I, honestly, don't remember this much fuss last time around. (Don't ask me to go back and read them all. You haven't either) Not even close. Even the reviewers (such as PC Gamer) who are very kind to big software publishers (need to keep those advertisment dollars comming) are making a note of its performance problems. This was not the case for FS2004.Again, it is very easy to prove that FS9 did not have such problems. Go back 3 years ago and find the top of the line system that was around then. Then ask yourself if that system would run FS9 well. The top system of 3 years ago was (I have the MAXIMUM PC magazine from which I bought my top of the line system 3 years ago): 3.4 Ghz system, 9800XT, 1 GB RAM. It runs FS9 with most sliders maxed out okay. At SFO with Ultimate Traffic maxed out I get about 20-25 FPS. Nah, I think MS chewed more than they could bite this time. Its not end of the world. The technology will catch up. But, meanwhile, allow us to engage in these moaning orgies. Its fun.

Amen. Lets find the money to buy the real airplane. I want my own Citation Mustang.

Ah, see now that makes a world of difference :-)Herein lies the problem. The term DX10 "patch" is simply semantics. I think the term should be DX10 "upgrade". Let's take a step back. Microsoft has stated that DX10 will NOT be backward compatible with DX9,8,7. DX10 will require Vista and a DX10 compatible graphics card. To run a DX10 title on a DX9 system there will be an extra layer of software to allow it to run, therefore it is theorized (since no DX10 titled exist) that DX10 will run slower on a DX9 system. SO, let's say, MS simply "patched" the graphics that we have now to Shader 4.0 and you were able to push all sliders right to max out the absolute splendor of FSX, what would you see? Pretty much what you would see now! Yep, not much of a difference visually except a hopeful performance gain. Would you see anything that resembles the near photograph in the FSX artists rendering? ABSOLUTELY not.Why there is an FSX logo on that rendering...that is a question for Aces. Now, I'm not one for speculation, but I do think that if Aces is given enough time to upgrade the texture maps as well as the shaders, you may well see something approaching that in a year or so. But remember, there are NO DX9 games in existance that can be patched to provide the cinematic quality that we are beginning to see in regard to DX10, that required a code rewrite. Those games are dedicated DX10 titles built from scratch to take gaming to a new level. So, here's the decision. Upgrade to DX10 and Vista and a new Video Card so that we can see FSX in all its splendor as it pretty much exists today + some improvements? It may well be worth it if we can get FS2004 type performance out of the sim. Will there be near photographic upgrades so that it resebles the artists rendering...I'm doubtful, but hey ya never know, at least we have a glimpse of what we might well see in FS11!

Boom-tish! Nicely said, except that technology is catching up with everything but FSX. Hopes are with SP1 patch to put this one back on the future hardware track.Gary

>Then, poor the Aces team are hard at work on SP1 for nothing.> Obviously there is no performance issue and all we need is a>patch for a few small visual things and we're good to go>right?>>Why not save the Aces team the time and effort working on>performance patches when all this is, is typical release doom>and gloom and indeed Aces should scrap SP1 and get to work on>the DX-10 conversion, et al and forget all this silly>performance / dual-core nonsense.>I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic as if it has to be all or nothing with no middle ground. It's not a zero sum game where either the whole thing is messed up and unusable or it's heaven on earth. I'm not saying that a patch to improve multi-core perfomance isn't necessary and that there are some things that probably need fixing. What I am saying is that I can still get 10 - 15 fps taking off from JFK with 50% AI and mid sliders using my 2.5 year old Pentium 4 550 and an ATI X1900XT. I am willing to bet that an overclocked Core Duo would certainly beat that handily, and in a year or two, who knows where things will be after patches and the release of Vista. Some people just love to see the glass as half empty. So be it. What is your solution then for this terrible disaster that Microsoft has foisted upon the simming community? Hang the ACES team from the nearest tree and show it live on CNN?

