FSX POLL -HOW COME- ???

[Guest captandy]

How come nobody has created any polling post regarding FSX.I would like to really know many people are "pleased" to "######" with the current state of affairs.I think the poll should be divided up by out of the box version and tweaked version.I think MS will be shocked at the results.Andy

[Guest Water Mango]

Well most that visit this thread will say FSX is the best thing since sliced bread (hardly an objective viewpoint)...The fact is most who own FSX are actually satisfied with it. They don't mind the many problems it has. They see light at the end of the tunnel and don't mind playing with the sim six months to a year from now. I too hope FSX is patched, upgraded, made better with Vista/DX10 just like everyone else. SimFlight ran a similar poll and the results surprised me. As someone who's owned different versions for years in the past I've never seen a version outside of FS2000 with these kinds of problems. Yes we've been required to buy new hardware but with that hardware came decent performance in all areas of the sim. This is not the case with FSX and many choose to forget that fact to conveniently embrace the fact they have a new version. I'm glade Aces brought out new version of FS as well but I'm shocked at what they produced. We'll all see where this sim is next year for sure and I hope it's in better condition than what we have now. Let Microsoft do all the tweaks and all we have to do is adjust and enjoy.So all this is to say a Poll would only get you most voting the sim is outstanding. There's no accountability being raised toward Aces to improve the sim. People are just hoping hardware will magically improve things in a year even though FSX wasn't designed to take advantage of it. Vista/DX10 may work miracles but that's yet to be seen. I will say this if FSX still has only half as good performance on a year from now hardware (October 2007), the 'Cum Ba Yahs' is going to become less frequent as more people revert back to FS9. Let's just hope that doesn't happen.

[Geofa 108]

Chris-you must have missed fs for windows (after fs98)-if I recall there was an organzied boycot of it.I would like to see a poll-but how could one know if those voting actually owned a copy?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[1mikel151 71]

>I would like to see a poll-but how could one know if those>voting actually owned a copy?Excellent point and the way it should be.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[Guest BOPrey]

Why would you be ###### as you have a very capable system?

[Guest Water Mango]

Geofa least we forget that boycott was about FS98 being built as a stand alone title devoid of any compatibility of any third party add-ons... You guys kill me trying to justify FSX in any way you can. This is not the same set of circumstances...If a poll was put out today FSX would be hailed as a great title. There's absolutely no accountability being raised to the software developers.Geofa since you

[Geofa 108]

I wasn't justifying anything-I was pointing out that an organized boycot which was probably the biggest effort ever in this area against MS(and if I recall it was FS for windows when it was ported from dos-I don't even recall a problem with fs98) happened before fs2000- which also had lots of complaints as you mentioned, as did Flight Unlimited III, ,Pro Pilot, Falcon, and the Fly series.I believe some others have already dredged up some past posts that meet your request-I am sure you could do the same if interested. But you know-if fsx is as bad as you think-then the results will be self evident. I would be curious to see a poll to see the early results-but they will emerge eventually anyway. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Jimbofly]

FS2000 ran poorly when it was released, and continues to run poorly. The same cannot be said for FSX. It may run poorly now with autogen on, but I can assure you with better hardware next year it will run extremely well, with FULL AUTOGEN. I'm confident of this once DX10 hardware is released, whether a patch is provided for FSX or not.Feel free to quote me, I will definitely remind you of what I just said a year from now.James

[Guest Jimbofly]

Please provide a list of "issues" you're having with FSX, other than the fact that it doesn't perform at high FPS.I own a copy and I can assure you there are numerous improvements over FS9. I'm sure everyone has pointed them out to you on several occasions but you just block your ears and yell "lalalala".With added complexity comes a price. Usually it's hardware. Get used to it already.James

[Guest FxF3]

I only have one problem with FSX so far. Landclass the butter textures or sand dessert effect.My vote would be very pleased so far with FSX. You can also count me as one that FSX runs well for.

[Dillon 2,197]

Geofa go to SimFlight and look at their poll...

[Guest JimC1702]

Count me in as someone who's very satisfied with FSX. Yes, it has issues but some of the new features are simply amazing. I mostly fly low and slow and, aside from my local river missing, it's stunning.I've owned every Flight Simulator since I had it on a cassette for a Timex Sinclair 1000 computer. Had it on a Commodore VIC-20, and had every PC version through FSX.FS2000 was atrocious. It's the only version that I absolutely could not run. FS2002 was a huge improvement and that's when I started downloading freeware planes. With FS2004 I really took the plunge. FSGenesis mesh and landclass, Flight Environment, BEV, Ultimate Terrain, Ultimate Traffic, and many payware planes. Now along comes FSX. I'm not sure how many of those add-ons I'll need. I have installed FSGenesis mesh already and the USA landclass from FS9 which is a huge improvement in my area. And I'll undoubtedly add Ultimate Terrain to get the accurate water features. But I'm satisfied with the roads and textures in FSX. I've got it set now so, to me, it looks very very good and I've locked my frame rates at 20. Flying in my area of the northeast, the frames stay pretty much at 20. And I have Autogen on normal. I did fly a 747 from O'Hare to LAX to see how it would be. Frames dropped way down but it was always very flyable, including kicking off the auto-pilot and hand landing. I no longer look at the frame rates, I just fly.The peculiar thing is that superior hardware really doesn't seem to make a big difference. Guys with dual-core processors and 512 mb video cards don't seem to get much better performance. I'm running a 2 year old P4 2.6 with 2 gb of RAM and a 256 mb 7600GT. Granted, they're probably running much higher resolution than I am (1024 X 768), but for me, FSX is very flyable and it looks terrific (aside from the brown fall grass textures).My only real concern is that there is no overhead for running add-ons. I'd like to have the AI traffic that I had running Ultimate Traffic and GA-Traffic in FS9 but I'm afraid that will make it unflyable on my current computer. And complex payware planes may be out of the question at this point.I am hopeful that the hardware does catch up and that in 6 months to a year we'll all be happily flying in our own little Flight Sim worlds. Meanwhile I'm enjoying FSX. I'm not sure I'll keep FS9 on my hard drive much longer.Sorry for the long post!Jim

[Geofa 108]

Can you post a link? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[peppy197 165]

Despite any previous objections,YES, I am pleased with the new toy.And I am not at lowest settings, all mid-range, and can still have fun...Ultimate Traffic at 30%, some nice scenes there still...FSGenesis FSX-mesh at 100%I manage, with the tweaks.allen

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

Same here Geof. I was curious about the poll and so I went looking for it. Went to their FSX forum, didn't find it it. Went to the front page of the SimFlight web site, didn't see it there either.Since it supposedly exists I decided to go back and look again. Found it. You have to go to the (currently)third page of their FSX forum...http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=56530Jim