I've figured it out, concerning the FSX defenders!!!

[Guest dutton]

It really is a shame ... however I did just love on page 5 where tdragger squared someone off. Nice.$10 says Chris already has his new forum name picked out for when he buys FSX.duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

[Guest dutton]

"You have to admitt, yes this sim runs, does it run great and as advertised, #### no. "See - that is the problem. Why must I admit something that to me is not true? It runs fine for me and as far as I am concerned, better than advertised in my opinion... even though I have only seen one commercial.duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

[LAdamson 240]

>In respect, i can fully agree with you. Although everyone is>entitled to their opinion as this is an open forum. But you or>I making stupid comments doesn't make the problem go away. I>just feel unless the post is just out right stupid ie: "I have>a 1.0 ghz and a 64meg gpu and I can't turn the sliders all the>way to the right, this game sucks" shy of that, Then anyone>should be allowed to post his/her opinion without being>attack. You have to admitt, yes this sim runs, does it run>great and as advertised, #### no. >DanI just think I've come to the end of my limits. I feel as though we need a "birdie" smiley to include at the end of our reply! :)I've spent a good two weeks now, making honest remarks of why I like FSX, while not expecting it to fulfill every wish. But I've been called a a really excited user, dillusional, and so on. At this point, perhaps the vilolins are all I have left...L.Adamson

[Guest Binncott]

>No, I'd be wasting my time. There are plenty of postings from>us who like FSX for one reason or another, along with CPU>specs; including those from myself. If you want to ignore the>positive posting/replies, while at the same time attempting to>make a valid claim regarding FSX as a non-owner, then it's>really not worth the time reading.>>L.AdamsonMmm, but worth you wasting your time being insulting? I notice that you have not even bothered to address any of the points I made, which were not made with a view to bash FSX or FSX users, but merely my observations as one who does not have FSX. In case you have forgotten; I pointed out that FSX system requirements (as per MS) are unrealistic and likely to cause disappointment. I pointed out that those who are having a great time with FSX appear to be (in the main) using higher end machines. Not a criticismI pointed out that many are having to turn down autogen and AI traffic, which flies (sorry for pun) contrary to the MS site claimsI pointed out that doing this was making a poor piece of software work on medium systems I pointed out that those over the last few years who have developed AI Traffic to the realistic level it now stands at, cannot expect to have the same traffic under FSX.I had kind of hoped that perhaps someone would respond to the points I made, instead what response did I receive from an alleged 55 year old. Smilies and insults.............very positive!BC

[LAdamson 240]

And, as a non-owner, you also said:5) I have also seen numerous posts/tweaks/fixes with "Turn the autogen level down or Turn the AI level down" Folks they are not fixes nor are they really tweaks. What they do however, is permit a very poor piece of software to work on medium machines (said medium machines which, remember have specs well above what MS claimed were required)How do you judge a "poor piece of software" without owning it? When in fact, the photo-realistic tiles for cities look much better without cartoon auto-gen buildings placed on top. Flying out of the mountains in FSX, over the cities and to a landing has become one of the best visual flight simulations I've run across. The look is so much more realistic, that I have a hard time using FS9 anymore. The flight dynamics and feel of varying airmass are greatly improved. But how would you know? Again from MS site;"Flight Simulator X immerses you in a beautifully rich and realistic world, with dozens of aircraft"If you cannot fly in a beautifully rich environment with dozens of aircraft then FSX has failed to deliver. I'm sim flying in some very beautifully simulated enviroments. Is my prefered enviroment going to be the same as everyone elses? Of course not, but IMO Microsoft DID deliver in a multitude of ways. But again, as a non-owner, how would you know? And since your bias against FSX was easy to spot, I didn't feel a reply was necessary, as we've seen too many non-owner anti FSX postings/replies as it is.L.Adamson

[AWACS 12]

Hi BC,You said,>>I pointed out that doing this was making a poor piece of software work on medium systems<

[Guest Len]

Am I the only one who finds any lunacy whatsoever in this logic?This kind of comment merely illustrates and undermines another poster who started another one of these threads castigating those people giving negative feedback concerning FSX and at once maintaining an innocence of character like his pro-FSX "clan" never said a cross word. Well, the poster you commented against in your negative and insulting tone had a negative comment concerning FSX not to you, or your family, or your friends. But a negative comment directed against a product produced by a multi-billion dollar company. And you feel the need to insult him as if he had personally slighted you. He paid for the product. Let him level his criticism unless your personality has been wholly absorbed into the product that you see it as a slight against you and yours. That would indicate and abnormal state of affairs.

