"There will be no patch to make things better"There was already a patch put out yesterday to "make things better" and the aces team has already said they are looking into performance issues which I assume means more.....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>FS9 looks great :)It sure does, if you treat it nicely ;)Feng's picture's are a work of art, and I enjoyed every single one he posted, but I'm quite sure that not everbody's FS9 looks like this.Same goes for Mango's FSX shots, except that they show only the default scenery, while feng's pictures show presumably every good addon available today.Don't get me wrong, I like both sims, and I believe FS9 has still very much life in it, especially with those high quality add-ons of the last months, but I think that Mango's FSX shots reallys show the possibilities and the potential FSX has got. One year from now, many of the users here will have the hardware to let FSX run with the same astounding scenery visuals that Mango shows us here. While it's everbody's own decision to run either sim and not to run the other, one has to be fair about the potential of FSX.Just hop over the fs2004.com "around the world tour" screenshot thread. Thumb through the pages (if you have broadband), I do it everyday... One can just marvel at the shots Mango and his companions show us there. And it's pure default FSX.Of course you will stumble about some cases of FSX "desertification", you may not like the airport ground textures or the texture blending "spraycan effect". But be assured, one year from now, and most of these issues will have vanished with the help of add-ons or even a MS patch (I still do hope ;) ). It will be the same as it was with FS9....Greetings from rainy GermanyAlex

Hi 'Astrodave',"The fact of the matter is that fsx deluxe is the #2 and fsx standard is the #5 top selling game in the world right now."That's as may be, and I have no reason to doubt it. However, are there any statistics yet to indicate how many who purchased, having been drawn to all that that very attractive DVD case promised, are now feeling frustrated and disappointed and may be wishing they had not been so hasty before parting with their cash?You see, there is no doubt that this sim can be coaxed into performing very well in certain circumstances, but how many are prepared and able to invest the time and effort reading the forums and applying the tweaks, official and otherwise, to achieve that aim? We are a unique bunch in that respect and, it has to be said, relatively small in number. That's not to belittle the importance of our contribution to the hobby and our effect on the future commercial viability of Flight Simulator. However, we should not be making broad assumptions about how the rest are receiving this latest version in the FS series.Sadly statistics are often used in much the same way a drunk uses a lamppost - not so much for illumination but more for leaning upon!At this stage, the fact that FSX is selling so well means very little when we don't have an end-user satisfaction survey to support these figures. I'm sure many buy impulsively based on the degree of anticipatory excitement felt on looking at the presentation on the DVD package.Mike

Hi Geof,"and the aces team has already said they are looking into performance issues which I assume means more....."Oh, I do hope so, I really do. I just wish they would take the time to make it official. Is that too much to ask?Regards,Mike

Purchase figures do NOT take into account returns...I have confirmed with a large local vendor a previous claim from a poster in this forum that 2 in 5 copies of FSX are being returned. Thats me in the UK and him in the USA, two of the key markets. Also, the key to the FS franchise has always been its longevity - it continues to make reasonable sales well into product mid-life.I cant see any way that is gong to happen to FSX, as the limited overhead severely restrict the ability of addon developers to create a workable, functioning product at usable fps, while taking advantage of the new features.I do hope MS aren't pinning their hopes on DX10 :)Allcott

>Hi Geof,>>"and the aces team has already said they are looking into>performance issues which I assume means more.....">>Oh, I do hope so, I really do. I just wish they would take the>time to make it official. Is that too much to ask?>>Regards,>MikeYeah, that would definitely encourage people to NOT return it. And others, like me, to consider purchasing it. I'm def holding off til this situation improves.

>>FS9 looks great :)>>It sure does, if you treat it nicely ;)>Feng's picture's are a work of art, and I enjoyed every single>one he posted, but I'm quite sure that not everbody's FS9>looks like this.Mine does. Not too hard to do, just a few addons, a few settings, and average hardware today n yer good to go. Long Live FS9!

>There was already a patch put out yesterday to "make things>better" and the aces team has already said they are looking>into performance issues which I assume means more.....>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgUh huh, you keep believing that. Btw, i have a nice bridge to sell you in New York City for cheap. That 'patch' yesterday helped nobody for the most part. If it helped you then great, but it did nothing for the other 9 out of 10 of us.There was never a performance patch for fs2000 just like there will never be one for fsx. They say 'we are looking into it' which means they are looking and that's about it. They know how the game runs and knew how it ran for months before it was released. It would have never been released in this state had they been able to fix it. I spoke with the devs at the avsim conference and they knew then that it ran poorly. The game is selling like crazy now which to them means people must love it. Even with all the posts about how poorly it runs people are still buying it like crazy. I don't see where MS feels that it would have to release a performance patch at this point speaking from a strictly business standpoint. Even with a 'patch' that gives you a 25% increase in fps you go from 13 to 16 *woopee*. There will be no hardware in the near future to run it any better as I have been privy to Intel's cpu roadmap for the next 18 months. Hate to break it to you, but this is it.

