Sign in to follow this  
LAdamson

Is it RIGHT...

Recommended Posts

I've asked this in 2 different posts and I'm still waiting for an answer :)1) Is it "RIGHT" that the end user should have to deal with the problems in FSX because of admitted bad design decisions? As stated by M$ employees, they simply word it differently. Dual Core? Whats that ? SLI ?2) Should the end user have to alter numerous files to decrease the impact on framerates on "top" end equipment? Consequently reducing the experience as depicted on the box in illustrations.3) Should the end user be required to purchase 1000's of dollars in hardware and software to get a decent and full experience with his software purchase when the minumum and recommended specs (listed on the box by M$) are far exceeded ? From FSX box:Note: The above are the specifications a computer must have to run this game. Increased performance will be noticed on more powerful systems. (Note to above, nothing about having to upgrade to Vista or DX10 to realize the sims full benefits, despite what we are being told, just a more powerful system. Nothing about having to purchase hardware/software that does not exist).4) Should the end user not complain because others do not like what he has to say? 5) Should the end user expect to have a decent experience with software support?6) Should the end user be allowed to run his purchase when he purchased it, and not when M$ tech support gets around to fixing the activation problems?7) Should the end user be required to return said purchase, should he not be refunded as well for the time lost trying to get said software running, and travel time, shipping costs and whatever other costs might be incurred by said softwares failure to perform adequately on machines that exceed recommmended specs?8) Should MS have shelved this game until FSX could be run on existing hardware and Vista machines w/DX10? Seeing as so many are having problems using even a slight amount of autogen and traffic on XP/DX9 without hacking the program.9) Do you think design decisions were made that cut into FSX performance too much? In otherwords, should M$ have taken longer to implement better dual core support, SLI, etc.10) Will you: a) spend $2000+ on a new Vista system "JUST" to run FSX. :( Buy hardware and software to try and upgrade your existing system.c) Stay with XP and use the software as is.d) Buy a new Vista system for any other reason (want newer OS, etc.) besides FSX.11) Do you agree that by bringing the problems people are having with said sim to a public venue such as AVSIM helps bring attention to the problems with the sim or do you think speaking bad about said sim will kill any chances for the next one, upgrades, etc?12) Do you think there should be a "Major Update" to FSX besides the DX10 update we keep hearing about? In other words, should M$ fix FSX on XP/DX9 before the socalled DX10 update is worked on/released since FSX was released for XP? These are some of the problems and questions reported by users on this forum. I'm just looking for honest answers, not flames. Simply answer the questions and move on :) I've seen the flames coming from both sides and it gets a bit rediculus when the name calling starts. How old are we? :) So lets keep it clean and friendly, NO CAPS LOL..Just to make it clear, I'm among the disenters right now. I'm not happy with not being able to run FSX without hacks,spending $1000 on hardware/software, turning things off and an overall disappointed feeling as opposed to my experience with FS9. I fly both though, admittedly FSX only in rural/bush flying areas.What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Ooo, this is fun, kind of like a quiz or something.>>10) Will you: a) spend $2000+ on a new Vista system "JUST" to run FSX. :( Buy hardware and software to try and upgrade your existing system.c) Stay with XP and use the software as is.d) Buy a new Vista system for any other reason (want newer OS, etc.) besides FSX.<>7) Should the end user be required to return said purchase, should he not be refunded as well for the time lost trying to get said software running, and travel time, shipping costs and whatever other costs might be incurred by said softwares failure to perform adequately on machines that exceed recommmended specs?<< I think Microsoft *will* refund you for the purchase of the product, but it's a little silly to ask if they'll refund your gas and compensate you for your time.Hope you get your problems fixed.Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately thats what happens when there is monopoly, there really is nothing out there that comes close to what MSFX has to offer if there was im sure MS would be offering alot better product than what we have and 80% of us would be using something else for flight simulator as by the amount of problems, gripes by users on this forum many would have abandoned MS.I feel sorry for the Mr Average on the street who picks this up and doesnt know the ins and outs of tweaking only to be disappointed that it doesnt run acceptably on his computer, atleast by us tweaking we can play it at acceptable levels, or i suppose thats the minority of us.its just that we have to be patient, stick with what we got and grin and bear it, i know its a hard pill to swallow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO to about all of it.FSX is not a cure for cancer or needed to stay alive.Fsx is not needed to run FS9 or any previous version.The money was not taken out of my taxes.They do offer a refund.And YES to just about all of it.With MS being the only show in town with no real competition,you play by their rules.The hardware,performance,upgrade issues have been around since day one.I really do not see the point in these type post other than people like to beat their chest and yell.In another 3 years we will all be foaming at the mouth for FS11.Repeat....FS12Repeat....