My system is as follows:Intel D 945 (Dual Core) (3.4mHz)ATI Raddeon 9700 Pro (256 mb)2 Gib DDR2I purchased the Captain Sim B757 in good faith that they would provide a compatible and usable FSX patch. However, this is not the case I am getting 5fps (day) and 2 fps (night) with all major setting low on my system. All other aircraft are running at 20fps. I am sure the captain sim product fidelty is solid. However, the marketing and malicious manner in which Captain Sim has advertised their product is apalling and inexusable.The captain sim products and history are very good. However, their fraudulent actions in marketing and quality control of this product deem action taken on the customers part. Please Captain sim issue and immediate patch that will make this sim compatible and functional with FSX as a reasonable fps or issue immediate refunds to all victimized Captain Sim B757 customers.May all additional victimized Captain Sim B757 customers PLEASE post.If there is not immediate action taken by Captain sim I seriously suggest we start a Class Action suite for their actions!Thank you all for your quick action!Pager94

>If there is not immediate action taken by Captain sim I>seriously suggest we start a Class Action suite for their>actions!A class action suit against CaptainSim for providing a high-detail model in FS9 that causes you to (logically) lose frames in FSX?If you were only pulling 20fps with other aircraft in FSX, you don't need a sliderule to figure out that a high-polygon model like the CS757 is going to tax your system further just like it did in FS9.Good luck with that lawsuit.GG

GG,Actually, I went and downloaded the FSX version of B757 as soon as it was available. Not the FS9 version. And 20 fps goes with other add-ons and default aircraft. By the way, there are many other higher poly-gone add-ons the CSB757.Luck is not a factor! Cheers

I haven't even tried the 757 in FSX. I pretty much gave up on it in FS9 when it was released incomplete. I'm going to take a break from Captain Sim for a while and hope they get their act back together.

The Avsim review on the CS757 clearly stated that the model was an FPS-hog, as did other reviews, and as did several threads in this very forum.Regardless of whether or not you purchased it for FS9, it is a high-detail aircraft. All you have to do is look at pictures of it to see that it's considerably more detailed in every way over the stock FSX aircraft. Put that model in an overly demanding FSX, and the resulting FPS loss should not come as a big surprise to anyone.CaptainSim won't be able to help with a patch. What are they going to do....completely rebuild and offer you a lower-poly aircraft model? What sense would that make?The best you can hope for is some sort of FSX optimization patch from ACES, though I'm not sure I would be holding my breath for that either.I hope all the nice people in the FS addon business have other careers to fall back on, because at this point, anything that adds visual detail to FSX might be a difficult market for the foreseeable future.GG

GG,So you suggest ACES is responsible of optimizing each companies add-on product? With a patch for each add-on product? Wonderful insight you have.Aren't the companies selling the add-on products responsible for provide a reasonibly bug free and optimized product for FSX. Especially when they fraudulently lie and market such products that are unusable!Sir, I bet if you paid $25 for a product and got 2-5 fps you would be in the same boat as myself. There's a little more complexity to a real sim than just your simplitic "high poly-gon" count. Have you ever heard of high fidelity systems programing such as (Hydraulics, Pneumatics, etc.) simulation? Ask Rob Rozzedo at PMDG. I guarantee you that when PMDG comes out with their first FS X product it will be reliable and optimized to provide a REASONABLE FPS optimization and they will not fraudulently market products they have not properly developed and optimized.

Thank you for posting!

>GG,>So you suggest ACES is responsible of optimizing each>companies add-on product? With a patch for each add-on>product? Wonderful insight you have.No, that not what I'm saying. Wonderful comprehension you have. Obviously I'm talking about ACES patching their OWN product.If ACES is able to somehow optimise performance in FSX, logically your FPS won't suffer as much when you decide to add much more complex addons because you will have a higher baseline level of performance in FSX to begin with.>Aren't the companies selling the add-on products responsible>for provide a reasonibly bug free and optimized product for>FSX. Especially when they fraudulently lie and market such>products that are unusable!Funny, the CS757 worked perfectly fine for me in both FS9 and FSX, it was just too much of a performance hit for me to enjoy it in FSX. However this was not a great surprise since I had read about that ad nauseam in the reviews and community feedback. I believe in making informed buying decisions, so there was no surprise on my part.It was a chance I decided to take because I enjoyed the product in FS9.>Sir, I bet if you paid $25 for a product and got 2-5 fps you>would be in the same boat as myself. Sir, I am in the same boat as yourself. I'm simply choosing not to accuse CS of fraudulent marketing, suggest class action suits against them, and generally over-react about the situation.>There's a little more complexity to a real sim than just your>simplitic "high poly-gon" count.Thank you, Captain Obvious.>Have you ever heard of high>fidelity systems programing such as (Hydraulics, Pneumatics,>etc.) simulation?Nope :-roll >Ask Rob Rozzedo at PMDG. I guarantee you>that when PMDG comes out with their first FS X product it will>be reliable and optimized to provide a REASONABLE FPS>optimization and they will not fraudulently market products>they have not properly developed and optimized. I'll be sure to pass Rob a note in gym class about it.Regardless, I guarantee you there will be a noticeable FPS loss in FSX when you finally go to add PMDG aircraft to it. If you think otherwise, there's really no point in trying to argue with you.All I'm saying here is that you should not be terribly surprised that your FPS suffered by taking a complex aircraft and dropping it in FSX, a sim which, judging by your stated FPS average, is struggling to provide you with an enjoyable experience to begin with.However, if ranting and raving about it makes you feel better, be my guest. GG

GG,In case you missed it..............This thread is about Captain Sim B757 and NOT FSX in general. But apparently you have trouble focusing.Of course there is going to be a frame hit with PMDG. But not a sold and market product with 2 FPS. If CS B757 worked fine for you then WHY are you not using it? I'm using other add-ons for FSX and am getting 15-20fps, while CS B757 is providing 2-5fps. Wonderful product.If you were to discuss the topic on hand and not vasilate on other matters and personal concerns have you about the general FS X performance.I'm happy with my FS X performance prior to being Maliciously and Fraudulently being victimized by Captain Sim. You flacid arguments are beging to bore me. Besides that I don't like your negative attitude.Good evening to you sir............

