watch this!.. What Microsoft Has To Say

[Guest smarti05]

Personally after having tried to obtain helpful evidence from those with good fps, i've now come to the conclusion they are either a bunch of nutters who have got nothing else to do or they really do live in fantasy world they truly believe is correct.If anyone would care to post a 3dm06 or 05 score alongside the 'acceptable framerate claim' and stick around for a bit of discussion, we might be able to make progress.But even the well meaning high fps people seem to disappear (evidence wise) once they say 'it runs ok' for me.I get great fps at 30000ft at night but i would like reasonable fps when i'm near the airport please and yes i've tried every combination of sliders going and it only gets near decent when i can see a flat featureless terrain.As for nextgen:They havent written the dx10 patch yet its all marketing hype it aint going to do anything much (i hope i'm wrong believe me)The Kentsfield is the nextgen cpu, see tomshardware.com, and its quad core which means it will make no difference to the performance of fsx at all.I think its sad because i cant see the performance of this fsx getting much better no matter what you buy and i think its doing a lot towards killing of proper flight simming as it will be reducing the mass appeal further.Flight simming needs MS and Aces (if they still exist) to do a better job and if we sit back and grovel to them we're not going to get anywhere.

[Guest allcott]

I am sure people mean well, but one man's miracle cure is anothers placebo. The plain and sorry story is that FSX has simply over-reached itself in the `performance-per-pound` stakes and if the intention was to drive everyone to Vista (which is definitely what MS had in mind - read details of which products MS regard as Showcase Products for the migration to Vista - FSX is right up there)http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2...E3LineupPR.mspxSo, we've got FSX running on the `wrong` OS, with the `wrong` hardware, and with no patch for the `new` features. Is it any wonder things aren't working right? But why is it OUR `fault` to fix it by spending hundreds or even thousands on hardware and new software? Should MS not follow the obligation to support the hardware which was available at the material time of release? It was their commercial decision to release FSX into a market that doesn't have DX10, or Vista, (or by definition next-generation hardware). They released it for an XP world, and it don't work right. So they should fix it. It's all very simple when you get down to it and cut through the c**p.If they had delayed the release by six months we would not be having these conversations. Their choice. Their obligation. Now theirs to fix.Allcott

[Guest Id Rather Be Flying]

> >technology is pregressing rather you want it to or not. >>>Are you related to the Bush?>>allenHAHAHATHAT's a good one! :-lol

[Guest skruer]

Great link and nice to hear one who isn't negative all the time.Great that you get the big picture. Finally one.

[Guest Adrian Wainer]

You sound like the White Star line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Star_Linethe Titanic was supposed to unsinkable, obviously somebody had not considered the fact that steel does not float in water. In fact the Titanic had inferior technology for the era, her watertight compartments did not raise sufficently high as per best practice and she was triple expansion powered rather than turbine and her steering arangements and stern area were not state of the art steamship technology but an adapted sailing ship design. Likewise there are plenty of people round here that have high spec machines and they are getting bad results with FSX so do not try to concoct an argument that FSX is state of the art technology it is not or it would produce much better results on today's high specification machines.AMD Athlon 64 4800 dualcore 939 Socket 1 Gigabyte RAM DDR1 6600GT Graphics CardWindows XP 64 Professional on 37 Gigabyte Raptor SATA drive FSX on 300 Gigabyte regular SATA driveThermaltake fan for CPUhttp://www.thermaltake.com/product/Cooler/...cl-p0114-01.asphttp://www.thermaltake.com/product/Cooler/cooler_index.aspBest and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

[McCrash 3]

What you been smoking dude?

[Guest Adrian Wainer]

>What you been smoking dude?Are you sure? There's no weed that is that strong?LOL Adrian Wainer

[Guest ngi357]

>>What you been smoking dude?>>Are you sure? There's no weed that is that strong?>>LOL Adrian Wainer >yea... you would know wouldn't you?

[G7USL 117]

>You know what makes me laugh? >>To justify the argmument for using the latest, greatest>hardware, our poster uses a keynote speech that featured a>pre-alpha demo version of FSX from January of this year.>Including rendered images that have been dong the rounds for>the best part of a year and features missing from the RTM.>>Kinda pot calling the kettle black, donchathink?>>The fact is that there was a clear indication that>performance increases in the basic game were being implemented>between Beta 1 and RTM. That was an unambiguous statement from>the ACES team, and it was made just prior to release by the>team members themselves, not in a different epoch by a man who>you could reasonably suggest, has more than a slight vested>interest in talking UP the performance of his forthcoming>products.>>By the way, your AMD 4000 and X600 is outmoded hardware. Show>us a video of your performance over Seattle with scenery,>textures - and most importantly autogen - at default levels.>Lets see your fps.>>Because I am willing to bet that your performance is not as>good as you say it is. And how to justify your statment in>line with the statement from Phil Taylor of MS in this very>forum that performance of FSX will be lower under Vista, all>other things being equal? And no-one has so much as made any>suggestions about DX10 and FSX, because the team have only>just begin work on it. Again that statement can be found in>these very forums.>>Either they are wrong, or you are. I wonder who doesn't know>what they're talking about?>>>>>>>AllcottWas this really a responce to my post number 13, Allcott?

[Guest tejksed]

First off maybe your machine can run flightsim X ar a decent at best frame rate. For the most part I know I can't, and probably quite a few folks around here can't afford that pc of yours.So what are we supposed to do? Go and pay for a 3500$ PC, or wait another 2 years. Then at that time buy a 2000$ PC.You know the drill so I will stop. Thanks and I will boast in my sig about my crap pc.P4 3.2GHZ1 gig pc 4200 DDR RAM256 MB X700 Radeon PROWindows XP Home on a 34GIG SATA HDDFSX on 200 GIG SATA HDDCase open with a fan from walmart blowing inside for cooling.http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4756123

[Guest smarti05]

>>>What you been smoking dude?>>>>Are you sure? There's no weed that is that strong?>>>>LOL Adrian Wainer >>>>>yea... you would know wouldn't you?You should have ignored that person to be honest not even worthy of retort. Some people really are amazingly ignorant, just goes to show thats all.

[Guest ngi357]

I still havent got a total and direct answer from anyone.did any of my above posts make any sense? do you get what im saying? I feel like Im being rude in these forums... Ohwell