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whos yelling and beating their chests ? :) I just want to know if it's right...:) and how others feel...I can except any result as long as it is backed up by some reasonable dialog. I'm not interested in flames...I take it you defend M$ and FSX ? If I'm wrong feel free to correct me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one 'has' to alter numerous files, tweak cfg settings or buy additional hardware to run FSX. Sliders were included for a reason. Use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Keffen,OK, I'll bite:1. "RIGHT" is probably not the descriptor you're looking for but since the product has some issues, you'll have to either deal with them as they are presently or seek a refund.2. You don't need to alter anything. I would guess that since this is a hobby to most, there is some satisfaction gained by tweaking and making various adjustments to files in order to make the sim more fluid in the frame rate department.3. You don't need to buy anymore hardware in order to use the sim. However, if you want the sim to be smoother and frame rate friendly, the purchase of more powerful hardware would be a logical supposition.4. Anyone can complain and be heard. It's only when the complaints are derogatory and offensive to others that a line needs to be drawn.5. I don't quite follow this statement unless it was related to the initial support problems alluded to be several of the ACES team. They fully agree that the support process was flawed and are working to improve the situation.6. Absolutely.7. Answered in a response earlier in the thread.8. I don't think so and I don't believe I'm the only one. By giving the game the ability to grow with future hardware innovations, it allows a longer life in which to enjoy the product.9. "too much" is a quantitative term that doesn't describe the situation fully. In retrospect, Microsoft has stated they could have handled dual-core support differently, but it would have prolonged the release. They would then, most likely be condemned for not giving us what we wanted sooner.10. I chose "b" as computers need to be upgraded frequently if you want to keep up with technology. You will ultimately have to make that decision for yourself.11. Various members of the ACES team have stated repeatedly that they welcome any feedback that users may have. It's beneficial to all when done with tact. It can be very detrimental to all of us if the mudslinging that some have thrown at Microsoft doesn't cease. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you continue to frequent this and other forums knowing that whatever you said would be twisted and misquoted constantly? I doubt it.12. I'm not sure that there needs to be a major update, but again, Paul Lange has stated they are working on some unspecified issues and we'll just have to take his word for it and be patient. I'm on the fence regarding the entire situation. I would love to have autogen cranked up through the roof. Geofa and LAdamson have suggested turning it off. I did and I like it. It's a very fluid experience without it and I'm finding fewer reasons to use FS9. You might want to have another objective look at it and think about the hardware advances that are on the horizon. There's really no need to go into debt tomorrow. Give Microsoft a chance to update what we have and move on from there. Jim Karn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do I think ???Maybe you should learn to address Microsoft as "Microsoft", "MS" or whatever, but the moment I see the childish and biassed "M$" in a text, I know I can stop reading ......."I've seen the flames coming from both sides and it gets a bit rediculus when the name calling starts. How old are we? :) "" I rest my case.Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the love of god..... I would like to call upon the moderators of this great community. Please, please make a new forum specifically for people to vent like this, a forum where pure speculation can run rampant while giving others a way of filtering it out. It can be potentially helpful to have lots of negativity around as problems don't come to light unless someone complains... but for the love of god, please find a way to keep people from posting such dramatic and unwarranted posts in an otherwise very helpful forum.This post was a hard read from the get go. If you are going to post something and ask not to be flamed for it, please be sure not to sound so judgmental or appear as if your leading the answers you 'expect' to hear.I'm not flaming you, I'm simply reluctant to address any of your concerns specifically because it appears you have your mind made up and only want to express frustration.... your not looking for answers.Here's what I will add though. If you truly are unhappy with the sim, take it back to 'M$' and hope you can get your money back. There was discussion about this new Sim for months before it was released. There were two... TWO demo's available for download, there were PLENTY of reports that these demos were buggy on differing systems showing a majority of users having problems... and most of all, ANY software going to market is going to have problems found that require a patch of some sort... it's not a new thing.With all of that in mind, I say 'how dare you' try to blame someone else for the fact you have ignored the community's complaints and bought the game anyways.... seriously now, why would you use your method of arguing ("I paid for it so it should work"), esp if you knew before release that there were issues? Get to grips, seriously. I'm about fed up with the absolute off-the-wall garbage people are grabbing at these days. We have a new sim, with that comes a short period of time where we must help one another evaluate problems and solutions until such a