Interesting to see what folks outside our community are saying

[Hornit 3]

fbass, I think your mistaken on at least one point, it is just my opinion. Most folks in here know how to tune a system. Most of us have been building and tweaking our own (as you) for many many years and go arounds with flight sim."Partial Evidence #2: I've seen a number of posts in various forums about how FSX does not support dual-core CPUs. Most of these people miss the point entirely. The feature of a dual-core CPU that supports FSX (indirectly) is that you can run OTHER FSX support software using the second CPU. Add-ons like weather or interactive ATC can be run on the second CPU." Im not sure that is the case unless you have something which is running independently of the sim. Most of our add-ons and enhancements run WITH it, not seperate from it. Dual core wont help most of the additions at this point, we will see."Supposition #4: Installation woes. I have no idea about the experience level of people who had installation problems but I would bet there was some user error involved. I installed a number of BETA disks and the new retail version and had absolutely no problems with installation. In every case I uninstalled each version and cleaned up disk before installing the next one. Some might say I was lucky but I don't think so." I dont agree with you here either, there were numerous install woes with several of the beta's which we are still dealing with, some unresolved. The MS installer is crap. I am running a P4 @3.7ghz with 1G of Kingston HyperX PC3200 and a Radeon X800XL overclocked slightly. Good cooling here and barely anything else other than FS running when I do it. I dont have a ram problem yet due to keeping the sim crippled at this point but I am going to 2GB shortly. I think its actually quite the other way around in here, lots of very savvy system folks due to what we like to do....flight sim!Hornit

[Guest Jimbofly]

Like I keep saying turn the bloody AUTOGEN OFF!It runs like a charm and I'm loving it! Graphics are still WAY better than FS9 (just looking at the mesh detail makes me drool!).You can actually soar in the sailplane realistically as well! WOOHOOOO!!!/goes back to play more FSXJames

[boshar 6]

>Im willing to bet FSX is a strong contender for Flight Sim of>the Year.Who are the other contenders? Any other flightsims released this year?According to Gamespot there are 2 other 'Combat Sims' Released this year. Funny but they list FS-X under combat sim.http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?platf...ate&sortdir=ascLooks like 2 cheap arcade titles Heroes of the Pacifichttp://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/heroes_of_t...tml?sid=6143598Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWIIhttp://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/worldwariis...tml?sid=6148243Are the other contenders this year. So yes Flight Sim of the year it is.

[Guest keffenhunde]

I agree...the sailplanes are alot of fun....This and bush flying is what I use FSX for...However...I enjoy flying heavies into realistic airports with traffic and such...turning off the autogen and the traffic just to get flyable frames...and I still don't, is not an option...If people are so angry with negative posts, why answer them?? Why even read them? It's obvious alot of people, newcomers and experienced users alike ar not "happy" with their $70 purchase...I don't believe the answer is tell them to take it back, thats the easy way out...yes we can tweak for hours on end, we can spend thousands of dollars to try and get decent frames but is that "RIGHT"? Should MS have done a better job, spent a little more time and money on this software? Made it more usable for the high end machines of "Today", not for ones 3 years from now? I would have waited. As for the negative posts...customers are venting there displeasure over their purchase. They don't want their money back, they want it fixed.....without spending $1000's of dollars..This is how they feel they can reach MS..and I agree..so let them..go play FSX.. :)I've stated elseware in these forums that Vista and DX10 will probably not do much for FSX...and that is only my personal opinion based on 15 years of building my own gaming PC's, making mods and programming for other games. If your opinion differs, fine. IF DX10 could offer a 20% improvement in framerates Vistas high overhead will kill it by MS's own words. DX10 is PS 4.0...FSX uses 2.0..they completely ignored 3.0, even though a large number of us have compliant cards...ever see the water in SH3...sweet..:) I doubt anyone at ACES knows how they are going to make FSX perform better with DX10 because they do not have it, nor the hardware. So really, anything you here about DX10 and how much faster it will be is conjecture based on assumed performance from white papers, not actual.Dual Core, I'm so sorry they missed the boat on this...multicore IS the way of the future...Intel's and AMD's own roadmaps show that...Intel has said they will have Quad Core by 2007...If FSX was made to use the hardware of 3 years from now, "HOW" could they have missed THE most important aspect of what makes FSX run? We ALL know that FS2004 and FSX are VERY CPU intensive, always has been , always will be...by NOT programming better multicore support they have shot themselves in the foot..twice :)Addons, anything at the level of PMDG or Level D is going to cripple FSX...I can't see anyone arguing this, but feel free :) So they will all have to spend EXTRA time optimizing their code, models and whatever else to keep the impact on our PC's as little as humanly possible. What does this equate to? Longer production times, maybe more tools, etc which equals = Higher costs...I've already read some of the posts about the scenery, yes they will make it, but it will be harder, which means longer which means costs more...I DO NOT blame them, they need to make a living like the rest of us. But if the performance of FSX cannot at least be brought to a level = to FS2004 with traffic and scenery...I gotta wonder how many hi-end aircraft and sceneries are they are going to sell? I'll keep flying FSX for sailplanes and GA bush flying. I'll continue to avoid Heavies and the big airports because, as a PURCHASING customer, I'm not satisfied with the performance in these areas that FSX provides...It will be back to FS2004 for my heavie fix..We'll see in a year whether the "It will run 1000% (exaggeration for theatrics :) ) better on Vista and DX10" crowd still feels the same..Or if FSX just drys up and blows away...would be sad..No offense intended to anyone...just making some points I myself feel are valid. Your mileage may vary :)Thanks for listening, Larry

