"sheep" LOL.....If you all only knew!LOL

>"sheep" LOL.....>If you all only knew!>LOL>I envisage it will be something like 'From dusk till dawn' where you are all zombies and eat all the non-fsx believers.

I think, getting away from Graham's rather "annoyed" posts, I reckon the fella has a point.Money has changed hands for a product, which by it's own definition (ie adverts, box specs) and by the admission of Phil Taylor is not performing to expectations.Now whether you like FSX or don't like FSX is neither here nor there. The plain facts are that some customers of Microsoft feel let down, some feel ripped off and some are just spitting mad. As customers they have the right to tell MS and Aces and as I have said on another thread there is little point in sitting back saying "Good Job", if you are unhappy.Now a lot has been said (some rude and some downright insulting) about folks bashing FSX, but I will venture that this continuing dialogue with ACES would never have started had it not been for the torrent of criticism that has been voiced here and elsewhere.Unfortunately I am no technical wizard of PC specs, running systems etc., but by reading Phil Taylor's original post, there can be no doubt whatsoever that MS/Aces dropped the ball. They are looking into it which is about as good as the community should expect.But and it is a big but, no-one should be prevented from or castigated for expressing their own personal dissatisfaction.What I wonder is if those folks who are advocating tweaks and fixes and/or turning sliders down and/or autogen off etc., take the same charitable view with every purchase they make?Do you tweek/fix alter every new product you buy? TV? Car? House? etc?BC

Well,I just purchased a new computer, becuase I needed one to run other apps better (had the old one for more than 5 years) not just to run flight simulator necessarily, although I did have that partly in mind-I don't understand how so many with systems even more powerful than mine are having so many issues. Let me assure you, I'm not a shill, plant or flack for Microsoft, just a user and flight sim hobbyist, I've loved FS since 4.0 (MS DOS where you had to have CGA, lol). I can tell you that when I frist installed FSX, it did set the sliders low, and I thought-wait-I have a new Core Duo CPU, 2GB of RAM, 512mb of video and a 1600x1200 display. I've GOT to be able to get better results than this--so i set everything to the max, and it looked gorgeous and flies OK, EXCEPT (1) I have to set other air traffic to 50%, and all the ground traffic to %10, otherwise it stutters quite a bit, but EVERYTHING ELSE is on max-weather, autogen, aircraft details, etc. It looks GORGEOUS to me, anyway, and (2) For some reason in the Las Vegas area, performance takes a big hit, lots of stuttering, but I haven't noticed it in any other big cities or airports (yet). I live in the Southern California area, and can state that as far as the locations, and looks of the airports-LAX, Torrance, Hawthorne, Santa Monica, Van Nuys, and so on, are all like they should be.For those that don't know me I DO NOT COUNT FRAME RATES. I don't know my frames rates, and don't care--I simply look to see, does it look like it's flying smoothly. If it is, things are good. If it stutters, then I'm not so happy. But since my settings work 98% of the time, I'm going to live with them. (TIP: Once you tinker with the sliders and get it how you like, SAVE that scheme).Here are my system specs-I have a fairly powerful machine now, but I wouldn't call it extreme:Dell XPS 410Intel CORE DUO 2.13GHZ 1.67GHZ FSB2 GB RAM (667MHZ)NVIDIA 7900GTX 512MBDell Ultra Sharp 20in Digital Display (1600X1200)My advice to everyone is stay with it, be patient, find what works for you, and ENJOY the sim. That's what it's all about, right? :)Regards to all