time when the problems are sorted out.... spend your energy evaluating and offering insight as to what you perceive as the problem, send it to the ones that count, and be patient.btw: I have to add something a little less related here, to do with the 'monopoly' comment that was posted in the thread. I am not picking on the remark, and my comments above do not reflect my opinion of that comment, but I have to say that Microsoft do not have a monopoly on anything. Windows does have alternatives, you can choose Linux and Mac.... do not blame Microsoft for the fact that these alternatives are either widely unsupportive (in terms of software availability, or have a high learning curve.)That being said, there ARE alternatives to FSX. X-Plane is an example, and it is doing rather well recently. You cannot blame Microsoft for the fact that you chose their product over the others, that just shows that the Microsoft product line has been superior for a long time, and will be superior again in due time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Whos yelling and beating their chests ? I just want to know if it's right... and how others feel...I can except any result as long as it is backed up by some reasonable dialog. I'm not interested in flames...I take it you defend M$ and FSX ? If I'm wrong feel free to correct me"sigh :( If that is 'reasonable dialog' this forum is doomed :( btw I forgot to mention... I hate Microsoft sometimes, but I depend on their stuff to make a living. I never defend them, I only offer my own opinion based on years of experience in the software industry. What we are seeing right now with FSX is nothing new in this area, in fact most games that hit the market have numerous bugs come out to haunt them, some of them simply not found in development because the developers don't have 20,000 different computers to test it on. It isn't new, it's something that has been going on for years, and is something that no company is immune to despite investing millions in the project. Being a part of the industry, I know how it is, I know the in's and out's of the release mechanism and the stress it creates on the developers. There simply is nothing that can be done, no company is ever going to put out a 100% bug free system.Also. Most people out there did know that FSX was designed for Vista and DX10, most of those people do know that these products are unavailable at the present time.... so again I should ask, why would you expect great performance yet? Would you have preferred that ACES designed this game around DX9, SLi and 64bit architecture? By the time that product would have shipped (much more production time), both Vista, DX10 and DX10 capable cards would be already in the marketplace thus rendering the new simulator obsolete within a few months of release.... :( That isn't a good plan as far as a developer see's it.Anyways enough rambling, I'm just trying to enlighten people, open their eyes that we knew of the issues, we bought the sim after even playing the demos, we know the proper hardware/software is currently not on the shelves yet... maybe we should all just patiently await the patch, Vista and all the other goodies before gouging out one another's eyeballs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from original post: 'nothing about having to upgrade to Vista or DX10 to realize the sims full benefits, despite what we are being told, just a more powerful system. Nothing about having to purchase hardware/software that does not exist).'Nothing that is, apart from the bit right on the front of the FSX DVD case artwork that says: 'Works even better on the upcoming Windows Vista'.In short, I know specs on boxes are always a little optimistic, but you can't deny that it does actually say what you claim is not mentioned on the FSX box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...I ask the questions people have been asking all over this and other forums about FSX and I get personally insulted....suprise suprise...I think I put in my post that I wasn't intereseted in argueing..just answers to the questions people ask...so sad..Right = responsible business practice :)Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) We are generally sick of posts in this forum :) that contribute -->NOTHING:) help others note:POSITIVE, :) please note :) MSFS, this forum is for -->MSFS:) Others are correct in that a seperare bithc forum should be opened so topics like this stay the ehll outta the -->MSFS<-- forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Wow...I ask the questions people have been asking all over>this and other forums about FSX So why do you bring it up again if its been asked over and over. Its just tiring. Everyone is sick of the whinning. Get over it. Move on. Life is good. Live it! They are working on improving the product. Aces has actively partcipated in the forums. Leadership these days, I believe, is nearly extinct!Brian S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vista is vaporware and will do nothing to fix your performance issues. i will sit back and laugh at the people who actually sink money because that's what microsoft told them (well duh) will get you 50+fps with traffic and autogen and 3rd party aircraft and scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft are claiming that? Not that I've heard of. In fact, I don't believe anyone anywhere is claiming that Vista will change performance of current systems other than overhead alleviation.... but on the same hardware, you can't make a 1ghz GPU do 2ghz worth of calculations every second regardless of what you do.All I believe Microsoft have ever claimed, is that Vista, DX10, and DX10 based hardware of tomorrow will be far superior to what we currently have available to us.Maybe I heard wrong though, I am wearing my wifes dress, I was confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL M$ SUCKS LOLOLOL!!!That's basically the tone of your post.Want to contribute something positive and not insult MS and ACES, as well as others who've provided beneficial and constructive criticism? If not go elsewhere.