[Murmur 3,940]

>I run a 3.8GHz CPU but I have 4Gb>of RAM and my graphics card has 512Mb of high-speed memory. I>run FSX with all sliders max'd out, high resolution, and 100%>AI (over 7,000 afct installed) and I do not have any problems>with the sim.All sliders maxed? Really? With tweaks? And what FPS do you have, for example, in Seattle or Tokyo?>Supposition #2: I noticed many people have pumped-up CPUs. I>would bet good money that many of you do not have matched>memory modules that work with these high-output CPUs. It took>me three tries to get proper memory sticks to support my CPU ->Corsair. It is more expensive but I can tell you it was>absolutely worth it. NOTE: Cheap memory WILL NOT work.Uhm, wrong. Fast memory is one of the best ways to waste money for videogames. The performance gain may be 5-6% max (from 20FPS to 21FPS,for example):http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/01/19/ups...l_games_quake_3Money spent on faster memory is much better spent on a faster CPU, especially with MSFS.Marco

[Guest dutton]

That review system you linked to is totally off the mark. You can not base a true overall review or 'star rating' on a system that predominantly gets more input from dissatisfied customers than happy ones. If you have any sort of a marketing or business background, you would clearly understand this principal realizing that far many more people will write a complaint than a congratulations letter.Now, if you even want to get close to using that review system to base your opinion on, at least find out how many copies of FSX Amazon sold. duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

[Guest Rayed]

>>I run a 3.8GHz CPU but I have 4Gb>>of RAM and my graphics card has 512Mb of high-speed memory. >I>>run FSX with all sliders max'd out, high resolution, and>100%>>AI (over 7,000 afct installed) and I do not have any>problems>>with the sim.>>All sliders maxed? Really? With tweaks? And what FPS do you>have, for example, in Seattle or Tokyo?>>>Supposition #2: I noticed many people have pumped-up CPUs. >I>>would bet good money that many of you do not have matched>>memory modules that work with these high-output CPUs. It>took>>me three tries to get proper memory sticks to support my CPU>->>Corsair. It is more expensive but I can tell you it was>>absolutely worth it. NOTE: Cheap memory WILL NOT work.>>Uhm, wrong. Fast memory is one of the best ways to waste money>for videogames. The performance gain may be 5-6% max (from>20FPS to 21FPS,for example):He also runs 4 gigs of memory on most probably 32 bit system (talk about waste of money).To original poster. I run FSX on much better machine than yours , you can assume it (I won't post specs here, go to www.boxxtech.com and choose any workstation which is around 8k) and it still runs like a dog, so probably acceptable fps for you is 5FPS. It took me zero tries to properly match memory to cpus, I had it doen for me, because I run memory intensive applications daily and it matters. It does squat in games tho.You don't need to have any sort of computer literacy (except of inserting DVD and auto-clicking some boxes) to play a computer GAME Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is made by Microsoft GAME Studios, has direct support for XBox controller (thanks for that ACES, I really like it!) and is supposed to be semi-mass market game, marketed accordingly using GAMING sites and press.It should run out of the box on recommended specs which are written on the box. If it doesn't work it's faulty product - and I don't even blame ACES for that, they did great job, just looks like some marketing types rushed the release, that's it.Don't treat people here like they are stupid. FSX runs like a dog not because people have underpowered computers and do not know how to install run a computer game.P.S. I'd not treat Amazon reviews seriously, but it can hurt sales potentially.

