> Which doesn't help FSX owners with an>unusable or unsatisfactory product TODAY, does it? >Halaluah & miracles upon miracles!!!!!!!!!For FSX is not only usuable, but I'm still using it more than FS9 or X-Plane! :-yellow1 Must be my new CPU which isn't top of the line! :7 L.Adamsonedit: spelling. If something else is spelled wrong --- tough

Guys:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161227.jpg

>>Then you said: "I had to turn down the texture quality>settings so I don't get blurries and have very little autogen>(though it still looks better than FS9 IMO, and I've done a>direct comparison), and sacrifice things like moving vehicles>on roads..">My texture settings are very high. IMO, textures are of great importance. I was always a bit dissatisfied regarding FS9's "painted look" textures in comparison to X-Plane's clearer & more glossy type photo textures. I'm now pleased with FSX's textures in many areas. I also have moving vehicles, and FSGenesis mesh. I'm fine with water effects "off", as I always ran FS9 that way too, in search of higher frame rates. And as has been said before, the new city textures such as subdivisions have a good looking photo quality when cartoon auto-gen houses are NOT placed on top. No auto-gen in this case, is a step up, as far as I'm concerned!I do use auto-gen and water effects for mountain lake/bush flight.L.Adamson

> 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. I don't use flight sims as a way to fly. I use real airplanes for that. The most enjoyment I get from a sim, is using it to recreate flights that I've taken, or to check out & pre-fly areas that I might want to visit.I have the option of three simulations at the moment. FS9, FSX, and X-Plane. I'll use the sim that does best for the specific application. In different situations, any one of these three simulations will offer a better experience & five the apperance of being more real than the others. And that's just the truth of the matter! In some instances, FSX seems to replicate reality very well, and not in others. Now..........if it was "seriously flawed", that wouldn't be the case.One thing is surely certain, and that's the fact, that I'm not blindly or mistakenly taking FSX to my heart. Where on earth, did you come up with THAT line? :-hahL.Adamson

Me too-and the options to save multiple display configs make it easy.One for mountain flying, and one for city flying. I think the cities look better without autogen-and without it you get performance. Mountains,countryside, and out of the way strips-full autogen so you can see the incredible variety of trees yet still get good performance. Over ocean flights-water full up (where it looks incredible and performance good as nothing to display but water) -inland flying-water down to 1 notch from the bottom-rivers/lakes looks more realistic-and better performance. Full ifr flying with real world downloads and heavy clouds-autogen/water off-after all you are in the clouds!For me the best "tweaks" for this sim are setting different configs for the session and look of flying you are going to do-you can get the looks/improvements/performance by setting each flight with a saved config that is appropriate.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

A serious emotional investment in a $50 piece of software-surely you jest!?I have a serious emotional investment in my real airplane and my 401k plan and a lot of other things in life-but a $50 piece of software...I can't get that excited about that in the big picture...I don't even own stock in Microsoft....The only painful experience I have is reading posts like yours making a $50 piece of software a matter of life or death...it really isn't.I really am sorry your hopes were built up and then let down.Mine were not. I am having lots of fun. Let go...I am glad you enjoy fs9. Let me and others enjoy fsx. Seems reasonable doesn't it?! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

> I think the>cities look better without autogen-and without it you get>performance. Do some, really think, that those city subdivisions, really look better with auto-gen cartoon houses placed on top of those photo like textures?Have they actually bothered to look, with auto-gen off? Personally, I prefer the photo look instead of Popeye-ville. And happily, FSX does a better job of sharper textures at lower altitudes than FS9.L.Adamson

>A serious emotional investment in a $50 piece of>software-surely you jest!?>>I have a serious emotional investment in my real airplane and>my 401k plan and a lot of other things in life-but a $50 piece>of software...I can't get that excited about that in the big>picture...I don't even own stock in Microsoft....>I was emotional today...I had to pay $65 for a little phenolic, plastic like, electrical connector for a heated pitot tube. I set the screw too tight, and it cracked. In 1996, this part was 10 bucks, and the pitot tube was $179. Now the connector is $65, and the pitot tube has increased over ten fold to $1890.00. That type of price increase is enough to make any airplane owner emotional! :)L.Adamson

>But rest assured, the gaming industry will no doubt find ways>to leverage these new technologies more in the future, but it>takes timeThis is really the issue. I think we should all reject the excuse that simulator developers can't figure out how to use multi-core processors. The computational community runs much more complex simulations on much larger parallel computers--the technology is out there--it's just not part of the FSX game engine.The FS franchise might have a disadvantage because it it really the only game in town--there really isn't another engine out there to force some competition and innovation.

