If we could have accomplished this scene with 25fps. If only marketing didn't get their way. Essentially this is a snapshot of what we can achieve, properly, in a few years time. :-(http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161185.jpg

Absolutely, so why are several simmers saying that they love it? In denial! I think so. They've invested the money, they've invested their hope and everything else and no-one is gonna push them, not even misleading advertising, and preposterous claims claims on the box, to what really is the appropriate response to FSX, on the vast majority ofcurrent systems, namely a major lack-lustre performance! Go further afield to other parts of the internet and read reviews from casual users, many are seriously disappointed or dumbfounded that this new piece of glitz doesn't really work on their systems. Look at the vids. . . stuttering yeuck!

>Absolutely, so why are several simmers saying that they love>it? In denial! I think so. They've invested the money,>they've invested their hope and everything else and no-one is>gonna push them, not even misleading advertising, and>preposterous claims claims on the box, to what really is the>appropriate response to FSX, on the vast majority ofcurrent>systems, namely a major lack-lustre performance! Go further>afield to other parts of the internet and read reviews from>casual users, many are seriously disappointed or dumbfounded>that this new piece of glitz doesn't really work on their>systems. Look at the vids. . . stuttering yeuck!I love it because it works fine on MY system, at framerates that I find acceptable in the areas that I like to fly in. The opinions of others may disagree about THEIR framerates on THEIR systems in the areas that THEY like to fly in.

I reduced textures (using the conversion batchfiles) and autogen levels and diversity, but kept airport vehicles and scenery detail higher. Result: My version looks about like that picture and I get about 16-20 frames at airports and 20+ when airborne.And I have a poor system compared to others.Pentium D 830GeForce 6700 XL 128 MB1 GB RAM

>Absolutely, so why are several simmers saying that they love>it? In denial! I think so. They've invested the money,>they've invested their hope and everything else and no-one is>gonna push them, not even misleading advertising, and>preposterous claims claims on the box, to what really is the>appropriate response to FSX, on the vast majority ofcurrent>systems, namely a major lack-lustre performance! Go further>afield to other parts of the internet and read reviews from>casual users, many are seriously disappointed or dumbfounded>that this new piece of glitz doesn't really work on their>systems. Look at the vids. . . stuttering yeuck!Yes I love it, Yes I have bought a new PC and I,m blown away with FSX, with the tweaks available and carefull use of sliders FSX is a silky smooth experience for me, far far better than fs9.Why would I be in Denial? LOLJohnE6600 CPU @3.0gigASUS P5B DELUXE MOTHERBOARD2GIG XMS6400 DDR2 RAMMSI GEFORCE 7900GTO 512MB

I believe that Tingoose is the one who's in denial as he just can't believe that people actually like their FSX and are satisfied with the performance. Are all those who are satisfied with the performance looking forward to even more performance in the future? Of course! But instead of coming here and complaining, complaining and complaining some more, they are enjoying their sim and I think Tingoose is just jealous :-)I've heard it said here that FSX is for the GA crowd only, well, someone better tell Jun182 that as he seems to think he can fly the heavies just fine......http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=57675

>I reduced textures (using the conversion batchfiles) and>autogen levels and diversity, but kept airport vehicles and>scenery detail higher. Result: My version looks about like>that picture and I get about 16-20 frames at airports and 20+>when airborne.>>And I have a poor system compared to others.>>Pentium D 830>GeForce 6700 XL 128 MB>1 GB RAM>>I grabbed a copy of FSX DV but won't install it untill I have the right system in the near future. For now, I just look at those wonderful screenshots may users are posting and watch FSX videos like the FAX NY HQ by Tpv.71 and others. Patience is a rare virture. dito

HelloBut whats the point of flying a Heavy without any systems FMC ect modeled ?. Also where is this increase in performance coming from in the future ?If your FPS are just about good enough now, what do you think your frames will be like once you add a payware aircraft.Good luck to you if you are happy flying the simple default aircraft into the default airports but most folk will soon get bored with this, I look forward to seeing how a PMDG or LVL D addon or FlyTampa scenery will run in FSX, If we get any addons that is.The Payware Devs seem very quiet at the moment

>Absolutely, so why are several simmers saying that they love>it? In denial! You know Ismet, that's not a very nice thing to post.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

We all know that FSX is only going to completely come into its own when computers have moved on a bit, and as many people keep saying, this has always been the case with new releases of FS.In the meantime, I am still enjoying FSX because of the many other improvements which do work on my current system: Improved weather, improved flight emulation because of the air mass simulation (which as I keep saying is THE POINT of flight simulators), missions, vastly superior multiplayer options, including the ability for you and your mate to pilot an aircraft together (if you haven't tried that, do so soon, it's really good BTW), improved virtual cockpit fidelity, head latency, better control options, more realistic touches such as icing conditions etc.I am not suggesting that FSX is completely devoid of problems - the lack of VNAV and FMCs in the airliners is very poor for example - and the Airbus and 747 clearly need some tweeks, I could have done without the menu music too, which got turned off 3 seconds after I fired the thing up first time :-) But it is not the dog that many are suggesting it is, simply because it won't work too well on their current computers.Yes I have FS2004, and a lot of add-ons for it (and at the moment there are few for FSX), including the PMDG stuff, so I haven't deleted it off my drive, but there was no PMDG 747 for FS2004 when it came out either, and that didn't mean it was crap.Far from being in denial, I am enjoying FSX immensely, and far from slating it, I think it is one of the landmark releases of FS in recent years and certainly contains a great many more improvements over the previous version of FS than that version did over FS2002.I would suggest that many of those who are complaining about FSX not running ok on their computers are the ones in denial, as I am well aware that despite the fact I am enjoying it at the moment, I know that I'll need another new computer to get the best out of it. And since when was that any different from many other versions of FS?If you are upset about having to ditch all your add-ons for FS2004, get over it, that's always been the case. Otherwise we'd all be on here crying about the fact that we couldn't use our DC-3 add-on for FS98.

