why dont you take a trip over to flytampa.com and look at the forum posting by Martin talking about how there is a good chance of a few big name companies being forced out of the business because microsoft did not listen to them during beta testing.And all these people who are happy with the framerates, well I have news for you, not only do 99% of you not run AI, but you arent even using highly detailed addons like PMDG, Level-D, etc All these tweaks and alternate texture downloads and adjusting sliders is just to get the DEFAULT game working with 20FPS! Seriously, imagine when PMDG re-releases the Queen and NG, imagine your frames in the virtual cockpit of that with 100% traffic, sliders maxed, just like I can run in FS9.FSX runs Ok for me but only with all default scenery and no traffic. That is pathetic. FS9 when it first came out ran far better and at that time I did not have the fastest computer or video card for the time.Maybe you should stop making such broad generalizations like "making things up" and just bashing to bash. You are ignoring reality and instead of listening to the points people are trying to make, you are acting hostile as if you had some financial stake in the FS game

We have our forum just because FSX has worked out for us. That does not make us blind a really excited user. We have tried everything to help some of you guys only to be insulted and called names.Its mind blowing the stir this Sim has caused from some of you. Its not that we don't want to hear fair and honest opinions its the insults and the petty stuff thats wearing us down. Report bugs but this endless harping about how FSX will not run on any machine at any settings is just plain old. Then calling the ones that enjoy it lairs because no matter what photos we post or what videos you can see on youtube or whatever not proof just because you can't get it to run on your computer they way you think it should run.No wonder we are losing good people to this maddness. Many authors and people that have for years given us addons can't take this anymore. Sim makers can't do you want a computer world where all you can get is some First Person Shooter because thats all thats on the shelfs. Flight Sims take far more cpu cycles and Video card horse power then any FPS. Give FSX time and stop trying to kill it in the cradle.

>why dont you take a trip over to flytampa.com and look at the>forum posting by Martin talking about how there is a good>chance of a few big name companies being forced out of the>business because microsoft did not listen to them during beta>testing.Well hey, I hate to sound callous, but sometimes that's life in the corporate world. Microsoft isn't in the business of keeping other companies in business. That's also the chance you take when you stake your entire business model and livelihood on another company's product when they have no real vested interest in keeping you afloat.>And all these people who are happy with the framerates, well I>have news for you, not only do 99% of you not run AI, but you>arent even using highly detailed addons like PMDG, Level-D,I have news for you - I run 70% AI aircraft traffic.As for highly detailed addons, that's a dubious argument. I would not say that what was considered "highly detailed" in FS9 is going to still be considered highly detailed in the world of FSX. The default models in FSX are substantially better than what was packaged in FS9, so I'm not convinced FSX will be as heavily taxed as you're making it sound. FSX is pushing around a heck of a lot more polygons than FS9 ever did.>Seriously, imagine when PMDG re-releases the Queen and NG,>imagine your frames in the virtual cockpit of that with 100%>traffic, sliders maxed, just like I can run in FS9.Seriously, imagine what happens when I don't even buy the PMDG Queen! I'm quite happy with the default 747, so my frames aren't going to change one bit.And how much money did you have to spend on those addons for FS9 just to stop the default version from looking like a rendition of "Dora The Explorer Gets Her PPL"?Nothing against FS9, but FSX is light years ahead in presenting a more realistic environment right out of the box. You NEED your tons of addons and sliders maxed out in FS9 just to come even remotely close to the virtual world I'm getting with my 25fps FSX plain vanilla install.>FSX runs Ok for me but only with all default scenery and no>traffic. That is pathetic. FS9 when it first came out ran far>better and at that time I did not have the fastest computer or>video card for the time.FSX offers much more in every way as an overall package than FS9 did when it came out, so that argument is beyond irrelevant.More importantly, you've reached the limit and the true ceiling of what FS9 can do graphically, whereas FSX will continue to grow and get better with time and more powerful hardware.Stay with FS9 or move over to FSX, nobody cares as it's all a matter of personal taste. But trying to knock the people who are enjoying whatever performance they can squeeze out of FSX by arguing that FS9 runs better simply makes no sense to me.