Grow up. If adults having a spirited and RESPECTFUL disagreement bothers you, the kiddie table is in the next room.

I can only conclude from the passionate debates that take place on this forum and others that in fact people *do* make a serious emotional investment, despite the fact that it's just a $50 piece of software. If this were not the case why would people use such emotive language, words like love and hate. One happy simmer admitted that when he broke through cloud at 200' and saw the snow flurries tears came to his eyes. That's great but indicative of the enjoyment that just a sim can bring. People make vids with stirring music, some have even written poetry. . all this in the name of a flight sim. You guys above are presumably men of the world and balanced about your approach, but for some people, this hobby is clearly all absorbing and for the obsessed even a raison d'etre. I wouldn't underestimate how a mere computer game can be all important to some. I'm not knocking this. In fact, think it's great when people can derive such enjoyment, and passion from such an activity. I just suggested that it might be the reason for the love-hate polaristaion of feelings about FSX, and how, even in the face of a flawed release that I belive FSX is, it is more comfortable for some to be blindly accepting and with a kind of 'belle indiference' carry on as if all is sweetness and light. My argument is that demanding a better product is the better option. Finally, I admit, that when all is said and done, FSX *is* only a $50 pc game, and in the grand scheme of things, the whole subject is ultimately a storm in a teacup!;-)

Well, personally I find FSX better at rendering the types of terrain I like to fly over than FS9 - even with add-ons designed for FS9. With phototerrains for example I get little or no blurries, the detail degrades realistically into the distance rather than in sharp jumps, and I don't get weird colours in the far distance. I get comparable or better fps but at much 'smoother' rate rather than the stutters that were in FS2004. FSX with a couple of freeware add-ons for FS9:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161237.jpgA shot like that in FS9 would have been impossible for me without pausing or flying really slowly. With the Horizon demo of the GenX photoscenery for England&Wales the detail goes off the scale, and with no impact on performance at all.Autogen and water at any of the 2.x settings causes me problems, but reducing the density to a level my system can cope with results in acceptable (but not great) fps - and with looks and performance better than FS9.

Well Id on't know what your using but a shot like that with photo real terrain was very attainable in FS9

>>Like all statements (either good or bad) on performance>that>>is a matter of opinion rather than fact. >>>Victor, I'm not going to get involved in arguments over FSX>(that's for each individual to decide for himself) but Allcott>is correct in relation to hardware. If you look at the>roadmaps of Intel/AMD for the foreseeable future you can see>that all the CPU developments are going in a different>direction than FSX - MS has already admitted they got that bit>wrong. So, no matter what way you look at it and unlike the>situation with all previous versions of FS, there is nothing>on the horizon that will have any of the ingredients to make a>major difference to FSX or, indeed, any other game developers>who got the future wrong.>I know that may be hard to swallow because over the years>we've got so used to knowing that the hardware was just around>the corner and would wait patiently for it. Unfortunately,>this time it is not going to happen.>>If you don't agree with this assessment I would be very happy>for you to point me in the direction of the information you>possess which makes the future brighter for FSX but please>don't include either Vista or DX10 as I already know about>those.>>Of course performance is a matter of opinion. FSX runs to MY satisfaction on MY system and I'm sure it runs to the satisfaction of many other people on THEIR systems. There are some that find that it doesn't meet THEIR requirements but, as I said, each has his own idea of what performance level is required from the sim to achieve a satisfactory product depending on how, where and what they fly. Nobody can state as a fact that FSX runs perfectly everytime and nobody can say for a fact that FSX is unusable.

>Well I don't know what drugs you're on but I notice a MASSIVE>difference between the feel of turbulence etc with FSX>(without AS6) than I was getting with FS9 with AS6. Unless you>don't actually have FSX and you're simply conjecturing? And>AS6 does not simulate thermals that well (no-where near as>well as FSX) and also does not simulate ridge-lift and>ridge-turbulence or wave-lift and associated turbulence.>>JamesIt never ceases to amaze me how certain people on here resort to this 'Maybe you don't even have FSX' line when faced with some negative remark regarding the latest and greatest version.I wasn't even being negative! I simply stated that in my experience so far, I have not really noticed that much difference. Maybe it's the type of flying I do? I am not often near cliff faces and I have no wish at the moment to try the glider.My negativity towards performance issues however, will remain as I firmly believe that hardware is heading in a totally different direction than FSX needs it to.(and no, I'm not on any drugs either!)