Yup, MSFS is perfect out of the box! Can't wait to boot up FSX and program that FMS in the A320 and flick all those perfectly rendered systems and fly over those hyperaccurate sparce landclass and global desert textures. As a matter of fact, I'm looking forward to mimicing the real world Orbit Airlines flight schedule...thank god there are only 4 real world airlines and FSX has em all! Especially at the accurate KEWR which is accurately modeled with no jetways just like real life...Yup. And don't get me started at the superbly rendered ATC and AI traffic.3rd party? HA! Who needs em! Aren't people who rely on that crap really stupid? Yup, stupid I say.Now, I'm gonna go start my review on the default FSX 737-800, WOW!

Jeff:Let's talk...PM me your private email if you don't mind.

>"Eaglesoft released their addons even though they run pretty>bad in fsx.....">>Dave, a blanket statement is bit unfair...we have a LOT of>users who are quite satisfied with our Liberty XL2,>Beechjet/Hawker 1.5, Cirrus SR20 and Cirrus SR22 for FSX. We>will soon have a brand new 3D Studio Max Columbia 400 with FSX>bells and whistles and the rest of our line fill follow the>same track.>>True we have FEW users who experience lower performance in FSX>and as you know, everyones mileage varies in either FS9 or>FSX.>>It's still too early to tell what may happen with Aces and FSX>or what may happen with hardware/DX10/etc. so please let it>all play out before making blanket statements:-)>Ron, I've told you in the past that i love your xl2 but it doesn't change the fact that yes it does run slow in fsx. It takes 6 fps away from me in both fs9 and fsx and in fsx this is just not acceptable. Is that your fault? Probably not, but it is still the reality. I love your work and have no desire to return the plane in fs9 or fsx. I just call them like i see them. Our point of this entire thread is that there is no headroom in fsx for this type of frame rate hit. I will still be buying your products because i happen to think that you have the best GA addons available. I'm sure you are doing the absolute best with your frame rate hit but it's hard to do in this sim with no wiggle room, at least in its current state. Fsx is borderline for me now at 20-22fps in the burbs/bush and that is the absolute minimum for me for smoothness. If an addon takes me down to 15-16 then it starts giving me a headache from the lag and i physically have to stop flying. Please realize that i would never make a blanket statement on this unless it was based on my own personal experience. :)

Mike u have a way with words .... This thread was not meant to be a bait but an eye-opener to the FSX crowd. I like another poster said would not put 1 more penny into FSX. I have every US 3rd party payware airport for FS9, what a shame as I would of loved KMCO for FS9 since the Simflyers is really dated and the Cloud9 KDCA is great.I think I am going to go get the KLAX from them since my SimFlyers KLAX is pretty dated as well. Why are they mentioning over on the F1ATR website that the plane is done for FSX except for the configurator. It was also mentioned a few weeks ago it would of been out in days, so I would assume something is up since they already had the SDK they used.Andy