>>Can you point me to several examples, where FS9 was bashed>>like FSX....>>I'll leave that you to search if you think I'm blowing hot>air, but here is one example literally taken at random from a>search done a few minutes ago. You can search on a number of>criteria and probably get all kinds of threads.>>http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...topic_id=139798>>>My point isn't that the level of vitriole is better or worse,>or that more people complained, only that threads like the one>above sound a lot like what's being posted now, and people>need to have a little perspective. You may disagree with me,>and that's fine too. >>Just remember that clock speed is not the only difference with>newer processors, and isn't the only determining factor. >Things like FSB and cache play a role as well, as do other>factors. If clock speed was the only determining factor,>then my 550 P4 3.4 GHz would always beat out AMD or Conroe>chips clocked at much lower speed. Many tests show that's>not the case.>>>>You are blowing hot air. The only frame killer initially in FS9 compared to FS8 was the volumetruc clouds. My posts when FS9 was first released state that. Shortly after, lighter bit clouds were released to help. In addition existing hardware could handle a fully pumped up FS9 with addons. This version CANNOT with the latest duo core systems. That's the difference. This persistent analogy that is drawn re "whining" with previous versions is completely false and wrong.

"the technology will catch up"-- I had to throw a bone so people would not dispair!

>Frankla:> .............>Again, the SP1 patch is for performnace. The DX10 patch is>for DX10 compatibility which will boost visuals and afford the>inherent performance built into DX10 titles. >>FYI the artists rendering has nothing to do with what FSX WILL>look like, rather what it COULD look like. Simply changing>the Shaders to 4.0 will not do this. What FSX will look like>under DX10 remains to be seen. It was my understanding that the screen shots incorporated software emulation of DX10 functions, such as shaders. Not 'artist's renditions'. Software emulation would be slow; one would expect that when done in DX10 Graphics cards it would much faster. Ron

Hello,My Sysyem specs are at the end. My question is I am not real comfrotable with trying to change the configs in FSX. I was able to do this ok in FS9 but was hoping somthing like the patch discussed here would be on the way. Is a MS patch from MS comming or not. I have removed FSX and reformatted in an effort to start clean with FSX. I dont seem to be able to go to the FSX Offical Web Site and find any news of a patch comming out. ( I dont know if I have to have FSX installed to see certian areas in the Offical Site or not ). I backed up FS9 (via Nero) it was 4 DVD-RW Disc long ie 22.8GB.I guess I will try to re-install FS9, but to be honest I wish to move forward to FSX and learn the new. If I do use Nero to retore the Back Up dose any one know if I must intall FS9 then the Nero back up with the replace files checked?***************************************Sorry for going on its late and I am confussed basically if there is a patch for FSX or if I must pick which config files to hope that work or agian is there a patch gomming the solves the low frame rate issues.***************************************Thank you.Mark.System:OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM Radeon X1600 Pro 512MB running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB running a NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel

Hmmm, why are people in such haste to uninstall FS9? I intend to keep FS9 for some considerable time. I just have too many addons to be tossing it aside, and still get alot of enjoyment out of it. I too am awaiting the patch which will hopefully improve FSX enough for some more developers to jump on the bandwagon.Ron

There is no comparison to fs9 when it was released and fsx. Any top end box in 2004 could run fs9 mostly maxed out without too much trouble. My p4 3.6ghz cpu which was released in late 2004 runs fs9 with EVERY slider to the right at well over 30fps. Anybody who says that a top end box couldn't run fs9 at max sliders when it was released is just flat out lying to you. There is NO comparison in performance between fs9 and fsx. Fs9 ran much better on hardware at that time than fsx does on current hardware now.When i was at avsim i overheard an Aces dev saying that when the dx10 preview artist shots were released the whole team cringed. Their words were that in order to get the game looking like that, they would never see their families again! :) Don't hold your breath on a patch any time soon, especially with them working on a 'performance patch' which in my mind will either offer little to no performance gains or will just enhance the sliders so that there is much more customization available to the end user to tweak on his/her own. I don't see any reference anywhere as to this patch offering any multi-core or sli support which is what it needs to do if it's going to offer any real performance.As an aside, I recently made a trip up to see my dad who was unable to install fsx on his machine because the install routine did not recognize cd2 during installation. I copied the dvds to his hard drive and then installed the game and configured the tweeks for him on his fx-62/7950gx2 machine and the game runs fantastic on his machine. He effectively gets double my frame rate in every area, and his autogen is set one level higher than mine! He was getting 22fps on the runway at seattle with his autogen set to medium and most other sliders in the 3/4 range with water on low medium. I get about 12fps in that spot with lower settings...Throwing hardware at this pig really does make a difference. That guy with the o/c'd extreme core2 should have no problems if my dad'd fx-62 runs it as well as it does. I have the rest of my parts otw from the egg now for my upgrade to a core2 after seeing that. I'd like to be able to max out water effects too, but doing that brought my dad's pc to its knees.My thoughts on this are that Aces shouldn't be wasting their time or ours on a 'performance' patch unless they plan to incorporate vastly improved levels of multi-core support and take advantage of sli. If they aren't going to do this then they are just biding their time to deal with the dx10 patch imo.Dave

