nice skirt mate lol

I don't know how many thousands of hours FSX Flight Simmers spent already writing about, discussing, tweaking the product. I don't hear of ANY of the other complex games where the users exalt this much effort to get adequate performance. What else that doesn't make any sense is the THREE YEAR development cycle. This should have been PLENTY of time to completely overhaul and rewrite the FSX version of the sim. Instead we are like the Nations ATC system 20+ years of patched development that nobody knows how to even attempt to define and re-write. A sad situation.My argument still stands, FSX should have been written for the XBOX 360. Then we all spend $479 and GO FLYING!!!!!!!!! On our Plasma and Big Screen HD TVS. IT IS DONE! I have seen some games on the XBOX 360 and I was completely Blown Away with the graphics and speed!Microsoft and ACES missed a golden opportunity! Steve, Bill, I am available for the right price..HUGE OVERSITE I AM AFRAID! ACES / MICROSOFT YA MISSED THE BOAT HERE..

A perfect example of retorical question :-)Cheers, Rob

Every time i think I am doing ok on frame rates then i>get socked in the nose with reality when i take off from some>remote ranch in Montana to be greeted with 13fps with mid to>low sliders...ughhh.You got puter problems if you are getting bad rates out in the sticks. I'm always over 20 fps at any remote location.Heck, my startup flight at Houston Southwest airport runsin the high 20's, low 30's, depending on the amount of autogen I'm running. If my autogen is off, and I'm at a remoteairport, I'm usually in the 40 fps range. 20's-30's with autogen.Heck, at altitude in the lear with sparce autogen I was bumpingup to 60 fps this afternoon on approach into El Paso. Sure, the scenery is not dense, but just goes to show the fps can go highif it's not being bogged down. BTW, my puter is nothing special.. P4 prescott at 3.15 ghz. 9800pro 128m vid card..Anyway, not trying to be a smartA$$, but I'm serious, if you get that low a rate at a remote ranch, something is surely irregular somewhere. I could run max autogen and do better thanthat. And I do fly around Montana. I was at KTHM yesterday.With medium autogen, I'm in the 20's, 30's.. And thats with real wx too.MK

>Remember guys, FSX is made for future hardware so that means>if you didn't buy the FSX Super Platinum Deluxe edition with>included time machine you won't be able to use FSX in any>decent form. Thats a relief..I only got the "deluxe" version, which runsfine here on my present hardware. I'm glad I didn't butchup for the super platinum version. :)MK

I keep hearing this all the time, about how FS is always future proof or how it's meant to take advantage of hardware yet to be released. I must be stupid because I never saw the advantage of that.When a person goes out and buys FSX, is he/she really thinking about how amazing it will be 3-4 years down the road? And how on earth can ACES team predict what direction or path hardware, and technology in general, will take.Personally, FSX looks brilliant and all the guys making up the ACES team are very talented and hard working. I just wish they took fluidity more seriously.What good are all the resolution and feature enhancements when the lack of fluidity sucks the life out of the product? When you're there in a level turn with a whopping 9fps it just empties a clip in the heart of realism.So while most game developers optimise for today's hardware, sadly it seems FS is optimised for neither today's nor tomorrow's.

"Anyone thinking FSX gives good framerates ?""This says it all !"Yep I thnak FSX gets good FPS.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161665.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161666.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161667.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161668.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161669.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161670.gifI guess it all boils down to you can have what you want if you dont want good FPS on a fast machine well so be it. If you do you can have it. My computer is no where even close to the power of those machines. And it does fine. FSX is not a First Person Shooter it has a ton more calculations going on the those games. Even company of Hero's starts given those mega machines problems because of its complexity.

I've heard this comments many times: flight simulator has an old graphics engine and the who program needs to be re-written from the ground up. Seems to me, and the proof is in the backwards compabiltity, that FSX was not a redesign, rewrite from the ground up, but was yet again reworked. Perhaps this is really why the product has such a hard time performing well. Is it that the basic design from a coding standpoint is just plain inefficient, or is it that it has just become super complex?Noel

Actually, what settings are they using? If they just maxed everything out then those numbers are not so bad at all. We all know we can tweak till frames are acceptable but what about the newbies? Flightsimmers, we are getting a hit alright and it's not just fps($).Carlos

I am curious what Phil , Paul or Adam can say about this big difference in framerate compared to other state of the art games.If those games show 100+ framerates then surely Flightsimulator ( I did not write FSX ! ) can be designed to deliver at least 30+ framerates and have the same features and grahics quality as FSX now !

I think Carlos hit it right on the head here.I too am one of those disappointed by FSX's performance, especially as MS own Windows XP Game Advisor tells me my PC is among the top 20% on the market, yet I can't get it to run satisfactorily with mid range settings.BUT, in all fairness it must be said that those tests were run at very high resolutions and - more importantly - without knowing how the sliders were set, not only the tests don't tell it all, they actually don't tell very much.Pietro.

>I am curious what Phil , Paul or Adam can say about this big>difference in framerate compared to other state of the art>games.>>If those games show 100+ framerates then surely>Flightsimulator ( I did not write FSX ! ) can be designed to>deliver at least 30+ framerates and have the same features and>grahics quality as FSX now ! the difference is that most state of the art games are linear eg they only take the user in the 3d direction the programmer designed the game for ,fsim is dynamic in that the user can move in a 360 degree world/atmosphere modelled on planet earth.The calculations required to present this experience must be mind bogglingI now use FS9 for my main simming and FSX for playing around with the missions ands thats about it, I really cant be bothered to sit down editing endless files tweaking FSX when in my opinion FS9 at full right slider looks comparable to FSX. Even though I would say i have a relatively good PC it still is not up to standard to run FSX