The difference, Chock, is that there is no hardware even on the horizon that will ever make this game usable. And when even the worlds mightiest software company can't successfully anticipate future hardware trends it's us, the consumers, who end up bearing the cost. The future is dual and quad core, SLI and networked and distributed computing. NONE of which FSX is capable of taking advanatge of.Just look at the results of using a new 8800 card with FSX. The card represents the opening stage of a line of development that FSX MUST be written for. If not now, then very, very soon. Even if that means going back to the drawing board. If I was a consumer who had invested all that money in the latest, greatest video card, one that doubles or trebles performance even under DX9 in almost every game to which it is exposed, yet which cant even double a pitiable 7fps when faced with FSX, I am of the opinion that there is a legitimate grievance to an identified problem. What you trot out as the usual optimism - `we all have to wait for new computers to arrive on the scene` completely fails to appreciate or identify what has been realised by sensible people who do their own research, rather than jump in as a really excited user or trolls. THERE IS NO SUCH HARDWARE ON THE HORIZON. This is why FSX is different than at any time in the frnachises history. The development team had to make decisions about future hardware when setting the project goals. AND GOT IT COMPLETELY WRONG.All the hopes are pinned on things `just around the corner`. NONE of which look capable of delivering the necessary performance improvement. Independently or together. DX9 v DX10? Nope, look at those GeForce 8800 results again. FSX is even more CPU-bound than before. A graphically-based change - even one as radical as DX10 - wont help much. Vista? Don't make me laugh. Quad core? I don't think so.FSX is wrong. Just plain wrong. At the very least, at release there should be some semblance of knowledge as to what future hardware the game is written for. Didn't happen this time round. In fact things went even screwier than usual with the delays in DX10 and Vista destroying the OS that the game was no doubt intended for, forcing either a drastic re-write (which hasn't worled) or the last-minute deletion of features and performance parameters that would have further crippled what is already a crippled product. Like many, I hope that ACES can work a miracle. But they haven't even been able to deliver a basic error-free, well-performing basic product, so why should we have any optimism that they can wave a magic wand and make everything better? There is no corporate history of MS accepting full responsibility for its technical and technological blunders and fixing them. Instead they tend to like to wipe the slate clean and start again. Which doesn't help FSX owners with an unusable or unsatisfactory product TODAY, does it? If FSX was a car, there'd have been a recall. In fact, if it wasn't a software product, Consumer groups and trading standards officers wold have taken a close interest in just what this piece of bloatware can't do today - provide a satisfactory entertainment experience for the majority of purchasers.What we have now is a donkey in a derby with racehorses. Years ahead of time, a clever trainer made it a well-trained circus donkey that can ride a bicycle. Unfortunately today there are no horse-riding-bicycle races for the donkey to win. And no-one is making bicycles for four legged equines - now, or in the future. Meantime our donkeys' legs aren't even long enough to get over the first hurdle. It don't matter how well you groom its coat, or prod it with a whip, it's still wholly an a.s.s. ;)Allcott

Allcott,Well, you have managed to sum up this whole situation in one post. I could not agree with you more.Why oh why, do people keep trotting out the same old line about hardware catching up with FSX?As you so rightly stated, NO HARDWARE ON CURRENT ROADMAPS WILL FIX THE FSX PERFORMANCE ISSUE, yet we keep hearing the same thing over and over again. Only a MAJOR patch from MS will fix this. (Or wait for FS11)Insert any one of these excuses when required:"It's the same everytime a new version of FS comes out""We have to wait for hardware to catch up""FSX was designed for PC's 3 years from now""DX10 will solve all the problems""FSX was designed for Windows Vista"EDIT: (for Chok's benefit)The improved air mass simualtion in FSX is nice, but I already pretty much get the same effect from 'Vertical Air Simulation' in FS9 with ASV6 running. I don't see a lot of difference between the two in all honesty......Glenn

>The difference, Chock, is that there is no hardware even on>the horizon that will ever make this game usable. Like all statements (either good or bad) on performance that is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

Rhett said". . You know Ismet, that's not a very nice thing to post.. . ." It's an opinuion not a value judgement Rhett. I am noy trying to insult you or anyone else. I simply believe that too many have taken FSX mistakenly and blindly taken FSX to their hearts because, as I mentioned above, they had a serious emotional investment in doing so. Imagine what a disappointment it would be if those who loved it actually admitted that it was a seriously flawed product which it unarguably is. This is the purpose of the mechanism of denial, to allow the denier to avoid experiencing a painful experience. . in this case disappointment. After months of waiting, tasty screenshots to drool over with nice bright, sharp colors and textures. To then have your hopes built up and then to buy it and discover that it doesn't run well unles you tweak it down to look like something out of the flightsim ark, is it not surprising that some will make the best of a bad job? The alternative is to demand higher standards, truth in advertising and hope that the team pull their collective fingers out and come up with something better. It would be god for the simming hobby in the long run.

I fully concur that hardware is turning left while FSX expected it to turn right. I am, however, a little more optimistic that MS will not leave us high and dry, rather that they will prove their recent FS community involement with us all and work with the community here to put together a patch in the next couple of months that brings FSX performance at least up to a FS9 level at equivalent graphical settings. In the spirit of cooperation, I offer my services to MS to beta test anything they develop in this regard. :-halo :-lol Gary