[GHarrall 494]

Larry, that is one of the best posts I have read in a long time.....you put your point across much better than I could of.I too have been saying that Vista and DX10 will NOT be the answer to the performance problem.Lot's of folks here keep harping on about it being better in 12-24 months when hardware 'catches up', but hardware is going in a completely different direction than FSX needs it to go in. FSX is a basically a single core app that requires as much CPU grunt as you can throw at it. Ok, so it offloads a tiny amount to a second core if you have one, but it is hardly used.I don't understand how it's going to be better in 12-24 months because we will still be in the same position we are now, but instead of dual core CPU's we will have Quad (or higher) CPU's, but not significantly faster (single) core CPU's. FSX will still trundle along using only a fraction of the CPU power available to it. I mean, come on, Core 2 Duo is a BRAND NEW architecture. Even it struggles with this program. People with E6700's overclocked beyond 3ghz are still struggling to get FSX running well.The only thing that can save FSX performance wise, is a major patch to code it for dual and quad core processors.No doubt, FSX is visually impressive and has tons of potential. I just want to see it realised.As a side note, when FSX was early in development, I seem to remember some questionaires floating around asking what was most important to you in the new version of flight simulator. I think that the top answer was FPS and fluidity. Nice to know it was top of the priority list at MS............

[fbass 1]

Marco,First, in my opinion if you just concentrate on FPS then you might as well quit. There are so many factors impacting that so-called performance factor that it is not worth any reasonable person's time to focus on it. I do not EVER look at that factor - NEVER. If the sim runs without hesitation and the graphics display like they're supposed to why should I complain.Second, I think you need to go back to my post and read it again. I did not say "fast" memory. I said "matched" memory - there is a very BIG difference. If you want to run a high-powered CPU with run-of-the-mill memory sticks have your own way. I was merely reporting my experience with ramping up the "QUALITY" of my memory and it made ALL the difference - towards the positive. You're entitled to your opinion but don't imply that I'm wrong just because you don't agree.Rayed,First, see my remarks above concerning FPS.Second, I tested FSX using 2Gb of memory and I wasn't satisfied. I then installed 4Gb and it made a tremendous difference. If you think it's a waste of time or money - so be it. I had a different experience. In addition, there are a huge number of technical people on the Net who support increasing the amount of memory as the very best performance increase purchase of anything else on the market. As for the 32-bit OS and memory usage, I spent a lot of time with Intel talking to them about memory and for the mother board I have and the software I have, 4Gb is usable and will make a difference in the performance of my system. If you wish to believe otherwise, that is entirely your business.Third, regarding "games" - I rest my case. You have revealed yourself as one of the people I was talking about. FSX is not now, nor was it in previous versions, a run-right-out-of-the-box game.Fourth, I never intended to protray an impression that I thought anyone here was stupid. If you felt that then I'm sorry. If you want to believe that FSX is a "dog" then that's your opinion. Also, if you want to believe the reviews on Amazon that is also your right. I would,however, point you towards what the experts are saying - I think you'll find an entirely different point of view.If those are your system's specs that you use to "run" FSX - I rest my case - you can't get there from here.Folks, it is your right to complain about anything you wish. No one is saying you don't have that right. But, it would certainly be more useful if, instead of whinning about what FSX doesn't do, provide assistance to the community by letting people know what things did work well.fb