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez that sounds like a well-balanced and informed post.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>vista is vaporware and will do nothing to fix your>performance issues. i will sit back and laugh at the people>who actually sink money because that's what microsoft told>them (well duh) will get you 50+fps with traffic and autogen>and 3rd party aircraft and scenery.Do you even know what vaporware means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Microsoft are claiming that? Not that I've heard of. In>fact, I don't believe anyone anywhere is claiming that Vista>will change performance of current systems other than overhead>alleviation.... but on the same hardware, you can't make a>1ghz GPU do 2ghz worth of calculations every second regardless>of what you do.>>All I believe Microsoft have ever claimed, is that Vista,>DX10, and DX10 based hardware of tomorrow will be far superior>to what we currently have available to us.>>Maybe I heard wrong though, I am wearing my wifes dress, I was>confused.Sure they are. DX10 which is vista only. 2+2=4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>vista is vaporware and will do nothing to fix your>>performance issues. i will sit back and laugh at the people>>who actually sink money because that's what microsoft told>>them (well duh) will get you 50+fps with traffic and autogen>>and 3rd party aircraft and scenery.>>Do you even know what vaporware means?Empty promises? scroll back to 10 years ago. There isn't a magical formula that just boosts performance. FS10 is a DX9 game. Vista will not make it run faster, nor will DX10. This has held true since the beginning of the computing era. But it is getting ridiculous on how people are spreading "informative" posts about how DX10 will just magically fix all the problems. It is sad because people do buy into it. It's a new platform with new features, not some nitro boost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Geez that sounds like a well-balanced and informed post.>>JamesI appreciate the humble comment, James. I shall pay close attention to continue to provide you with such informative insight in the near future.Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>1) Is it "RIGHT" that the end user should have to deal with>the problems in FSX because of admitted bad design decisions?>As stated by M$ employees, they simply word it differently.>Dual Core? Whats that ? SLI ?No. Being acquiescent will not get things fixed. Criticism won't lead ACES to abandon MSFS.>2) Should the end user have to alter numerous files to>decrease the impact on framerates on "top" end equipment?>Consequently reducing the experience as depicted on the box in>illustrations.No :). This thing should run acceptably out-of-the-box, as you have paid for a product, and not a Beta!>3) Should the end user be required to purchase 1000's of>dollars in hardware and software to get a decent and full>experience with his software purchase when the minumum and>recommended specs (listed on the box by M$) are far exceeded ?Nope, but that's what many people will do. Vista + DX10 card + other hardware upgrades = chasing the technology rabbit>4) Should the end user not complain because others do not like>what he has to say? We should complain, and complain publicly, regardless of what some people think. I think it's ludicrous that people jump on critics. Should we just accept the limitations, or should we make the devs aware of the problems. After all, we are not dealing with a freeware author. The sycophantic talk on this forum will get us more of the same, and no changes!>5) Should the end user expect to have a decent experience with>software support?Of course!>6) Should the end user be allowed to run his purchase when he>purchased it, and not when M$ tech support gets around to>fixing the activation problems?Yes, but this is the way software is going.]>8) Should MS have shelved this game until FSX could be run on>existing hardware and Vista machines w/DX10? Seeing as so many>are having problems using even a slight amount of autogen and>traffic on XP/DX9 without hacking the program.Yes, but we are dealing with a commercial company, and not a freeware group ;). They have pressures on them, but that doesn't mean some of the howling errors on this version are ok.>10) Will you: >a) spend $2000+ on a new Vista system "JUST" to run FSX. Absolutely no way :)>:( Buy hardware and software to try and upgrade your existing>system.My current system is above-average, and still isn't good enough ... >11) Do you agree that by bringing the problems people are>having with said sim to a public venue such as AVSIM helps>bring attention to the problems with the sim or do you think>speaking bad about said sim will kill any chances for the next>one, upgrades, etc?This is quite unique to any product I have come across. MS are a commercial company. They will continue MSFS development until their profits dive. Normally you can criticize something you pay for, but if it happens to be MSFS you can't :-roll. I don't think FSX sucks, btw, but I exercise my freedom of opinion.>>12) Do you think there should be a "Major Update" to FSX>besides the DX10 update we keep hearing about? In other words,>should M$ fix FSX on XP/DX9 before the socalled DX10 update is>worked on/released since FSX was released for XP? Yes! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keffenhunde. I'm with you all the way. Don't spend $1000 on new hardware to try run M$FSuX, spend it on real flying. $1000 will give you a few hours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this