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

>Okay first off, I do not have FSX, but I have seen and read>all the various threads and posts.>>As an "outsider" perhaps you will permit me some comments;>>1) I notice (with very very few exceptions) that those who>declare themselves happy with FSX, have what one would be fair>to call fairly good PC specs, 3gb this, dual core that yadda>yadda.>>2) A visit to Microsoft FSX site gives the following system>requirements 1Ghz processor, 256MB RAM, 32MB Video Card.>>3) Did anyone (really anyone) actually get FSX to run on the>above system?>...>Thanks for allowing me to post my thoughts>>BCNot quite exactly the above absolute minimum specs, but not that far off either. I should state that I was pretty darn amazed myself :-eek when I read the testimonial from this user. Admittedly the guy is only running the demo, but he has cars on roads and judging by the screenshots he posted I would say a fair amount of autogen trees and houses. Naturally the full deal wouldn't run as good as he's got the demo going. Still, I can hardly believe it and I am pasting this all in from the following thread(go there and look at his screenshots if you feel like it)...http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...66716&mode=full-----------------------------------------------(flight)Hi all. I was wondering which slider to set high for visible roads? I can get the demo running fairly well, with traffic on the roads, so I don't want to upset my settings. Is there one slide rule in particular that I can set to high, or even max out, that will give me better representation of the roads the vehicles are driving on? Right now they're obviously following a road, but at times there just travelling over green mesh.Oh and by the way. I have a p4 1.8 with a GeForce3 TI 200. I can't get the detail like you guys with the "big machines" but what I can get in FSX is enough for me. I was flying the demo and was actually amazed at the weather simulation. What I mean is as I was flying around the hilly areas, I started experiencing up and down drafts, and buffeting. When I was flying a pattern, as I was heading downwind this also started happening unexpectedly; like some wind gusts all of a sudden came up. I've kept most of the sliders back so I can experience this smoothly.I plan to get a new computer eventually, but I've simply fallen for these flight dynamics as far as the weather is concerned. Not sure you'd call it the weather, but the flight dynamics as far as turbulence is concerned. Last year I went for my first flight in a small GA, and what I really loved was the turbulence that was experienced now and then through the flight. Well FSX reminded me of that aspect of flight. It gave me such a sensation of really flying that I NEVER experienced in FS9. As a result I can't put FSX down (uninstall it (the demo btw)).I can only imagine what it must be like flying it and experiencing these flight dynamics on a powerful computer with all the other options set high.I haven't done a lot of complaining about FSX simply because my computer is so ancient. Most of my disappointment is what I hear about the authentication process.Anyways, I for one am changing my tune toward FSX. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it just seems more "real" than FS9 even without all the eye-candy. I'm looking forward to growing with it.Enough chatter. So, will anyone tell me which slide ruler I should max to get the roads more visible?As you can see from these shots, in some places the roads aren't showing up. Any idea which slider would give more detailed roads?And don't laugh at the shots. I get 15 fps and up to 17 fps (excluding the shots locked at 10 fps) on my humble machine.P4 1.8GeForce 3 TI200She flies smoooooth as silk with this kind of graphics. So you can see why I'm afraid to touch any of the settings. If someone could just tell me which slider would most effect the roads, I'd be a happy camper flying the demo till I get my new computer and buy the real thing. Then I'll turn up the sliders and start complaining like everyone else...NOT!Anyone...please?Texture resolution commands the roads to be clearer, but only if your rig will support 5m or better textures.Good luck!Allcott-----------------------------------------------

[Avcomware 1]

Hi, griffon.>These conspiracy theories are really getting out of hand.

[Guest]

>Er, let's put things in perspective here folks.. MS sells about 3 million + copies > of each FS during its 3-year lifecyle - that's a gross revenue of $210 million dollars.You couldn't be more wrong. MS doesn't earn anywhere near the $70 bucks that your see as the price on the shelf :-lol How about all the costs for the manufacturers, distributors, retailers etc.. Remember those guys?

[ubersu 78]

Understand that you've moved on to a new project. I'm pretty familiar with the dev environment myself. My statement stands.DJ

[Guest FxF3]

FSX works well on my computer. I really do own FSX.:-) Sorry if you can't get it to work for you. When this forum gets back to normal people will help anybody that needs help and it will be easier to find.They Joy of FSX is really great the mission I'm finding are not bad at all. I love the G1000 and all those trees a bush simmers dream.

[Guest Binncott]

Okay, I will admit that my use of the term poor piece of software was not the best call. I apologise if this gave the impression of "bashing"What I was "trying" [and failing] to highlight was the poor performance of the software on medium range machines as posted by FSX users here and on other forums. The other point I was highlighting was that the stalwart efforts of those providing tweaks/fixes, means that the root problem is not being addressed. Consequently folks (in my opinion) appear to be willing to accept lower frame rates, lower autogen, lower AI traffic, rather than perhaps complaining to MS or ACES which is the only way the developer has of gaining feedback. By root problem I mean as a user with a mid range machine I would like FSX, but performance being quoted by users is much below what one expects, and would only be worsened by the introduction of realistic AI traffic which (again in my opinion) was the most significant improvement between 2000 and 2002, which then progressed through 2004. Surely the necessity of low AI traffic must be seen as a retro-grade step?I have absolutely no doubt that FSX is superb to look at 'whilst flying through mountain passes' etc. If that is what you get from the simulator then more power to you. Some folks, however, want to fly in and out of main airport hubs with realistic traffic - perhaps flying for a Virtual Airline, and it appears from my outside perspective that FSX does not cater for this part of the sim community. Some others may enjoy fast jet flying....again they do not appear to be able to do so, with reasonable frame ratesThat is a shame, and being that we all have differing opinions and this is a public forum, those of you with FSX, who enjoy low and slow GA flying over open countryside, must understand that those of us from other sections feel a little let down by FSX performance, and wish to comment.BC

[Guest]

Bet they started ship simulator or space shuttle simulator and he's on it.

[LAdamson 240]

You believed FS9 to have many problems too, and attacked it constantly on release. At what point, did you change from a downright hatred of FS9 to actually defending it? And why?Just curious.