I will say it again and again FSX was not made for the above average user, it was made to apease all kind of wish they could or wanna be pilots.We hardcore simmers are angry because we thought it would be the next best upgrade , because we keep our equiptment in top shape to be able to get good results in all our great addon planes and other software.FSX said no way we want you to just play with us, so we will make it real tough to add on anything , look what we done we made the wheather engine better so now you dont need Active sky anymore, oh and look what we done with ATC , no need in getting Radar contac what you need them for anyway.and what do you need all those fancy planes for anyway , we added more buttons on the default planes.And we added that wonderful autogen, ok so you cant use it , or turn it up or at least see at least two houses down there . oh and if you are going to use it go up to about twenty thousand feet it will work better.and all the scenery looks great what do you need scenery addons for.We at FSX will determine what you need and we want you to play with us, forget about all those addons anyway they arent making us no money any.Oh and for the gentleman that claims that FS9 had the same response as FSX has , i would like to see the same claims.Fs9 had its problem but they were easily fixed and in no way did they have the same issues that FSX has right now.FSX does not run out of the box the way it should.MY humble opinion.....Robert

>My p4 3.6ghz cpu which was released in late 2004 runs fs9 with EVERY >slider to the right at well over 30fps.Even at a crowded Heathrow or maybe flying through very dense clouds still get 30+FPS? My p4 running at 3.2 ghz struggled in fs9 in these situation'sI had frame rates in single digits landing at Heathrow with 100% AI etc. with this pc in FS9.Since changing to an OC E6600 I must have trebled my frame rates compared to my old p4Comparing fs9 to FSX FPS wise FSX is about 50% less.John

>I will say it again and again FSX was not made for the above>average user, it was made to apease all kind of wish they>could or wanna be pilots.>snipped>We hardcore simmers are angry because we thought it would be the >next best upgrade , because we keep our equiptment in top shape to >be able to get good results in all our great addon planes and other >software.It's a very incorrect thought, but you're entitled to it...In more ways than not, FSX creates a new inviroment that "real" pilots will recognize. The best example is modeling the air itself, which far surpasses the lifeless stagnet, riding on the rails, air of FS9. Yet, many armchair pilots don't even notice this significant addition.However, for wanna be pilots, at least the defaults do fly better, trim beter, and have much improved VC's. You won't need to immediately jump to a 3rd party aircraft, as in the past.BTW-- Since I never bothered with Active Sky in the past, it's great that FSX's weather doesn't have a large negative impact on frame rates like FS9 did. I use real weather much of the time with 15 minute updates.Of course, I'm not a "hard core simmer", or a wannabe. Just a pilot & plane owner, who likes FSX.L.Adamson

>>My p4 3.6ghz cpu which was released in late 2004 runs fs9>with EVERY >slider to the right at well over 30fps.>>Even at a crowded Heathrow or maybe flying through very>dense clouds still get 30+FPS? My p4 running at 3.2 ghz>struggled in fs9 in these situation's>I had frame rates in single digits landing at Heathrow with>100% AI etc. with this pc in FS9.>And I can still easily drag down my normal 35-70 fps in FS9 to the teens with signifcant weather and/or high density airports in combination with a fps eating aircraft. L.Adamson