>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 rates>>That 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.>A couple of notes:As I do like to check out scenery, but not low and slow, I often use the jets more than not. I get close to a constant 30 fps with auto-gen and water effects off. The sim is very smooth and stutterless. And the climbout from my Class B International Airport (KSLC) towards the mountains to the east is simply stunning! I keep going back to FS9 with all it's goodies for a comparison. FS9, simply does not have a glossy photo look. FS9 lacks the sharpness and clarity of FSX's much improved textures. If I should prefer to go low & slow, then auto-gen for trees is cranked up.I own FS9, FSX, and X-Plane V8 with global scenery. I have the choice of all three sims, and all run very well depending on settings. Since I actually DO run FSX and with many different scenarios, it's easy to find many good & bad points. Yet, FSX seems to be keeping my attention, because I've found some great improvements within the sim.L.Adamson --- Athlon64 3800/2GIG/Geforce7600GS 256MB/1600*1200*32

Its also nice to see the Sales of FSX doing better then the thought it would. Just goes to show some people can get it working very well on their computer and seem to be happy with it.Now for some addons both free and payware. Will also like to see what impact the new video cards have on FSX this month.

I just don't understand this kind of stuff at all. It's always like this with new every release of FS. I bought FS9 the day it was released and it ran like a pig on my fairly new and fairly capable system at the time. Dell Dimension 8250, 3.06ghz P4 w/HT, 1gb RDRAM, XP Home, Nvidia TI-4200. I broke down and bought a 9800XT and was able to get playable fps (15-20) with more-or-less decent graphics. Nothing maxed, or even close to it.Last year I came into an inheritance, and spent some of it on a cutting-edge system last Feb. An All-American Computers LiquidXS. DFI LanParty mobo, AMD FX-60 @ 2.81ghz, 2x XFX 7900GTX SLI @ 690mhz, 2gb Corsair PC4000 Platinum, XP Pro, watercooled CPU & GPU's.Finally, with all that horsepower and over 2 years later, I can run FS9 with EVERYTHING 100% maxed and get steady 60fps in the boondocks (I've got vsync on for my TrackIR4 and using LCD display, or it would be better) and never drop under 35fps over Manhattan.FSX can (and does, sometimes) bring this new system of mine to its knees. But the potential for the future is there, and good god what potential. I've tried a few times pausing the game and maxing everything out 100% just to see what it looks like, and FS9 looks like the Flintstones in comparison.Sure it would be nice to be able to max everything out the day you get the game and have it 100% playable. But then there's no room to grow and nothing to look forward to when you upgrade your system next year, right?

>>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"<>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.<>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 rates<

>Am I the only one who finds any lunacy whatsoever in this>logic?>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.I never insulted anyone personally. Did I call him a lunatic or something? I said the logic....LOGIC.Yes, I firmly believe it is silly to condemn the whole FSX product by setting yourself up in perhaps the most technically demanding area of the entire virtual world. This is also AFTER having just said in the same breath that elsewhere you were getting 33fps and it was "very nice". Sitting on the tarmac at Heathrow, you have low FPS, but everywhere else is "very nice", and THAT makes a sim which models the entire world somehow broken? That Microsoft is guilty of false advertising? Yes, that to me is not only flawed but assanine logic.If by association I can be accused in this thread of bowing down to a company of people I couldn't care less about, and not voicing my dissatisfaction with their product because I'm supposedly trembling at the knees at the thought of upsetting the ACES team and most laughably, being responsible for the end of the FlightSim franchise, then I can at least call a spade a spade when someone says something moronic about the issues with FSX.

And a very satisfied non FSX owner at that!Since you are of the opinion that I am a non FSX owner and have no business posting on this forum let me make this analogy for ya!I have really been waiting for this hot new automobile to come out and just by chance while waiting to get my hair cut at my local barbershop I happen across an automotive magazine with a featured article on said automobile! Well as it turns out this new automobile recieves 90% negative reviews! Which do you think would be my best option?a) heed the reviewers warnings and dont buy the automobile?:( buy the automobile anyways and find out for myself?Or maybe I should take the advice of the other 10% of reviewers who saidC) the car should run perfectly fine as long as I dont play the MP3 player while driving , dont use the onboard GPS , and keep the airconditioning off at all times?If you can come up with a good legitimate arguement as to why I should still by this car feel free to do so. If all I can expect is another one liner something along the lines as just another FSX whiner dont bother , heard that one alreadyCyberSimmer

"Its also nice to see the Sales of FSX doing better then the thought it would. Just goes to show some people can get it working very well on their computer and seem to be happy with it."More like the FSX riding on the reputation of past achievements. Like someone already pointed out, the end of the quarter will tell the true story (although we may never know the real sales numbers)...

>If someone voices an opinion that you don

I have no problems with FSX doing well on my computer. Seems like it will work on most computers if you use the sliders. Try VRF in FSX you will love it.

If no one blabbed, how'd Chris figure it out?

Well it looks like you've got us FSX "cheerleaders" all figured out!I've just been miserable playing FSX the last week after removing FS9 from my HDD.I can't stand this misery! Oh God help me!! God d**n you Microsoft and ACES, GOD D**N YOU!!!/shakes fistJames

>Understand that you've moved on to a new project. I'm pretty>familiar with the dev environment myself. My statement>stands.>In fact you keep posting nonsense because unless you happen to be on the Aces team you hav no clue what their specific development 'environment' happens to be. Each such 'environment' is to some degreee unique - including the one in my own work.Michael J.

I can understand why those like myself whom are dissatisfied with FSX, come to these forums. It's a way for myself to let the ACES team, MS, and AVSIM know that just because I bought FSX and am keeping it doesn't mean I'm not ###### !! Sales of this product should not indicate to the developers a job well done. They must take into consideration the loyalty and passion we all have for this franchise and hobby. If this was just another pc game I would have returned it, without a doubt.I have heard some of our fellow flightsimmers say that we should be realistic with our expectations. Come on! I think it should be the other way around. Those that developed this product are the ones that need to to be a bit more realistic. As long as there are those folks who feel the need to defend FSX, the more I feel the need to counter their statements. Myself, I can only look at trees for so long. I like busy airports and heavys. So until MS starts releasing a product suitable for current hardware. It's my duty to come here and let them know. I bought it, and I'm not happy with it.

Hi again green griffenOne day you and I will find a topic we can agree on.If my PC dose not have the power as you say, to fly into the airport I have used ever since I started flying FS9 then Microsoft is wrong,You are wrong to sugest to me what you have,And who do you think you are in telling me To get something strait with you.Sorry my friend,I will stick to my last post and Totaly ignore your reply.RegardsRex.3D mark 05 score 13270 yesterday.

Hi fxf3You are right If you fly in the bush the Deserts and low populated areas it is very nice.I Like the Sim,I like all Ace's have done to make it good,But What I am upset about The Airports I use One is no problem.The other is were I Fly my 747 is not.All the best.Rex