Hmmm, an un-satisfied CaptainSim customer ... I own the FS9 version (757), and I have no intrest in my "free" update to FSX. Haven't even downloaded it. What for? Lots of eye candy, cargo doors and a 737 air file ...For further reference, I'll add the links here to save some time:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...71527&mode=fullhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...71311&mode=fullhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...72696&mode=fullhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...d=433&mode=fullI wish these posts were around when I ran out and bought it the day it was released ...Good Luck, I'm waiting for PMDG's thanks...Regards'GarettQuestion 1: Did you post your original post at http://www.captainsim.net/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=757generalQuestion 2: Is it still there ...;)

>GG,>>In case you missed it..............>>This thread is about Captain Sim B757 and NOT FSX in general.>But apparently you have trouble focusing. I'm quite on topic, my friend. You're complaining about the performance of the CS757 in FSX, are you not? You're not exactly spewing Nietzsche here.>Of course there is going to be a frame hit with PMDG. But not>a sold and market product with 2 FPS. If CS B757 worked fine>for you then WHY are you not using it?I thought I explicitly stated above that it was too much of a performance hit for me to enjoy it in FSX. And you say I'm the one who has trouble focusing?>If you were to discuss the topic on hand and not vasilate on>other matters and personal concerns have you about the general>FS X performance.What are you on about? Everything I've said here is directly related to both the topic and the problem at hand. You're the only one who seems to be having some difficulties here. >You flacid arguments are beging to bore me.Once I figured out the words you were trying to spell, I actually got a chuckle out of this comment.Look, you have every reason to be PO'd that your 757 doesn't run acceptably on FSX on your PC. That is totally understandable. But when you start running around and rattling your saber about a company "fraudulently marketing" and lying about its products, threaten law suits, and start using words like "malicious" and "victimized", it's time to get a grip.You point out one single solitary statement on the entire CaptainSim website that's either an outright lie or even a remotely misleading statement regarding the 757 in FSX...go ahead...I'll wait.http://www.captainsim.biz/products/b757/fs9tofsx.htmlThere is nothing in their marketing of the 757 that is misleading or providing you with any expectations whatsoever as to how it will perform in FSX. In fact, they say very little about the subject of their FSX upgrades at all! It took me a few moments on the site before I even found what I was looking for.When you accuse a developer of bad business practices, that's someone's livelihood you're messing with here. Not only that, but you're doing it in arguably the largest community of simmers in existence who happen to be their customer base. You can be dissatisfied with a product without attacking a developer's reputation and integrity with damaging accusations when you have absolutely zero basis for them. A little research would have helped you avoid such supreme disappointment. This is not a case of fraudulent marketing...this is a garden-variety case of "buyer beware".GG

Garett,Thank you so much for your post. I believe we now have sufficient numbers of complaints to make the first legal note at the better business buero (sp.) as well as to start a class action suite.Here is a quote directly from the Captain Sim Web site. NOTHING BUT EXCUSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and to tell us to spend more money on our PC hardware. What a JOKE!!!! From Captain Sim. forum administrator at Captain Sim web site.FPS, gau refresh rate, (AKA PC performance) is one of the most popural topics on any FS forum. We are not going to say anythig new, but anyways: Eternal dilemma: APPEARANCE vs PERFORMANCE. Unfortunately we have to pay for the 'appearance' by 'performance' and vice versa. It's a law of nature. But some people who get poor PC 'performance' usually blame developers for everything: poor gau programming, memory leaks, etc. Those are myths, but real performance killers are: - Number and size of textures (we all want high picture quality in details, right?) - Number and complexity of gau files in VC or on 2D panel (we all want every instrument to be functional, right?) We are talking about aircraft add-on tested at constant PC system and MSFS settings like weather, add-on sceneries, etc. So, for developer the real ways to build high 'performance' expansion are: - Reduce picture quality (model and textures quality) - Reduce number and complexity of functional instrument (Not talking about general optimization, as we always do our best in this area) So, people want both, performance and the eye-candy? Well, then the ONLY way to gain some 'performance' not loosing 'appearance' is to Upgrade a PC system. * * *

>So, people want both, performance and the eye-candy? >Well, then the ONLY way to gain some 'performance' not loosing>'appearance' is to Upgrade a PC system. That's exactly right. Quality versus performance is the eternal conflict with any PC gaming. On any given system, all things being equal, one can only be improved at the expense of the other.Unless you're somehow able to magically coax more performance out of your CPU and video card by "asking them nicely", yes, any substantial improvement will require better hardware.There's only so much you can do at the software level. You can try overclocking, but I don't recommend it unless you're prepared to take certain risks with your hardware.

I've never heard such a ludicrous response, as an excuse of such obvious incompetence and greed!!!

>I've never heard such a ludicrous response, as an excuse of>such obvious incompetence and greed!!!Yes, it was clearly CaptainSim's incompetence and greed that drove you to the brilliant conclusion that your performance would not suffer if you added their aircraft into FSX on a PC with a 4 year-old video card.GG