If it was said before, I'll perpetuate; Microsoft's activation system needs help. My first experience with FSX was not a pleasant one to begin with. I bought my copy at the big name consumer store here in Ontario Canada for $10 CAD less than the MSRP ($79.99). When I got it home, I was able to successfully install it without fail. However, when it came time to activate it, I'd enter the code on the inside of the dvd box (which is normally sealed with cellophane and has a certifying sticker tape preventing tampering even if the cello is compromised.) and it would report to me that the code is invalid. I tried a few times closing FSX and reopening it to no avail. So, I resorted to call MS (Canada). I never thought I'd be the victim of what everyone was saying would be the caveat of MS's authorization scheme. But, nevertheless, I called them up and after a couple prompts from the autoresponder, I got to the front desk as it were. The girl on the other end was pleasant and had a calming voice that was meant to disarm you when you phone in. I think MS anticipated very irate customers with this situation. She asked me a few questions and when I goofed a couple answers, she was completely patient and understanding - almost Dale Carnegie style. I was forwarded to the the Customer Service desk after she apparently verified that the code I was entering (which took some time as we had to convert the letters to words) was good. I get to the customer service desk and I have to repeat my code to the next person. And restate my issue. So, in turn, she conferences me in to the technical support to find resolution. The tech support guy had a thick accent and it didn't help having lower volume as he seemed too quiet. Not because of him, but it almost seemed like when you have two people on two phones on one line at home. The third person is much quieter because of the voltage splitting. Anyways, we verified the code twice and he told me it was invalid and immediately sounded as though he was suspicious of piracy in one way or another. I described the box and where I was getting the code from to him and he seemed reluctant, but released a new code to me. I can understand as I could have been a pirate trying to act like a victim. Once I entered the code, it was smooth flying from there.My first disappointment with FSX is the lack of support for older cards. Unfortunately, the reflections didn't work on my system. So, aircraft windows were missing, water was opaque and no reflections off the fuselage. But, I did like the simulation engine improvements. Out of the box, the sim actually reacts to weather conditions more realistically. In calm weather, you still have moving air, subtle though it may be. And my little Cessna 172 got bumped around gently by it. Nothing overly uncontrollable, but enough that it added to the realism.Windows XP Home SP2 (All updates)Pentium 4 1.7GHz (No HT) 333MHz FSB640MB DDR 400MHZ RAMNVIDIA Geforce4 4000 128MB Video (Not DX9.0c HW compliant, only DX8.1)On-board sound2 button CH Yoke with Thrust (old)Frame rate limit: ULResolution: 1024x768 32bitDisplay: Medium-Low 7-8 fpsWeather: LowAircraft: Ultra-HighHope this helped anyone.

"My first disappointment with FSX is the lack of support for older cards."Keep messing around, you'll find yourself back with FS9 in no time... I hate to sound negative but your only asking for it with a P4 1.7gig machine. Machines running at twice that can't run the FSX decently. If you turn down the sliders enough to give FSX a more FS98 appearance, you may fare better with performance (but not by much).

While I appreciate your candor, I disagree. Although, we both have differing ideas of "good performance" in FS, I'm quite happy with it regardless. I'm not one who likes to stare at the ground while I'm flying, so the setting I posted before was a test to see what it was like in FS. I have the same setting in FS9, but better performance. I'd like to be angry at MS for not supporting my card, but at the same time, there has to be a cutoff. Like when Windows went from 16bit to 32bit (believe me, windows ME was the last 16bit OS, it just had more of a 32bit feel). I'm not angry, disappointed, but not angry. I'll upgrade one of these days to a better system and when I do, I won't have to fork out another $80 to get FSX. I'll already have it. Granted, 7-8fps is not desirable, especially while landing, but, I'm experimenting. I need to remember too, DX is a free 3D sub-system for graphics, I should be happy I don't have to pay for it. Or I would be angry about the reflection problem.

So, aircraft windows were missing, water was opaque and no reflections off the fuselage. But, I did like the simulation engine improvements.I'm with Dillon on this one. If you're flying without windows and no reflections I'm questioning the immersiveness of your experience. But I'm assuming your settings in FS9 would be as equally problematic in terms of the visual experience so I guess a little of this and none of that is par for course.