>Yup, MSFS is perfect out of the box! >>Can't wait to boot up FSX and program that FMS in the A320 and>flick all those perfectly rendered systems and fly over those>hyperaccurate sparce landclass and global desert textures. As>a matter of fact, I'm looking forward to mimicing the real>world Orbit Airlines flight schedule...thank god there are>only 4 real world airlines and FSX has em all! Especially at>the accurate KEWR which is accurately modeled with no jetways>just like real life...Yup. And don't get me started at the>superbly rendered ATC and AI traffic.>>3rd party? HA! Who needs em! Aren't people who rely on that>crap really stupid? Yup, stupid I say.>>Now, I'm gonna go start my review on the default FSX 737-800,>WOW!Mike T,I love you man! Great retort, I think you summed it up nicely. Default FSX may be fine for some folks, but I believe that for the vast majority of the people that frequent this forum, MSFS is looked at and treated as a base platform for building upon. With that in mind, there has to be some performance headroom to allow the use of most addons. Not all, but most.--------------------------------------------I have been coming to the conclusion that while FSX default is nice, once again, MS left no headroom for the foreseeable future. With FSX I can do some bush flying and gliding ok. I can fly into big cities/aitports if I do not use any autogen and don't mind anything but flat looking textures. Good looking textures, yes, but still flat. I've never been a fan of the flat photoreal sceneries and have never purchased any. Anyway, there's really no headroom for any kind of complex addons, unless, perhaps, I turn stuff down to where it looks like FS98. Even then I don't know if there'd be enough CPU. Besides, why would I want to run a state of the art aircraft in scenery that looks like it was from 1998? If I want to make use of newer features(other than the new 1m textures and perhaps a little bit of car traffic), I need a computer that does not yet exist. Yeah, every release has been that way. Now, I have finally come to a conclusion concerning this never ending performance cycle issue....From now on, I will wait for the next version of MSFS to be released, and at that time, I will purchase the prior version. I have grown tired of being teased with what features I might be able to enjoy a few years from now when purchasing a newly released version of MSFS. Since FSX is very CPU bound, I am concerned about FSX's ability to scale well with future multi-core CPU's. SO, I will purchase FS11 when FS12 comes out. For right now I have decided to shelve FSX and go back to using FS9. For those that are enjoying FSX as is, have fun and enjoy. To me, new releases of MSFS are for people that like defaults only and can live with them, and/or don't mind hanging in there for a couple/few years for hardware to catch up.I'm not really trying to say this is neccesarily MS's fault, although I wonder if Mike T is. ;) If you have a state of the art computer system can you run the latest version of MSFS at default? Yep, and some people like the fact that as they get newer systems over the course of three years that they can get the sim looking better and better and/or be able to use complex addons. But, not being able to use of more of the newer features and/or having more headroom for complex addons on current hardware just doesn't work for me, it's like I'm being teased. :-lol And to me, something just doesn't add up with MSFS, I have a video card that is capable of rendering 750 Million triangles per second with a fill rate of 8 Billion pixels per second, but I'm left feeling(from my point of view) like I need a CPU that does yet exist.Cheers,Jim

And what makes you think that I haven't had the SDK for months as well?What makes you think that I'm not a scenery developer?What makes you think that there isn't a way around the round earth problem?What makes you think the round earth problem won't be fixed?There is no blind optimism here, only your blind pessimism.Nick

>>"Eaglesoft released their addons even though they run>pretty>>bad in fsx.....">>>>Dave, a blanket statement is bit unfair...we have a LOT of>>users who are quite satisfied with our Liberty XL2,>>Beechjet/Hawker 1.5, Cirrus SR20 and Cirrus SR22 for FSX. We>>will soon have a brand new 3D Studio Max Columbia 400 with>FSX>>bells and whistles and the rest of our line fill follow the>>same track.>>>>True we have FEW users who experience lower performance in>FSX>>and as you know, everyones mileage varies in either FS9 or>>FSX.>>>>It's still too early to tell what may happen with Aces and>FSX>>or what may happen with hardware/DX10/etc. so please let it>>all play out before making blanket statements:-)>>>>Ron, I've told you in the past that i love your xl2 but it>doesn't change the fact that yes it does run slow in fsx. It>takes 6 fps away from me in both fs9 and fsx and in fsx this>is just not acceptable. Is that your fault? Probably not, but>it is still the reality. I love your work and have no desire>to return the plane in fs9 or fsx. I just call them like i see>them. Our point of this entire thread is that there is no>headroom in fsx for this type of frame rate hit. I will still>be buying your products because i happen to think that you>have the best GA addons available. I'm sure you are doing the>absolute best with your frame rate hit but it's hard to do in>this sim with no wiggle room, at least in its current state.>Fsx is borderline for me now at 20-22fps in the burbs/bush and>that is the absolute minimum for me for smoothness. If an>addon takes me down to 15-16 then it starts giving me a>headache from the lag and i physically have to stop flying.>Please realize that i would never make a blanket statement on>this unless it was based on my own personal experience. :)Dave, we've never considered that your experience is based on anything other than your own. Thanks for the kind words regarding our products:-)We agree that the current FSX platform has little "wiggle room" and rest assured that we do everything possible to obtain good performance in both sim versions.The reference to "blanket statement" goes to the fact that some may take your own personal experience as the ONLY benchmark and give up before knowing for themselves what they may experience.We've all been around long enough to know that everyones mileage varies:-):-)

