Just wondering. :-)

As long as Mike T doesn't do it, I'll be happy, LOL.The one over at SimHQ is very well done, worth checking out.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

They still haven't received their review copy from MS. At least I believe this is the case, as their delivery is supposedly linked to the rest of us who went to the AVSIM conference and won a free copy, and I ain't got mine yet!Gary

After they get the 400 copies :-)Bill

I had to chuckle at that one. :)Ian.

They will review it when the hardware that can run it becomes available :) 2015 or thereabouts :)

It is a great review. Just the facts no hype. Plus the have I think also some hardware stuff reviewed using FSX as a bench mark app.

"They will review it when the hardware that can run it becomes available :) 2015 or thereabouts :)"Or when they can say something good about it, probably the same year, lol.Leo

Best unbiased review yethttp://www.simhq.com/_air7/air_260a.htmlSteliosP.S. My review: Best sim I ever owned!!!

I wonder too. The threads discussing FSX have become so polarised that I find it impossible to make a rational judgement - even when I've tried to disregard the flames.Given that AVSIM is probably the best FS site in the world (to coin a phrase), it's disappointing that it hasn't reviewed it yet. I'd like to see it reviewed on a typical mid-range PC and also on a top-end "gaming" PC. The reviews should use FSX with no add-ons to avoid confusing any issues. For frame rate purposes, it should be reviewed with the default settings, with the effects of changing some key settings shown.

It's one thing for a consumer gaming magazine to review FSX for it's mass market audience and quite another for Avsim. Avsim is expected to do a much deeper review that will be read and analyzed (and criticized) by developers, FS addicts, addon customers, and anyone else in the FS community. It will need to be much deeper and will take more time and will need more information than your average review. I'd be surprised if they had done one already and don't expect to see one until more of the dust settles. billg

I agree. Any review of FSX must, absolutely must, include a very hard and unbiased look at performance on Joe Average Simmers 2-year old PC that he shares with his wife and kids. I'm convinced that the performance issues for the average user are insurmountable at this point. No patch, nor Vista, nor DX10, nor new CPU design is going to improve the performance to the point that FSX runs acceptably for Joe Average. And, by run acceptably, I use Microsoft's own proclaimed benchmark of 20 FPS. And you're also right that it has to be done with no add-ons, using the default settings, and no tweaks of any sort to either FSX or the hardware (OC'ing, etc).Doug

I don't know how any review could top the above mentioned: http://www.simhq.com/_air7/air_260a.htmlIt is comprehensive (will take about 1 hour to go thru the whole thing)-and points out all the strengths and weaknesses with tons of screen shots and comparisons. Until avsim comes out with a review this really is a must read.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>And you're also right that it>has to be done with no add-ons, using the default settings,>and no tweaks of any sort to either FSX or the hardware>(OC'ing, etc).I'd want to think that an intelligent & un-biased reviewer, might just want to make a comparison of FSX's auto-gen "off" capabilities, verus auto-gen "on" for FS9. It's a world of difference between the two, and very much in favor of FSX, as well as adding some needed fps.After all these airport scenery debates, I found my self cranking up several FS9 airports with all the goodies for comparisons to FSX. No doubt that the FS9 airport scenario is more complete; but once airborne and gaining altitude, it's where FS9 falls apart in my view. The somewhat blurred and low res textures of FS9 city-scapes sprinkled with auto-gen houses, are "now" a major dissapointment after using FSX with auto-gen off, which lets the photo-type city textures show through. IMO, flying over cities in FS9 is rather a complete turn off now.I'd always felt that the more photo-like qualities of X-Plane textures bested those of FS9, but after a month's use of FSX, I now see just how outdated the FS9 low resolution textures are.Since the default settings of FSX would probably spinkle more cartoon type auto-gen houses, than required for some excellent city scape/mountain flying, it would be a dis-service to not show the difference.L.Adamson

>I don't know how any review could top the above mentioned:>http://www.simhq.com/_air7/air_260a.html>>It is comprehensive (will take about 1 hour to go thru the>whole thing)-and points out all the strengths and weaknesses>with tons of screen shots and comparisons. Until avsim comes>out with a review this really is a must read.>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgI agree! It's an excellent review from someone who fly's aircraft for a living, as well as being a long time X-Plane, FS9 user (for a bit of comparison sake). The review points out the positives and negatives without of feel of being biased one way or the other.L.Adamson