Unfortunately, I think you are right. The community has been split and there is probably little hope of melding it back together. Many of the "old" names are either missing from the various FSX forums or their posts there have become very infrequent. I think many of us have just given up. For me, after 25 years of MSFS, I have little desire to go through another couple of years trying to make a badly broken FSX work at acceptable levels. I'd rather just stay with FS9 and avoid all that. I think that, from a performance perspective, this is the worst release of MSFS ever (including the FS2000 debacle) and there will be more folks sticking with the old release (FS9) than we've ever seen stay with a prior release before. Frankly, MS should be ashamed of themselves.Doug

FS9 was destined to become a classic in Flight Sim history as the longest running and best post-developed MS sim. The current problem with FSX has insured that status. Many a Simmer are going back to FS9, and my unscientific observations predict that payware vendors are enjoying a rush of FS9 sales from the release of pent up demand created by the anticipation of FSX.- Rest assured, they will taking notice. Payware companies will be able to see their way through this rough time, but the key to doing so is to develop products that are easily (read cheaply/freely) convertible between FS9 and FSX.

I think many of us have just given up.Sadly, I agree.I'm a hardware guy, and in the past it never really bothered me when a new version of the sim was released and I knew I would have to upgrade my hardware. I could see some bang for my buck. But the current state of hardware development (multi-core CPU and SLI) offers little or nothing in performance for FS (FSX or FS9).And I don't see any miracles with the release of Vista/DX10. The reality is that FSX was written for DX9, and I can't perceive that FSX can easily be tweaked by the developers to take advantage of Vista/DX10. Or for that matter multi-core and SLI.It was simpler in the past... buy new hardware that was faster, and your sim will perform better. Not the case today. Buying into the new hardware marketing will offer little if anything to increasing performance of any version of FS.Greg

> Frankly, MS should be ashamed of themselves.>DougROGER THAT! First expecting everything they didn't implement by saying how GREAT the addon community is. If we didn't include it, it's because you can buy it later. It's endless issues at this point that don't need to be rehashed.Simply: ROGER THAT!

Define a simmer? Seems a very generic term. Ian.

>Hi "Valkyrie321".>>I bet that there are only a handful simmers represented here>at AVSIM, who think they "like" FSX. And I say simmers,...>because I am sure that many gamers likes it. :-lolWhat a very strange reply.I have installed the new VFR photo scenery for the UK from Horizon. I planned a route and flew it as I would in the real world. It looks far superior to FS9 due to the new 1m resolution and 5m mesh. My framerates averaged 25-30.When I fly in the USA, I have scenery and autogen at normal (no tweeks applied), mesh at 10m 100%, textures 1m, water low 2, global texture at max. I average 15-25 fps. I also run Activesky 6 so have plenty of weather. I get smooth flight which is more realistic then FS9.As someone who has flown 34 hours as part of the pilots licence, I feel FSX is a much smoother sim than FS9 that also simulates flight much better. I consider myself a hardcore simmer who purchased all of the major addons for FS9, was involled in Vatsim as the London chief.My system is not cutting edge but is a reasonable spec - maybe your system is not configured correctly? I remember when FS9 hit the shelves and everyone complained about FPS and stuttering - FSX is the smoothest verson of FS I have flown!AMD 4600+ X22Gb RamTwo 7800GT in SLIRay Keattch.

>My system is not cutting edge but is a reasonable spec - maybe>your system is not configured correctly?With this you are suggesting that hundreds, yes maybe thousands of us all have wrong configured systems. Now THAT I find a strange comment.Has it ever occured to you that we here at AVSIM by no mean are representing the average FS user. There are thousands of users out there who doesn

>FS9 was destined to become a classic in Flight Sim history as>the longest running and best post-developed MS sim. Which is slightly ironic considering that, when FS9 first came out, one of the complaints was that the only improvement it contained was better weather.