Apparently Microsoft Ace's dev team doesn't post or read Microsoft's own news server so I've copied my conversation with folks that do post over there (with spelling and grammar errors intact) -- I've project the name of the poster.Thread Start:" wrote in message >> news:%[email protected]... http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/11/02/quad_cor...husiast_system/ Pretty clear from this FS and other games are behind hardware. Been like this for a long time despite claims the software is ahead of the hardware. Also see this link at avsim from an aces member which is very honest and timely. http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=368340&page= This quote confirms the first link above. Apply that concept to FS9 and earlier its clear the software is in need of a major rewrite. ------------------------------ [Q]Aces made its architectural decisions about FSX 2-3 years ago. It wasn't clear to me, and I am sure it wasn't clear to the rest of Aces and many of our readers in 2003 and 2004, that multicore was the future. Since those sorts of design decisions are baked in early, as it became clear in late 2005 and 2006 that the CPU landscape had changed it was just too late to make the major architectural changes required to make our internal architecture more parallel. We use fibers and threads, but still have serialization issues to work out. Which is why our second core (and beyond) usage is low, on the order of 20%. And the changes required are not trivial changes, like simply shifting thread affinity. The order of operations required for correct rendering and sim behavior and the linkage between subsystems is what it is, and it means that none of our options include simple fixes. Once you are on the glide path it is a very risky decision to change the architecture underneath the product. For better or worse, we decided to not do that and ship the product. With that said, we are listening to the community. [EQ]--------------------------------------------------------------------My Response:> "Rob R. Ainscough" wrote in message > news:[email protected]... , Multi-core is the same as multiple CPUs (not exactly, but close enough, they don't share on die CPU cache) -- Multiple CPUs have been around for a long long long time -- long before 2003. It's absolutely insane for the Ace's team to say "they weren't sure" -- the writing was on the wall -- Intel had Hyperthreading which is essentially a virtual 2nd CPU, so what do ya think the next step will be -- yes, a real 2nd CPU on the same core. Gee, no rocket science to figure out that one and I've gotta believe the Ace's team have some intelligence. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE not to leverage the hardware via well written and well designed software. FS has been in need of a re-write to leverage this hardware for a long time. Microsoft, in their quest for quick revenue at the expense of customer satisfaction, have elected once again to go the mediocre route -- yes, it is difficult to write game code that can effectively leverage the technology -- but that is the challenge and I guess Microsoft just aren't up to it either on a technical scale or they know their OS just isn't capable of handling it. Either way, the consumers pays for hardware that isn't be utilized by the software and the end result is the customers tones down a product (the details) so it runs OK. For comparison, John Carmack (Quake, Doom, fame) has provided multi-CPU support in his line of software and they work on a smaller budget than Microsoft. This whole Vista PC rating scheme is really that -- it's a way to release mediocre software and then blame the consumer for not having a powerful enough system when the reality is they DO, just NOT intelligent software. That's what really bugs me on this, when I see the sheep saying "it works on my system just fine" -- you dig and you find out the sheep are turning down a ton of detail settings, don't use AA or AF, etc. etc. Like I've said before -- lets seem someone other than a FS marketing person come post here or talk to me directly if they're too embarrassed to start a real dialog on software leveraging existing hardware technology. All I've seen so far is complete Marketing BS from a company known for pulling the wool over it's consumers eyes. Rob.--------------------------------------------------------------------Poster's Response:"" wrote in message news:[email protected], Do you ever post in the AVSIM forum? If so maybe you could engage with someone from MS/ACES --------------------------------------------------------------------My Response:,Yes I do, I have not seen a single "developer" post yet -- I see the "shields" (aka the marketing puppets) posting, but not the coders and certainly not the ones who made the technology architecure decision.If the Ace's dev team is for real, their lead developer/coders would have argued for a "from scratch re-write" and most likely would been vetod by the project manager(s) that get pressure to produce software by XYZ date with MNO dollars (budget). It would have taken several key developers on the Ace team to force a project manager to go back to the gold keepers and say it will cost 1.5 times more and come in 1 year later. Project managers rarely have the balls to do that.This rewrite should have started with FS8, if it did, they wouldn't be in the position their in now. But gold keepers have consistantly won the battle and each progressive version of FS is getting slower and slower. Actual coders aren't going to post on AVSIM, they're under lock and key -- the marketing puppets are there for damage control and try to toss out enough tech babble to smooth over those that don't know the technology nor software engineering.Why I take what is going on with FS series to heart is like I've said before, when I was young -- the first version of FS is what inspired me to become a software engineer. What FSX has become is FAR from the original good things that inspired me to be the best I can be. When producing entertainment software for $70 a pop, you don't "settle" on technology - you leverage it.Rob.

interesting arguments but i cannot respect a man who mixes up "their" and "they are"my apologies public schools have failed you. if i were a developer, i would discount everything you ever said based on this alone. this is not a small mistake, but one that speaks of "i've no clue but i am just ranting yo!"

