Hi everyone,Like many of you I purchased FSX at day one and tried to make it a flyable sim.The improved ground textures, autogen, sky colors, water and living world really made it look better than Fs9.But...the performance is very bad if you want to enjoy all those new features. Beside that there a a lot of bugs in it which have been widely discussed.Myself I have a fast pc ( Dual 3.8 / 2Gb DDR800 / 7950GX2 / 2 Raptors in Raid 0 ) and am able to get acceptable framerates when flying over dense environment.However at many detailed airports with Traffic 2005 installed the framerate sometimes drop to 13.Like Allcot and Tom have been written : there is no hardware nore will be hardware released that will be able to make FSX run like we all would like it to run.Eg My 8 year old son has a Celeron 1700 pc with a 6800 card and is playing San Andreas very fluid , good looking graphics and a living world. That is a living world. Like that would like FSX to run.If he would want to play FSX on his system he would get a slideshow.FSX has been developed with the idea that there would have been released single core processors of 4 Ghz and much higher.However one has decided that multicore processors are the future.I know the Aces team worked very hard on FSX , but imho they gambled on the wrong horse.And nothing will ever change that. The only thing that can be done is we-write fSX for multicore and then see how much performance will improve.I am like you; I want to make it run fluidly.But if I reduce texture sizes, reduce the veriety of autogen objects, have to set sliders less and tweak and tweak where does that leave me ?Imho a game must be playable allmost full out on todays fastest hardware without modifications.We know that this is not the case and this wil never be the case untill 5+ Ghz single core processors will hit the market. And that will never happen.My Fs9 is with addon scenery about 30 Gb large and is looking very good.I hoped with the release of FSX that I would be able to keep 2/3 of that detail with improved graphics and features.No way ! And how will the perfromance suffering FSX run when detaild airports and aircrafts will be released ! ?..Don't let us even think about that !I appriciate Aces hard work but I fear that FSX is going to be the Vietnam of the flightsim games.A lot of good intention, but no future....

>Hi everyone,>>Like many of you I purchased FSX at day one and tried to make>it a flyable sim.>>The improved ground textures, autogen, sky colors, water and>living world really made it look better than Fs9.Yep, a lot better>But...the performance is very bad if you want to enjoy all>those new features. It isn't for me. My fps is set to 20 which I achieve most of the time.>Beside that there a a lot of bugs in it which have been widely>discussed.>>Myself I have a fast pc ( Dual 3.8 / 2Gb DDR800 / 7950GX2 / 2>Raptors in Raid 0 ) and am able to get acceptable framerates>when flying over dense environment.>However at many detailed airports with Traffic 2005 installed>the framerate sometimes drop to 13.I bet you it is still smooth at 13.>Like Allcot and Tom have been written : there is no hardware>nore will be hardware released that will be able to make FSX>run like we all would like it to run.>>Eg My 8 year old son has a Celeron 1700 pc with a 6800 card>and is playing San Andreas very fluid , good looking graphics>and a living world. That is a living world. Like that would>like FSX to run.>>If he would want to play FSX on his system he would get a>slideshow.I am not surprised - how much time is that product spending on flight modelling, working out what each instrument should be displaying or deciding where the traffic is?>FSX has been developed with the idea that there would have>been released single core processors of 4 Ghz and much>higher.>However one has decided that multicore processors are the>future.>>I know the Aces team worked very hard on FSX , but imho they>gambled on the wrong horse.No, you need to be realistic with your expectations. Set FSX up to run smooth and you will still have a better looking and better flying sim than FS9.>And nothing will ever change that. The only thing that can be>done is we-write fSX for multicore and then see how much>performance will improve.Enough has been said about the problems using multicore for FSX.>I am like you; I want to make it run fluidly.>But if I reduce texture sizes, reduce the veriety of autogen>objects, have to set sliders less and tweak and tweak where>does that leave me ?It will leave you with a sim that still looks better than FS9 AND with aircraft that fly more realistically in a better weather enviroment.>Imho a game must be playable allmost full out on todays>fastest hardware without modifications.>>We know that this is not the case and this wil never be the>case untill 5+ Ghz single core processors will hit the>market. >And that will never happen.Be realistic with your settings.>My Fs9 is with addon scenery about 30 Gb large and is looking>very good.>I hoped with the release of FSX that I would be able to keep>2/3 of that detail with improved graphics and features.>>No way !Then the FSX you purchased is different to mine. >And how will the perfromance suffering FSX run when detaild>airports and aircrafts will be released ! ?..>Don't let us even think about that !>>I appriciate Aces hard work but I fear that FSX is going to be>the Vietnam of the flightsim games.>A lot of good intention, but no future....Quite ridiculous!Ray Keattch.