It seems to me after reading to many posts in the last month the biggest complaints are coming from those who ran and and bought machines running Intel Core Duos. Not sure why they are have so many problems with FSX and I'm not. I too am running an AMD 3500 and avg 15 at the most scenery intensive airports and 20+ (depending on where I lock it) everyplace else. Many of the folks talk like they got sold a bill of goods when they purchased FSX. I think perhaps they got sold a bill of goods from Intel as well. Craig

>Which is slightly ironic considering that, when FS9 first came>out, one of the complaints was that the only improvement it>contained was better weather.Which is not quite correct either,...since FS9 was known for giving better performances than FS2002, and where the backcompability such as black CRT

>Define a simmer? Seems a very generic term. >>Ian.Maybe I should define what smileys are ment for instead? ;-)http://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifDell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HDBlogg: http://blogg.passagen.se/primeaviFiles: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

Yikes, what a thread, makes me feel ashamed for enjoying FSX. There's alot of predictions here which are interesting to read but to say MS should be ashamed of themselves?They've allowed me many years of enjoyment via FS and despite current issues many are having with the new release and despite the pessimistic predictions from some maybe they will turn things around by listening to the community and providing a solution to these problems. Either way, I'll say there are some good arguments here, nice reading.As far as hardware upgrades, I just upgraded from an amd athlon xp 3000 to a intel core2duo e6600. The difference is night and day. No stutters with 3gb of ram, no tweaks at all and everything runs very smooth, but the cities are still beasts to be tamed. Philly and seattle are killers even with the maule if I don't turn down the settings a bit. Otherwise I can get about 18, even with the CRJ or 747 default. Still, agree, no headroom for more complex aircraft.But, I can't do away with the city textures and moving cars and boats, the head latency and airflow and improved weather. It just adds so much to MY experience and despite my shame I'll continue to use and enjoy FSX.Finally, I enjoy the GA simming experience, yes there are GA simmers here and more than a handful. My reasons for GA are time, and it also allows me to enjoy the low and slow scenery. Of course, that's me, Airliners as I have said before can rightfully argue that FSX isn't right for them if they are not willing to compromise, and there is nothing wrong with complaining about it. If they took away the scenery I'd probably go back to FS9. So the argument goes both ways and as I've said before, maybe they'll bring the rest of the nation together with future enhancements. 4 score and seven years ago......Ian.

Greg, would an FSX patch released in, let's say, February, that addresses DX-10 (and other stuff), change your mind? :)

I don't know about Greg but patches make me happy and warm n fuzzy.:-shy

>Yikes, what a thread, makes me feel ashamed for enjoying FSX.> There's alot of predictions here which are interesting to>read but to say MS should be ashamed of themselves?>Don't worry about it :)Some here are comparing FSX to the release of FS2000. It that's so, then great! FS98 was a smooth runner, but very lacking in accurate topography, and missing so many airports that required a true topography mesh data-base. FS98 was basically a sim world on a flat table with no depth, and pyramids rising above the table as a stand in for mountains. Pro-Pilot was far ahead in the same time frame for both topography and flight models, and then with cloud systems. At that time, FS98 was a true simulator on rails. Just point it in the direction, and it would stay there. Happily, FS2000 turned this around. FS2002 & FS9 were improvements on FS2000, but at least FS2000 got the ball rolling for being a much more realistic simulator.Now comes along FSX with a modeled round world, instead of wrapping a paper map together with loose ends, and a much improved airmass model to make simulated flight a whole lot more interesting. And at the same time, resolution textures are improved to near photo-quality. However, this is all dismissed by "airport scenery viewers", and "airliner button pushers". But that's okay, as there is no problem reverting back to FS9 for those two occasions. In the meantime, those who appreciate improved realism in flight, and high resolution ground textures that seem to make much of the FS9 world look very cartoon like in comparison, will appreciate the advances in FSX. I certainly do, but will keep FS9 as an "airport scenery viewer"! :-hah L.Adamson