On a lighter side, yet related -- has anyone watched the Movie "Thank You for Smoking"? I feel like the character Nick Naylor -- now, if I can only conclude to the ending.I'm going to do my best to stick to the point and only the point.I'm in the process of putting together some screen shots of FSX and FS9 at the same frame rates over the same area. I have means and the equipment to actually make a HD video of both FS9 and FSX, but it will have to be very short for bandwidth reasons (fortunately my 2nd core isn't doing much in FSX so there is no degrading of fps while recording). You folks decide which is better -- keep in mind it is being recorded at 1920 x 1200 but will be a down graded AVI -- still I hope it demonstrates the visual differences between the FS9 and FSX and it might make a more clear picture why I feel FSX has failed to deliver at the resolution I'm used to running for FS9.I'll also provide screen shots of all the graphics settings and how they adjust the frame rate. Many of you folks (majority) don't post any information about your graphics card settings, the FSX graphics settings, screen resolution, etc. etc. Many of you just say "I tweaked", or "moved the slider" and all is good. Good for one person could be an ugly mess for another, without some solid detailed postings your information is not very useful -- I realize it takes some work to do (most are pretty happy to post their hardware specs so taking it one step further would be great) so as there are many many settings both from the graphics card display panel to the settings within FSX.I will try to get my findings up on my web site by next weekend 11th? At least the screen shots, not sure about the video as HD+ content is a huge bandwidth consumer and it needs have minimal compression to be able to demonstrate the quality.I'm not backing down on my stance either, I will NOT buy Vista just to get a DX10 version of FSX that "might" address some of the performance problems I'm experiencing. If Phil or the dev team can't commit to a DX9c fixed FSX, then I'm not committing to FSX either. Rob.

You try to run FSX at 1920 X 1200 resolution, and you have the nerve to complain about performance? That's the basis for your argument?I can't believe you're serious.

Did you read what I said or do you just selectively pick out what you want then mis-represent what I've written so that other's are confused? Now you are the one being rude, arrogant, and ignorant.To re-iterate, I'm running a comparison of FS9 and FSX at 1920 x 1200 at the same (or close to it) frame rates over the same location to let anyone interested determine which looks better.There are actually many people that do run FS9 and FSX at 1920 x 1200 resolution so this information may help them. Just because YOU don't doesn't mean others don't. Like I've pointed out LCD's capable of 1920 x 1200 resolution are becoming increasing available and affordable ($500-$700) and people are buying them and using them with FSX. Since this IS a supported resolution in FSX and FS9, then yes I'm listing the potential issues/problems.FS9 does NOT have a problem running at 1920 x 1200 and if the FS9 looks better than FSX at this resolution running at the same frame rate, then that would indicate to me that FSX is not a step forward, but a step backward. As I understand it, one of the FSX objectives is to have a better (more realistic) looking simulation. I'll post the images on my web site and let people decide for themselves."the nerve" -- how is this relevant?? Your statement makes no sense and follows no logic at all? Next you'll be telling me and others that we shouldn't have "the nerve" to turn on traffic or turn on weather or ... your statement makes zero sense and helps NO one.If you're just here to "pick a fight" then do so with a little more than "nerve".Rob.

I agree solutions are needed. ATI driver updates didn't do it for me.What I see a lot of is "shut up and be happy" and that is not good for anyone and hence my original poorly worded sheep comment. We're NOT sheep, but some folks here are acting like sheep. This is our basic freedom -- no one is being "Forced" to read this.Rob.

>>FS9 does NOT have a problem running at 1920 x 1200 and if the>FS9 looks better than FSX at this resolution running at the>same frame rate, then that would indicate to me that FSX is>not a step forward, but a step backward. As I understand it,>one of the FSX objectives is to have a better (more realistic)>looking simulation. I'll post the images on my web site and>let people decide for themselves.I run FS9 & FSX at 1600*1200*32. I'll make the assumption that the difference between 1920 & 1600 isn't that dramatic.As to the type of sim flight I enjoy, yes at 1600*1200, FSX does look better. I'm sure that in other cases, it won't. Therefor, as the look is a main attraction, it's certainly not a step backwards.FWIW, I prefer my 21"CRT over my 19" LCD for flight simming. I believe the "tube" screens look better. L.Adamson

Looks like have freedom to post your feelings all you want Rob. I guess some of us are just trying to understand why you feel the need to insult the ones that like FSX as mindless sheep? Would it not be better to voice your feelings without the insults? You may get better results that way. To each his own I guess.

>But again, I'm sorry to you and all for my sheep comment. I>can also apologize and mean it.>>Rob. Rob - I know you didn't intend it to come out that way, as you said, a poor choice of wordsand I do uinderstand what you meant to convey.My point is that the repetition of your view over and over with a seemingly incvrease in vitriol detract from your point which, IMHO is quite valid *generally*.Think about it a bit, from my point of view or rather the *average* FSX user - we could care less about Dual core technology (yet). So we don't really sense your frustration. I'm assuming that you put together your system because you wanted to not in anticipation of an unreleased product. I would hope you would know better. And then to blast the company for not living up to your expectations - well, we all have that right but maybe I'm reading too many of your posts :) because I'm hearing the same thing over and over. You already indicated that you are putting your money where yuor mouth is and going Mac - that's the approach to take.Anyhow, we must agree to disagree - at least on some points.VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/