL! You can say whatever you want to say!No one was trying to take away your right to say it.Some of us just get tired of hearing Oscar the Grouches all the time, and your option, your FREE WILL, is to be able to return FSX to the store, or to not return it.Then the Oscar the Grouches call the other people, "zealots". Arggh...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 guess he might smell kinda bad. He also left his civility and adult mature discussion hats on the door before he came in here.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

Excellent comments as usual Mike.

Gotta agree with Mike....Shader 4 is not an option...We are running Shader 2...why they didn't go to 3 is beyond me Not hard to do LOL..It will take an extensive rewrite of the code to use Shader 4 and me thinks it will be a band aid at best...But ask yourself this...Am I going to spend $4000 to get this freakin game to run? Or will I go fly FS9 or Xplane...Sorry but this is a joke...I'm in the same boat as a lot of people...I cannot fly into an airport at 8 fps...Any add on worth it's salt is going to cripple this sim.... MS should have realised this during beta...I can imagine there were many complaints about it..So for at least a year FSX will be relegated to GA and bush flying..not a bad thing as I do both..but it is still a let down for ALOT of people. To deny it or bash people because of their grievances is dead wrong...without theseThat's the way I see it as well. City flying, heavies, airport traffic, etc. are things which only FS9 can handle. FSX crushes your system without stripping it completely of what makes it different from FS9. On top of the fact running 15% traffic (recommended default settings) is absolutely useless for commercial realism.I only can use it for bush flying. And it is nice for that no doubt as I have posted various pics on this board. There you can run up the sliders more and enjoy the view.P4 3.6 GHz HT 1 gig ram, ATI X800XT 256 mb PCIe video

Mike, you're making it sound better than it is. DX9 = Shader 3. FSX = Shader 2!!! ;)And I don't think the FS team will supply Shader 4 with the FSX patch. That would almost be a complete rewrite of the graphics engine!Christian