Proof that FSX can perform with correct hardware.

[Hornit 3]

James, Come on now.."narrow minded" ?? I have to chuckle at that. What is so narrow minded about things like Flight Sceneries Portland or Providence? A truly detailed and realistic crop of AI? Accurate landclass? Real Air's Spitfire? Tongass Fjords, Cloud 9, Fly Tampa....I could go on. I don't consider myeslf "narrow minded". I do consider myself a user of fine add-ons for FS. Unfortunately right now and into the unknown future it looks like us "narrow minded" FS9 users will be the only ones who continue to enjoy these works of art. Flight models? I'm really not that aware of anything drastically different in any of the flight models and to be truthful, several of them aren't all that great. Some sort of honeymoon thing going on here I think. I was fairly sure it has been acknowledged that little has been done to FDE's in this new version. Your "narrow minded" comment is kind of ignorant don't you think? Everyone needs to settle down and let others believe what they want. We are all entitled to our opinions. If we have differences there is no need to get ugly. Please don't take offense to my post, none is meant. I just don't think you thought through that one before you hit post.Hornit

[crvm 0]

If I set what you did there I get at most 10 FPS and that is if I am lucky! I would not call my system "slow" but it does prove what a year can achieve computer advancement wise and performance. Of course with my tweaks I can get those FPS albeit without the pretty little vehicles and autogen ;D. Well at least I now know what to upgrade too....Best,Randy J. Smith<<>>

[LAdamson 240]

> Your "narrow minded" comment is kind of ignorant don't you>think? Everyone needs to settle down and let others believe>what they want. We are all entitled to our opinions. If we>have differences there is no need to get ugly.>I think the "narrow mind" fits perfectly, without getting too ugly! :-hah As to flight models, it's not really the models themselves. It's more a change in simulating the moving and changing air mass , which is much more believable. As to the RealAir Spit, and even the SF260 which are two of my all time favorites, I'm quite confident that we'll see a version for FSX. If not, it will be back to the "low res" FS9 for these two, and the new Duke for FSX I suppose.L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

Fsx is the first time I've actually felt like I am taking off and landing in a real plane in the FS series-in years. The riding on rails feeling is gone-the sliding around on the runway is gone, stability is there in flight allowing precise altitude control,and true xwind landings and feelings of ground effect are there.In addition to the air masses being modelled-there have to be changes to the fm's. I imported the Dreamfleet Baron last night-and got surprisingly what I got in fs9-"rails", sliding on the runway, and pitch instability. At this point the default fsx Baron is extremely close to real life-but I am dreaming, itching for the DF to be upgraded-which of course would be even better (For one I miss the prop noise changes). Once I experienced more the feelings of real flight in fsx-I just couldn't go back to fs9.There is a whole lot more going on in this sim than a static screen shot displaying fps-yet it seems many base their perception on that alone. There is no doubt that presently fs9 scenery with all it's add ins can look great and in general get better performance than fsx.There are also a heck of a lot of things fsx can do that fs9 just can't-even with add ons. Even if you prefered to fly fs9 right now for the performance/visuals-I'd fly fsx just for the shared cockpits, multiplayer, and tower controlling-consider that alone a $54 add on. Then there are missions, and all the other new things that were listed in another thread about what is new. You can actually enjoy both sims for different reasons!With personal choices of settings which I have made, I am actually getting better performance than I did with fs9 and my countless add ins, and enjoying all the new features fsx has to offer. That is why I removed fs9 from my drive-pure and simple. I don't really feel a need to go to the fs9 board and continually explain to everyone why I enjoy fsx,consider it a great improvement, and why they shouldn't enjoy fs9. Seems it ought to work the other way also.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[MD83 1]

"Flight models? I'm really not that aware of anything drastically different in any of the flight models and to be truthful, several of them aren't all that great."You're going to get flamed for that!"Heretic! :-mad":-lol

[Hornit 3]