I have FS X running on my new computer AMD Athlon 64 4800 dualcore 939 Socket 1 Gigabyte RAM DDR1 6600GT Graphics CardWindows XP 64 Professional Thermaltake fan for CPUwww.thermaltake.com/pr...114-01.aspwww.thermaltake.com/pr..._index.asparound 16 FPS but can be as low as 5 FPS at Seattle Airport, I tried overclocking the processor and brought it up to 2800 megahertz from the stock 2400 of the 4800 939 but it did not make much difference to frame rates, though it seemed to load somewhat quicker, so I reset the chip back to the standard non overclocked values. I have also run FS X on my 3200 Athlon 64 with 1.5 Gigabytes RAM and a 6800GS 512 megabyte DDR3 memory graphics card. FS X seems very resource demanding and whilst one can argue about the figures ie framerates, the general coonsensus seems to be that it is a very demanding programme, the one qualification I would make is that I am not overly familar with Windows XP 64 Professional and there is a possability that I can obtain a better driver for the grpahics card, which may up the frame rates.Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

LOL Big AL you are correct, the rest of you defending FSX, I would highly recommend you get your resumes up to par and head right down to Microsoft. You can handle their Damage Control Department. If I bought a computer a year ago, then I put a 500 dollar video card in it DX10 or not obviously not, put another 2 gigs of ram in even though there stupid XP can't even run 4 gigs 1.Why wouldn't I expect that whatever is being developed in the game or sim area wouldn't work flawlesly on my sytem with very litle effort on my part without having to basically rewrite the whole CFG and alter files. And 2. I wouldn't even give second thought my system couldn't run a new sim,But the fact is the developers created the game for hardware that was gonna be released in the future. AH the all mighty dollar, Making life miserable since 1776.

> If I bought a computer a year ago, then I put a 500 dollar>video card in it DX10 or not obviously not, put another 2 gigs>of ram in even though there stupid XP can't even run 4 gigs>1.Why wouldn't I expect that whatever is being developed in>the game or sim area wouldn't work flawlesly on my sytem with>very litle effort on my part without having to basically>rewrite the whole CFG and alter files.Why? Oh, just off the top of my head, there could be many reasons why a PC you bought 12 months ago might not run FSX very well. This is also assuming (incorrectly I'm sure) that you bought what was absolutely top of the line at the time...1. Did you buy all high-end components, or did you buy what you could reasonably afford and what seemed like a better value rather than something that might have more longevity?2. Do you have any one hardware component that could be bottlenecking your performance? That $500 video card might as well be a piece of contemporary art for your coffeetable if the system RAM you're using was salvaged from your Apple II GS.3. Do you have a ton of apps that are running simultaneously in your resident memory?4. Before starting FSX, do you close out any programs running in the background, or simply expect that your computer can multitask FSX and 15 other apps like some deranged office secretary who drank too much Red Bull?6. Have you defragged your hard drive since the Clinton years?7. Do you keep all your important drivers up to date, or do you believe that like fine wine, PC hardware gets better with age all by itself?These are just a few of the reasons I could think of. Not everyone who tries to play the latest and greatest PC games knows how to run a clean system, or knows how to get rid of all the problems that bog your system down. It doesn't only matter what hardware you buy, but also how you use it. You may have all the system resources in the world, but if they aren't available for FSX, then you shouldn't be shocked when you jump into that UltraLight over Friday Harbor and get a PowerPoint slideshow instead.GG

I think a separate forum is a good idea.