unfortunately its FS9 for me for another three years...x(

Oh come on now :) Don't be like that :) Keep your chin up.FSX is a great simulator. ACES need to patch it and solve all the performance related issues, that's all they need to do. Once that happens I bet you'll be happier than a pig in FS9 :) In all honesty, FSX has been a farce really. I agree that ACES really should have went with what technology has been gaining momentum... I mean yeah, okay two years ago when development started, I agree, that their perspective was justified. However, for the last year and a half or so, (most of the FSX development time), Dual Core, SLI, 64bit technologies were all driven into the mainstream and stayed there. Surely at some point in the last year even, ACES would have seen this and reacted.... but no. It's no secret that ACES really flubbed that one up.All the same though, FSX does have it's merits. If the software is more refined, and actually debugged properly, I am sure that it will perform well on many existing machines. Lots of people are quick to point out that FSX was designed for NextGen equipment and Operating system.... but really, think about that for a second.... designed on what? To design for such equipment you must have that equipment far along in the development process. NVidia, ATI, would have had to have good solid working drivers... beta... but still good and solid development drivers. MS would have to have had a solid Vista release for developers as well.... add to that, their DX10 would have to be almost in full production... because theres just no point using a beta of a beta of a beta to develop on... you need something concrete.To date, no video drivers are solid on Vista. We know that, it's fact. No DX10 testbeds are out there to be had, all we have are wall charts of the API. So really, how could a company actually have been developing for 2008 hardware / operating system as far back as two years ago? It's all bull in my opinion. When development of FSX started, the goal technologies were sketchy, let alone be contenders to being the future of gaming. To my knowledge, no software developer has ever released a piece of code that was designed to be run two years down the line.... they know better... tech changes, trends move.Regardless. FSX has all the traits of being a heavy hitter, it could potentially be the one sim to rule them all.... but first, ACES need to put a fix on our plate. They do that, I'm sure a lot of people will be a lot happier.btw: I should mention something to back up my statement that the technologies just haven't been available, even to ACES. There are several screenshots of FSX running on DX10, but read the caption, those are artist renditions of what FSX could look like on DX10. Dontcha think that if ACES had access to advanced hardware and software to use for developing their NextGen simulator that they would have at least some real screenshots to entice us... but they dont. This is why I blow off anyone who tries to tell me that it runs like crap on my machine simply because it was designed for NextGen systems.If you buy a DVD today and pop it in, and it runs at 15fps, would you be happy? What if people say that the DVD was designed for nextgen DVD systems that arn't available yet? Would that justify it? It says clearly on the cover, that it runs great on any recent DVD player, but runs even better on BluRay. Does that justify it either? Games and movies are not that different really. Both have to achieve a minimal frame rate in order to be acceptable. 15fps may be smooth, but it isn't anywhere near meeting the standards that your eye is used to. 28-32fps minimum is required to give the illusion of real true to life motion.... But yeah, FSX... designed on DX9 software and hardware, tested on DX9 equipment, and released to a DX9 based market. But you can't run (28-32FPS min) it till late next year.heh, now look what you've done, I'm ranting too now :( I apologize... I do love FSX, but am fed up trying to convince myself that I'm really happy with it. I'm content, I could be a lot happier, and I know that with a patch on the horizon, happiness is coming.... still sours the mind though :( I keep thinking that FSX is just a clone of FS9 with a restructured engine to cope with the additional effects. Why else do we have beachballs for runway lights still?!?!?! sigh. I'll stop now.

>>the framerate sometimes drop to 13.>I bet you it is still smooth at 13.Smooth it may be, but far from what it can be. Have you seen this sim maxed out with a thundersorm and still maintaining 30+FPS? It looks incredible... soon as you drop past 26-7 FPS you lose that 'true' motion and rain just doesn't look the same.I say this to anyone who thinks 12-25 fps is acceptable.... ramp down those settings until you can maintain 35 in a heavy thunderstorm, then look outside and see the weather effects the way they were meant to be seen..... VERY large difference when motion is above what the eye's minimum is. Anyone who disagrees just hasn't tried this test yet.I challenge anyone to try this, then put their setting back and tell me that they are truly happy with 15fps still.