>There was never a performance patch for fs2000 just like there>will never be one for fsx. They say 'we are looking into it'>which means they are looking and that's about it. They know>how the game runs and knew how it ran for months before it was>released. It would have never been released in this state had>they been able to fix it. I spoke with the devs at the avsim>conference and they knew then that it ran poorly.Such a bold statement as "...never be one..." is rather presumptuous. There are many of "us" who "speak" with the devs nearly every day, and you won't read any such blanket statements from "us"... ;)

There was a performance patch for fs2000-I know because I was upset about it. They lowered the instrument refresh rate to give better stutter free out the window rates. At that point-the eye candy moved more fluidly but the instruments became jerky. Finally we have smooth instruments back in this version.Maybe the patch didn't help you-but it was a patch-which implies-they are patching! If you have read the posts from the Aces team they have mentioned that they are working on performance issues-one even mentioned some news would be announced shortly after the holiday's if I recall. Your breaking news doesn't really effect me because I am happy with this version on my current hardware. I do hope you get a patch so you can be too. As for bridges-I have done very well with my investments-don't need to buy any. :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Hi 'Astrodave',"Even with all the posts about how poorly it runs people are still buying it like crazy. I don't see where MS feels that it would have to release a performance patch at this point speaking from a strictly business standpoint."Yes, but how many buyers are actually reading these posts? We just don't know. If MS's assessment of the success of FSX is based solely on sales then they could be in for a rude awakening.I know I've been harping on a bit, and I'm sure many are growing weary of it all, but if MS choose to ignore us this time around, believing it all to be so much hot air, then this could, god forbid, spell the end of the FS series or, at the very least, place its future in jeopardy. It's a case of being 'once bitten twice shy' and this particular simmer, feeling very let down this time around, may very well think twice about purchasing the next version. That for me would be very serious as I have remained an enthusiastic and loyal supporter of the FS franchise ever since its inception. However, enthusiasm is not inexhaustible unless there is something to keep up the impetus.Don't get me wrong, I do want to maintain an optimistic stance and, from what I have just read in another thread, it appears the ACES team may have something positive to tell us after the Thanksgiving holiday. Here's hoping! Mike

>Even with>a 'patch' that gives you a 25% increase in fps you go from 13>to 16 *woopee*. I really get tired of this 13 fps as some sort of standard. I use FSX at a target rate of 25 fps and usually achieve it. While FS9 will usually run between 30 & 70 fps, I can easily drag FS9 down to 14 fps in certain situations. And we've all heard of the single digits in FS9 too!FSX offers a lot at 25 fps, including smoothness, high resolution textures, and a fluid feel of flight. I can always go back to FS9, for situations where FSX in all it's glory can't handle the frame rates. I have this option. I don't like wasting 30 seconds, reading replies stating what ACES will or won't do, since it's all one person's opinion, and nothing more. Same with the lame and tired, "selling a bridge example".L.Adamson

My opinions are based on past experiences with the sim. There were no patches for performance for any other sim so based on that I deduce that there will be no patch for performance for fsx. I sure hope I am wrong but so far history supports me. I also get 22fps in many areas as well but not in the city which is where it would be very nice. The 13fps is a baseline frame rate for Seattle which is very well documented to be the average frame rate sitting on the tarmac staring at the city in the distance. If you don't like wasting 30 seconds reading then please by all means move on to a different thread. I don't like wasting 10 seconds by reading your post that says you don't like wasting 30 seconds but I suffer through it just as you do ;)All in all i love the sim but am disappointed in the project management decisions that were made early on. The feeling of flight is greatly evident in this sim compared to previous versions and the entire thing just feels much more realistic. I also hope that they do release a patch that greatly increases performance because it would be the first time in the franchise history that they did this and would make a great precedent. It's frustrating from an engineer's standpoint when managers don't listen and make the wrong call, which is obviously what happened here.

You keep saying there were no patches for the sim for performance-but there was a patch for performance for fs2000-and it reduced the "stutters" which was the battle cry at that time at the expense of quick instrument response....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

And there was a patch for FS9 too, which boosted performance amongst other things. Patches are not unfamiliar to the FS crowd, although they took a while with those two titles. Here's to hoping that MS will come to the patch party much sooner with this release.Gary