1.Out of the box FSX looks pretty good. In fact it blows out of the box FS9 out of the water period. Everybody knows that case closed.2.Some of the New planes in FSX are as good or better then a lot of payware. The New boeing 747,737 have been redone they look great. The new G1000 which can cost you as much as $50.00 to add to FS9 not sure how it affects FPS in FS9. The Maule the Goose The new paneled Cessna and Baron with G1000.3.We have airports that are alive just like the payware guy's ours are free. Traffic on major roads Boat traffic. there is a lot to like about FSX. So I will look on the bright side.This maybe the problem for some of you. If addon makers are having a problem with the new FSX. They can overcome it or keep making addons for FS9.

There are rumours of either AMD or Intel coming out with a more efficient dual core that is recognized as one core by the system. I have been through the hardware upgrades and have never really been able to run FS at max except for FS95 prior to upgrading to fs98 because I hadn't added anything to FS95. I don't mind a civil discussion on core technology and it has been discussed alot here so I read a bit on the dual core techs. It's interesting that the chip makers have run into a wall, but dual core as it stands now is not the answer as many applications can not utilize it. It's more helpful when a user has a need for true multitasking not for single applications. There about 10 games that utilize it and I'd have to read a bit more and how they do it and what gains they have, but these are all fps games which may make a difference.I wonder if x-plane 9 will utilize dual core? Anyone know? Is it possible with a flight simulator to utilize dual cores? Seems to be much speculation but no hard facts as to how it would be done, I've only seen the post by Aces as to the limits of the technology and why FSX has limited success with it.Anyway, AMD and Intel is a healthy competition between two very savvy companies and I wouldn't speculate as to what type of processors we will see in a year or two. Lastly, there were many discussions of FS9 and performance, look at the tweak and tips forum. Plenty of ways to speed up FS9 and now the FSX list is growing too. I have done a thread count but I do remember a bit of heated arguments and complaints at the release of fs9. Seems every release has its problems but I'm not giving up on the franchise because of it (not saying you are either), as it is the only entertainment software I have used consistently over the past decade.Ian.

I guess that you made a general reply and did not direct this at me. I'm just stating the facts as I know them to be. I never called you or anyone else a liar.I also had the boxed version of FS-X in my possesion. I tried it on different highend hardware. Used all the tweaks in the forum and saw what performancce gains they give. I helped a local FS fan with FS-X on his machine. He was very happy with it after the performance tweaks and because he is into bush flying he likes FS-X over FS-9. I can't run FS-X at a performance level that I like. So I decided to return the game and give it a year before I try it again (hopefully on a new Vista machine with a 2nd gen DX10 card).You seem very touchy about people critizing FS-X. I hope you have a good time with the sim and enjoy it. In the mean time I have my own agenda and that involves giving imput to Aces about what problems prompted me to return the game. I hope they will listen and provide us with a patch that makes FS-X even beter. That would be a good thing for al of us.

Ok some of you guys have valid points aout the "bashers". They need to go.Ill state one more time I LIKE FSX!!! :) If your running in an untweaked state, with the defualt sim, I frankly dont believe claims of smooth frame rates aove 25. I Just dont believe it. Im not calling anyone a liar, but the evidence overall does not support this. My main prolem with these shenanigans is that in order to get decent frame rates I have to cripple the sim. Running without autogen, minimal traffic, low water effects and limited wx is not my idea of enjoyable. I CAN enjoy some light GA flying in good weather at medium autogen settings though. Anthing else is unnaceptable due to low frames, stutter, very ugly landclass, and minor blurries. Those of you who claim that below 20fps is "smooth" are smoking dope or are in some form of honeymoon denial stage. fps are fps period. Anything below about 20 is too low to fly aircraft in a sim accurately. For those who are happy running the sim, thats fantastic, it means there is hope for all of us. We need these kinds of threads until something gets done about the problems. It means nothing but good things for us who are not satisfied, but even better things for those who appear to be running it well. It will only get better for you. Lastly, almost all of the folks who are posting about problems are not folks who are expecting to turn all the sliders up and have it run ok, far from it. I think it should be reasonable to get a steady 20-25fps with minimal autogen, some very light AI and wx, and minimum airport vehicles. I really dont think this is too much to ask. Hornit