I seriously think that a large proportion of simmers will still be using FS9 instead of FSX or alongside FSX up until FSXI becomes more than a twinkle in the developers' colective eye. If this happens and I think it highly likely, it will be unprecedented I believe in the history of MSFS?!

I've been to Vietnam. It most certainly HAS had a future already.

FSX is looking better than Fs9 !Why, because the textures look like your having sunglasses on !Those colors are not realistic.Have you ever looked out of the window of a real aircraft ?If you are happy with lots of sliders set to low settings or not much more ,keep fooling yourself.Set your water to what you really want , A good AI traffic package and scenery sliders more to the right and look at your framerate.Minimal 20 fps ? I bet not !Smooth at 13 fps ? Do you really accept that kinf of fluidness !Come on , it has to be 22 + !Set up FSX to run smooth and compare what you see with a full expanded Fs9 .Your cities will have few buildings compared to Fs9.If you are prepared to sacrafice all features to prove yourself that you can run FSX with what are you left ?Like I wrote earlier : a through sunglasses looking empty Flightsim. Remind me of the good framerates you have when addon airports come out and you use a good AI traffic package.No , the FSX future is not that bright.

I don't quite understand why people are so fixed in there ideas about simming ie "I love FSX so goodbye to fs9""FSx is a pile of old hippo dung so iam going back to FS9 harrumph!why don't people use both sims?FSX is pretty horrendous on my system(you owe us Mr Microsoft.Cost me eighty unrefundable quid)but! i can still use it for the occasional gliding session and FS9 for my VA flights etc .As for the future the people i feel sorry for (and a lost opportunity to)are the ones who bought FSX(in good faith) for the first time and probably don't have the sort of specialised setups that we as enthusiasts have(and most of us cant even run the thing on these)and thought Flightsimming now thats something that might be worth checking out and found this promising?? but very flawed product and thought ive been shafted here back to hack and slash6 for me.A load of potential simmers lost what a shame.I seriously wonder weather a downloadable patch from MS will really make this a usable product.Bloody #### you shouldn't have to pay eighty quid(120 US dollars approx)for the software and then gawd knows how much for a new operating system plus graphics cards plus patches plus post traumatic stress syndrome.Started calmly ended in a rant sorry folkscheers Andy

You paid

After trying FSX I realize how good FS9 with my add-ons is.....

>After trying FSX I realize how good FS9 with my add-ons>is.....After "more" than trying FSX, I often realize how lacking FS9 can be! But, I'll still run them both.L.Adamson

>You paid

I cant say bell!Bell on earth.Bell freezing over.Bells teeth.cheers Bandy

>>After trying FSX I realize how good FS9 with my add-ons>>is.....>>After "more" than trying FSX, I often realize how lacking FS9>can be! But, I'll still run them both.>>L.Adamson>I bet you don't. Not once the novelty value wears off and you start to become more aware of the lack of overheads for future enhancements and addons. To compare FSX with a default FS9 you can see how things have advanced. But to compare a basic FSX with an enhanced FS9 which is using advanced aircraft offering proper system realism, scenery and animations that match the limited ones we have actually got with FSX (rather than those that were promised), still the same old problems, the terrain mesh still needs adding to, landclass is a poor joke, errors in the documentation and missing product features, then you will eventually realise that FSX has a very limited lifespan. You already sense the building reluctance among some of the aftermarket producers to actually develop for it when it has such a mixed reception, so little performance margin for CPU-hungry products, and importantly, no guarantee of future compatibility after ACES patch whatever they actually patch. Frankly, the notion that the aftermarket worked wth ACES this time around has been exposed as nothing more than marketing hype. We KNOW there are developers who could have improved the rendition of autogen witout the performance hit, know developers who could have issued a bug-free landclass and with proper coastlines for most of the world, and could have actually left lights, rain effects, animals and other features IN, without reducing performance to unacceptable levels.As a throw-away suggestion, but one which I think actually deserves SERIOUS consideration, I put it to the ACES team that what they SHOULD do is abandon FSX for a year or two, and patch FS9 to near-FSX levels in the key areas of scenery and texture resolution, autogen and the replication of atmospherics and flight dynamics. Forget FSX until the hardware exists to run it, then tweak it, call it FSXI and stick it a new box. Trust me, no-one will notice.Allcott