Awesome! I can't wait for your next release! I'll let Martin and Vaschuez know you know exactly how to do it without increasing the workload 100 fold on just the ground alone. I'll also let them know all the exporter tools are working. They'll probably want to hire you since you got them all working before the Aces team does.Since I don't remember seeing you in the beta forums I'll also pass this info on the Adam as well.Now...if you've read any of our posts prior to this one you'd know that we have actually stated we do have hope and that Aces are working very hard as you are speaking (out of your arss as it does seem).These are your words, not ours:"Some well known developers seem to have tunnel-vision...focusing only on trying to make "old" methods work in FSX. If instead, they took to time to tackle the problem from another angle, the solution would be quite simple. Alas, they have generated panick all across the forums.Regardless, as I said at the top of this post, I suspect we'll be able to use the "old" method again soon."Maybe you should actually read what we said before jumping on us. Read the entire thing, not just pick out what you think to be the case.What you fail to understand is that we don't care about using the old methods, it's about a method THAT IS NOT THERE--PERIOD! But then again, you already know this, right?Now, we hope this will get resolved, but right now, we're are at more or less at a stand still. With as much time as it normally takes to make a 'high quality' and 'accurate' scenery, not many of us are going to want to take another 6 months just for ground work. It's mathmatically/financially out of the equation for most, not to mention the stress that ground work causes these true artists.Carry on there storm trooper.:-abduct

>Nick,>>And you got this information from where? I guess you have>some inside information we don't? ROFL.So I suppose you haven't checked the NG today, then?And besides that, why is it so hard for you to beleive that there is a way around the problem?Nick

"With no less than half the community unable to run FSX out of the box the way they want to",I must have missed the poll, its running better than I thought It would based on the demo ...where do I vote:)John

No I haven't, at work. Still doesn't change what I've said about your statements, beacuse you've assumed we've said that it wouldn't be solved, which we didn't.That leads me to believe, and reasonably I think, that you're putting words in our mouth, even if it's been solved at this very second.

>And what makes you think that I haven't had the SDK for>months as well?>>What makes you think that I'm not a scenery developer?>>What makes you think that there isn't a way around the round>earth problem?>>What makes you think the round earth problem won't be fixed?>>There is no blind optimism here, only your blind pessimism.>>Nick>nick, just eat your words and cover your losses and please dont post this nosense again!Jeff, sorry for misunderstanding why OSS might go away, I am sorry to hear that, you guys are great. Hope you all figure out a way to make it, maybe with Nicks help! (haha)

If that was Nick "W" I was screaming at, then I might have some egg on my face for not recongizing the sign in name....But...for blind siding me....Mr. Nickie boy, I'm gonna get that cake back from Hal (you know what I'm talking about)...LOLStill love ya though, no worries, MSN later.

>Awesome! I can't wait for your next release! Thank you. Its in the works. Not much to look at without any textures, but quite impressive if I do say so myself.>Since I don't remember seeing you in the beta forums I'll also>pass this info on the Adam as well.Now you're just being a tool for no reason. Maybe you don't recall seeing me because I go by a different name there. Go ahead and make yourself look like an #### if you want to.>Now...if you've read any of our posts prior to this one you'd>know that we have actually stated we do have hope and that>Aces are working very hard as you are speaking (out of your>arss as it does seem).Thank you, I know this.>Maybe you should actually read what we said before jumping on>us. Read the entire thing, not just pick out what you think>to be the case.I did read the whole thing, and I klnow what the problem is. I also have an idea for working around it. Fortunately, I don't think it will be necessary to work around it, as I beleive a fix is forthcoming.>What you fail to understand is that we don't care about using>the old methods, it's about a method THAT IS NOT>THERE--PERIOD! But then again, you already know this, right?Again, you're being overly defensive. The method IS there, you just have to approach the problem differently.I'm merely pointing out that it was unnecessary and detrimental to the FS community to imply that there is NO WAY to make detailed add-ons in FSX.Nick

Well, I'm sorry if I did that.The spirit behind my comments is this:There are lots of people running around claiming that FSX has NO future, because there is NO WAY to make detailed scenery for it.My comments were aimed at countering those sentiments.Though to be fair, review your comments below. You certainly give the impression that there will NEVER be a way to make detailed scenery in FSX...NickEDIT:I thought I was talking to a FlyTampa team member for a minute. It was my oversight, and I'm sorry I mistakenly used their name here. I will look at member names a bit more carefully in the future...