>Really the FSX forum has turned into a bashing free for all.>Some of you people are just starting to make things up about>FSX and repeating rumors.>>Name calling must be at an all time high in here. There are>few posters in here that are really going out of their way to>post BS about FSX. No way in heck can they be getting 5 and 6>FPS on some of the systems they claim to have and it be the>Fault of FSX. >>Keep it up untill we have no Flight Sims left. Oh yes we will>have 600 First Person Shooters and not one complaint. Yet let>somebody put out a Flight Sim then starts. No matter what the>give us.>>I have seen so many good posters in here try to help you guy's>only to be might with it don't work I tried it nothing helps>blah blah blah. I hate MicroSoft I think thats the real>problem so many of you have a hatred for MicroSoft you pass it>along to everything that comes out from them.>>Look at the threads you have about six poster that are really>stiring the pot on this Sim. It makes you wonder who or what>is behind this.>If FSX ran like they claim it does I would have shelved it a>long time ago.I'd be happy to even have a chance to hate FSX but since I encountered the error 1722 problem and can't even complete the installation, I don't have anything to add to the discussions.

With all due respect Ladamson has been around these forums for many years and is a real world pilot. There's no need to be condescending by pointing out a spelling era as a point of argument. Everyone makes spelling mistakes for goodness sakes.He and many others have also pointed out many times that no one simulator does it all, and how can you question someones individual feelings on whether or not it runs well or doesn't run well? Also, I can get 30 fps over a city depending on my settings and I have a crap machine. Yes, in my opinion my system is crap. I can't tell someone that they are getting good performance if they say they are not so how do you know whether or not he's getting what he said? Performance is user dependent. Seems someone posted screenshots and they weren't good enough so now they have to use video's just to prove they are right? What is that about?What simulator do you use? Are you enjoying it? Then use it and stop worrying about everyone else.Sorry, I've got alot of respect for some members here and had to jump in. Ian.

"Seriously, imagine what happens when I don't even buy the PMDG Queen! I'm quite happy with the default 747, so my frames aren't going to change one bit."LOL, it might 'look' pretty, but there aint much under the hood!Seriously, trying to compare the default 747 to the PMDG Queen is just obsurd.The FMC, the systems modelling all eat CPU cycles you know. I doubt many hardcore simmers will be happy with the default 747 after using the Queen.

Oddly enough I agree with some of your points. FSX on my system won't run all the high end add-ons, but then neither does fs9 unfotunately. I wanted to get the PMDG 737 but realized my system most likely wouldn't handle it.FSX doens't run well with GA/Airline traffic either, just like fs9. Had to ditch the traffic.bgl and use just the PAI and GAtraffic add-ons. I had to replace cloud textures in FS9 just to get that sim going, FSX clouds seem not to bother me. Overall, FSX default is very similar performance wise for me to FS9 but runs smoother without tweaks to cure stuttering.I do agree that the difference is those with high end systems having trouble with the default though that happened with FS9 with the clouds and maximizing traffic and autogen. This whole thread is in reaction to posters posting useless negative posts which results in users posting useless reactions to posters posting negative posts creating many posters posting reactions to posts that result from....etc....etc.... it goes on and on.Then again, I wouldn't miss this for the world...hehe. These are all fun to read and wouldn't be an FS release without them. You may get angry or irritated, but sometimes you have to just step back and laugh and let the tumultuos roller coaster take you where it will. There's too much ill will here at the moment so everyone needs to step back every few posts, tilt your heads back and laugh, fly the sim of your choice and then come back and enjoy the discussions no matter how harsh or divisive they may seem.Sorry for the rant there but I'm chuckling as I write this looking at my 11 week old son sleeping on the coach with a grin on his face. Puts this whole thing in to perspective.Good luck all, maybe we'll get this thing of the ground yet, pun intended.Ian.