"I don't really feel a need to go to the fs9 board and continually explain to everyone why I enjoy fsx,consider it a great improvement, and why they shouldn't enjoy fs9. Seems it ought to work the other way also." Well Geofa to be honest I am using both sims so I will continue to participate in both forums. As to Mr. Adamson, If you think narrow minded is an appropriate moniker for those of us who still prefer FS9 over FSX at this point, then I would suggest your being a bit ignorant too. Look, I value everyone's input in here and I try really hard to be a positive member of this community. I won't let a commnet like that go by un-challenged though. While its only my opinion, this is why you are seeing sooo many posts in a less than positive vein about FSX. Be happy that you are enjoying the sim the way you like to fly it. Dismissing the folks who are having problems,(and it sure looks like a decent fraction of the user base)as whiners and bashers is ridiculous. That is not what has historically made these forums such a great place to come to. Think about it please. I enjoy the product, but think it was released too soon, without the polish it should have and have many factual points to back that up. Doesn't mean Im not going to use it. If your having fun with it thats great, guess what?? SO AM I. I will continue to post in here in the hopes that I find fixes, add ideas, and generally find ways to enhance the sim so I can enjoy it even more. Its why a lot of us are here to begin with, no matter which version we are using. You folks who are cheerleaders are going to have to live with that. It goes BOTH WAYS.Hornit

[Guest smarti05]

Look the average user isnt going to have the equivalent to a 3.5gig conroe and a 7950 for at least 3 years if not longer by which time fsxi will be killing all machines stone dead it just shows that its a very very poorly written piece of code that relies on shear grunt to do anything by the way you should put bloom on and at the end of the day you cant run it on max so its all a bit daft isnt it.regards

[MD83 1]

>You folks who are cheerleaders are going to have to live with that.As a "heretic" I think it's my right .... make that my DUTY ..... to point out the problems in FSX :D

[Guest]

wow you people are insulting on your ivory towers. I'm glad you all have current top of the line computers to run FSX without big framerate drops with DEFAULT settings.Unfortunately, the only thing I've said about FSX is all this happiness for FSX running well is all with "default scenery" "default textures" and "default aircraft" and zero AI traffic. Ontop of that, you have to spend over 3 thousand dollars just to get this performance.I never doubted the future of FSX, CFS3 was a great game with great potential but performance issues and some glaring bugs kept it from being popular. I believe FSX is heading down the same road unless MS reacts ASAP.

[MD83 1]

I've only seen a handful of pictures showing good frame rates in heavily built-up areas. That handful of users have excellent PCs.

[SlickNick 0]

I have my FSX Configured with ALL settings at MAX. That's right, as real as it gets. (Even full AI traffic on roads, boats, etc. EVERYTHING!) My FPS average in the 15-20's at the worst of times.Having said that, I just last week built myself an "ultimate FS machine" with the sole purpose of running FSX on it. I'm glad I did, because words can't describe how stunning the sim is when viewed like that.

[Guest]

>I think I've arrived at the conclusion that you really don't>know that much at all about FSX, or haven't bothered actually>spending much time with it.>well you can make up anything to fit your own narrow minded opinion>Notice how more and more people are being converted to it?>Including previous "naysayers"? I never touched CFS3 but CFS3>this aint. For starters the atmospheric modelling is far>better, the flight modelling is better, the graphics are>seriously better, etc etc.>Why do I care what other people are doing?You obviously missed the point of comparing it to CFS3 but thanks for playing>I'll be laughing a year from now when the vast majority of>simmers are regularly playing FSX and getting a great>experience from it, and only a few narrow-minded people remain>with their dated FS9.>:-lolYes maybe in a year if FSX hasn't turned as many people off to the genre as CFS3 did, you might be able to buy a computer that performs well enough to fly with detailed addons and still get good framerates, until then, it looks like you are just another narrow minded blind Microsoft cheerleader who just follows the hype>btw I've had Flight Unlimited 3, which had great flight>modelling, and FSX for the first time gives me that feel of>flight that I enjoyed from FU3. Never again am I going to>touch FS9.>>JamesGood for you, the idea of getting a feel for flight with the default airplanes is laughable. I am sure there are a small number of changes but not everyone is going to rush out to drop down 3 thousand dollars for that. Until then, the "feel of flight" when flying PMDG, LevelD, etc is more than enough fun on FS9But go ahead and enjoy your FSX with default airplanes, horrible terrain, a big credit card bill, and bad performance

[Guest FxF3]

Again the people who dislike FSX have taken this thread in the wrong way. The OP has a great computer and is having Fun with his FSX.I have a middle of the road computer and also am having fun with FSX with good FPS.Those of you that are not Im sorry FSX did not work for you. Just Look on the bright side you still have FS9 which you remind of us in almost every post. ;-)

[MD83 1]

>Proof that FSX can perform with correct hardwareYour PC proves that this software needs top-end hardware, but that is all :)

[Guest tango_d]

:-hah With ya on that !!I have a mid to high-end system and i'm lovin FSX. RgsEdNorth Wales - UK