FSX: Macrohard or Microsoft ?

[jorandp 0]

Hi simmers.I do not post comments here very often, but I wanted to share some feelings from a lonely simmer after more than a month reading your experience on FSX.I am a simmer since december 1997 when my wife offered me FS98 (a terrible mistake she repeats all the time....and I feel she is right), and since then I have been addicted. No doubt about it.When I rethink about FS98, I guess no one of us could have expected so much progress in just 9 years in term of visual improvement.And when I think today about FSX, I am convinced that it is the biggest improvement over the previous version, in term of scenery detail and visual experience, with the exception of FS2002 which was for me the real FS evolution, with the introduction of AI Traffic.When looking at your comments, as mentionned by someone else earlier, there seem to be two hard lines comments from "Microsoft Gods supporters that deny any negative comments on FSX" on one side, to the "Anti-MS rebels that deny the game totally".Could we not balance a bit our judgement on FSX and become more pragmatic ?Firstly, let's recognized that the graffic evolution of flight simulation is always in advance compared to latest hardware improvements, and that most of us (except the wealthiest)have known this terrible cycle where your hardware become just OK for a FS version at the time the next one is launched...Frustrating, surely, but that's our reality isnt it ?If I take my example, I just had the right hardware to run FS2002 quite well when FS9 went out. And my 1,7 ghz CPU together with my old TI4400 GC and a poor 512mb ram (updated later to 1024) could just not support FS9.....And I kept flying FS9 without AI traffic for 2 years, with scenery maxed (to take advantage of the biggest improvement over FS2002) and felt quite lonely in FS9 skies....Earlier this year, finally, I could afford a new PC, a dual core AMD Athlon 64x2 4400+, 2GB ram, 2x130GB HD, with a Nvidia 6500 256mb on it. Probably not the high end machine, but fair enough to fly FS9 with all settings maxed together with FS traffic 2005. Ideal !But then came FSX !Since I saw the first vid, like most of you, I became addicted of the new scenery, all those huge visual improvements, the missions, all those things that make the sim feeling more immersive than never.And I purchased the Microsfost latest baby one month ago !Microsoft hopes, Macrohard reality. I, who felt (naively) that I finally got the right hardware (do we get it ever ???) was sent back to early schooldays.....with FPS dropping down like rain on a November friday here....And I restarted to tweak and tweak and tweak (thanks to those like Matt who take on their time to provide all those tweaks) .....to finally being able to start playing, exactly the same as FS9 3 years ago, full scenery settings, no traffic, no place, no carcs, no boats..... I was once again lonely in the new sim skies...the cycle restarted.Should we blame MS for our frustration ? May be the product is a bit too early regarding available hardware. But new hardware are already out like the Nvidia 8800, and DX10 is comming soon....As a conclusion, if we, simmers, should remember our frustration on previous MS versions, on the other side I do not feel that self-satisfaction shown by some ACES team member should be so accurate when we talk about desertic landclass textures.Is this morally (and legally) acceptable to talk about min system requirements on a boxed product that are a joke regarding the necessary hardware to make the sim work just a little fine ?There are bugs in FSX, like in all previsous versions, and scenery developpers should at least recognized it, in a humble mannner, like us simmers who are going to queue for expensive new hardware to fit our "minimum-immersive sim requirements" and take advantage of all the new options as maxed as we may afford.But at the end, aren't we already in love of FSX, anyway, and whatever is the cost ?Patrick, from a rainy November Friday in Geneva, Switzerland.

[Guest Valkyrie321]

Interesting self look into FSX. BTW, I must say you have wonderful English for it not being your first language! I "think" I finally got FSX tweaked where I want it to perform... at least until my next upgrade :D

[slashed2 53]

Well said, though I believe the forum has moderated a bit. The initial shock of a new sim and the knee jerk reactions to it have simmered down a bit and now people are giving it a bit of patience and care.There are many improvements in the sim and hardware will eventually catch up as it usually does to allow for more of the graphical options to be realized including the many excellent add-ons in production.As far as minimum specs consider the small note under the system specs stating that the above are what is needed to run the game. It also states that users will notice increased performance with better hardware. If a gamer doesn't understand that there is a difference between minimum, recommended and optimal system specs then they haven't been gaming long.I'm lucky though, just bought a core2duo e6600/1gb ram/250 gb hardrive/7900 GS from dell as my old system crashed and died (so I thought). Seems dust had gotten under the CPU fan and it was overheating but my CFO approved the new purchase anyway. Seems she wanted a better computer as well so we could give that one to my son.Should be nice to have a clean system and for 1484 dollars at 50 a month it's not much of a dent in my monthly budget and I'm finally at the mid-range system level. Good thing is, I'll be able to upgrade with a nice system as a base when vista comes out. Another couple gigs of ram and a DX10 card should do nicely in about 6 months. Until then I'll see what type of performance I can squeeze out of it. Then, 2 years from now upgrade to the Octocore VR Flux 9 for 2 grand with the OLED video screen and the crystal processors and head jack for the WWWAN. Ahhh, it never ends.Ian.