This is a great example of people's unconditional satisfaction with FSX (as laid out in the Avsim and Simflight surveys). Granted this guys is running a P4 1.7 gig machine but all the same he's satisfied with missing windows, opaque water, etc... Things that used to spark anger in the community is suddenly accommodated. No matter how superior of an experience a given user would get with FS9 at this point, they'd rather have the new FSX and deal with graphics on the level of FS2000 (over six year old technology). This type of logic is amazing to me. If this keeps up we better not expect too much from FS11. I look at my son's entertainment as a sign of the times. Where we used to have cartoons like Transformers, Loony Tunes, and RoboTech (great story lines and/or comedy). We now have Spong Bob, The Simpsons, and Danny Phantom. Although most like the Simpson's the visual quality of the cartoon is crap compared to the advancement path we were headed on. People accepting crappy performance as state of the art is killing this hobby. This guy should at least be able to go out and buy the latest hardware and get out the box performance/visuals compatible to FS9. I guess the world has gone mad in more ways than one... :-roll

>This type of logic is amazing to me. If this keeps up we>better not expect too much from FS11. I look at my son's>entertainment as a sign of the times. Where we used to have>cartoons like Transformers, Loony Tunes, and RoboTech (great>story lines and/or comedy). We now have Spong Bob, The>Simpsons, and Danny Phantom. Although most like the Simpson's>the visual quality of the cartoon is crap compared to the>advancement path we were headed on. While I agree with the sentiment I think the cartoon example is wrong. Sponge Bob and the Simsons have great comedy. If you want to enjoy great animation too I would suggest 'Galactic footbal' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Football (my son keeps calling it Electrik football). The mix of tradition drawing and CGI (and football) is amazing.

Allow me to clarify myself; Although, I'm sure it was not your intention, Dillon, I feel as though you may have ranted yourself into a corner. While I agree with you to some extent, I myself am not satisfied at all with FSX. But, for the hardware I have, I can't complain. With FS9, I had reflections, I had good fps, but with the same setting for FSX, I cannot expect the same results. Otherwise, what point would it be for MS to create a new version if they didn't update the visuals. I don't have the hardcore gamer psychie where it has to have no less than 60fps maxed out, and anything less is choppy (considering our human eyes are incapable of detecting choppiness 30fps and higher). My focus, mainly, is in the dynamics. I think above all, the way it simulates is much more important than how it looks. Take Hardy Heinlin's PS1 sim. The tiny windscreen uses dots to show objects, while the bulk of the program is heavily coded for simulation. When my friend Harv showed it to me, I was hooked on the 747. I had to fly them afterwards. But, my decision wasn't based on graphics (frankly, by today's standards, they're primitive), I was hooked by the functionality. 95% of the systems were simulated. I loved it. Sure, every once in a while I press the S key to look around. Who doesn't? Which do you think drives the computer industry? Hardware or Software? Like the chicken and the egg. My bet is on the software. If Redmond didn't push the envelopes, no one would be upgrading and we'd be sitting here writing messages on a 486. Software drives the hardware industry to improve. Without demanding hardcore gaming fans, we'd have very little to work with. Honestly, do you think we really need a 1GHz to write messages? If there was no gaming, there's no upgrading. I'm more disappointed in my system than I am in FSX. That's why I settled. That's why I'm not angry.

Quite the contrary, Len. I had reflective windows in FS9. Par for the course is not having an updated system for the software. You guys are gonna just love Vista .

>We now have Spong Bob, The>Simpsons, and Danny Phantom. Although most like the Simpson's>the visual quality of the cartoon is crap compared to the>advancement path we were headed on. You dare not criticize The Simpsons!!! :(I agree on the rest though.Marco (Simpsons fundamentalist).

> No matter how superior of an>experience a given user would get with FS9 at this point,>they'd rather have the new FSX and deal with graphics on the>level of FS2000 (over six year old technology). >snipped This guy should at least be able to go out>and buy the latest hardware and get out the box>performance/visuals compatible to FS9. I guess the world has>gone mad in more ways than one... :-roll And all this time, I've been comparing so many visuals in FSX as being near photo-like, as compared to the inferior & cartoon like FS9. :-hah Seriously, at this point, it's exactly how I feel when it comes to FS9 versus FSX. I'm actually getting to the point of shear disappointment when running FS9 after an excellent FSX flight. The low resolution textures of FS9 look pretty bad, when you've seen some in FSX that are so superior! L.Adamson