>>When I get some time I'll search other sites but I challenge>anyone to find Dillon posting with the same frequency on>various forums as L.Adamson. I couldn't find one single>thread where Dillon commented on FSX in Flightsim.com's FS9>forum. L.Adamson is clearly the bigger player and offender of>the very thing he's complaining about Dillon doing especially>here on Avsim (I should have searched the screenshot forum>here). L.Adamson is in almost every FS9 vs FSX thread I could>find here on Avsim. >So what's the point?You don't see me saying ---- I've deleted FS9You don't see me saying ---- that friends have deleted FS9You WILL find me saying that FS9 is going to do better than FSX in some scenarios.You WILL find me saying that FSX is going to do better than FS9 insome scenarios.You will find me saying that X-Plane might do better than both FS9 & FSX in some scenarios.And what else do I do? I often see comparison screenshots of FS9 versus FSX. In most cases, the anti FSX shots look rediculous. About as rediculous as that particular FS9 auto-gen shot that I use on purpose. And therefor, I post the re-buttle screen shot's of FSX, which are quite impressive BTW.And above all, you don't find me heading off to the FS9 forums to tell anyone just how lousy the product is. If I say anything which is negative FS9, it's again, a re-buttle in defense of FSX, in which the thread was started by someone else. All other FS9 replies are just that. They pertain to FS9 since I have not abandoned the product.L.Adamson

Haldir I remember a video release some months back before the FSX demo arrived where Bill Gates was speaking and FSX was shown to the world for the first time (it was actually a year to date before the official release of FSX). If you look on the guy's face as he looked at Bill you can clearly see these guys knew there was a problem back then. He kept reiterating there was allot of work still needed to be done before final release of FSX. Aces knew for along time something was wrong. What specifically I don't know but something was known. That's why it's hard to give these guys a pass. I agree that due to corporate demands FSX was rushed out but the whole hardware issue (future hardware curve) was known and it seems developers wanted to push one last title with the old model in place. Who ever made this decisioned should be fired without question...

Thanks Chris... :-beerchug The point is L.Adamson your the biggest culprit of what Bill Leaming is accusing me of. Second you can run around the forums with your ideology and then criticize me for doing the same thing on a far lesser scale than you."You will find me saying that X-Plane might do better than both FS9 & FSX in some scenarios."Some things you have to reluctantly concede and agree with or you'd sound totally insane. Just like I finally got you to admit Commercial flying is best left to FS9 at this point. Bottom line is one sim should serve all purposes just as it's done with every prior release of Flight Simulator before FSX (even FS2000 was a one sim show. No one switch between FS98 for Commercial flying and back to FS2000 for GA flying. See how crazy your outlook is on FSX)...

>Again the point was made above, since when is it O.K. to>switch to the older version of FS for certain aspects of>flying (Commercial). FS has always served every purpose in>one version. This is the point you can't seem to>understand...Gee Golly.........The same reason I switch to X-Plane I suppose.The same reason I'd switch from a Cessna to a PiperThe same reason I'll switch from the Chev to the ToyotaThe same reason that the infamous airliner addons for FS9 were not out within three months of it's release.The same reason that some airliner addons still run poorly in FS9The same reason that Fly Tampa airport scnenery won't fit the new and more realistic "round world".The same reason that FS9 can't support the high resolution texures of FSX.The same reason that the new RealAir SF260 flies better in FSXThe same reason that improved portions of FSX just are not compatible with all addons from FS9.The same reason that I'll fire up CFS2 for some of the best in flight dynamicsThe same reason that I might even use IL-2 for the sameIs it that hard to comprehend? The whole question seems..........you know, kind of silly...

"You WILL find me saying that FS9 is going to do better than FSX in some scenarios.You WILL find me saying that FSX is going to do better than FS9 insome scenarios.":-lol In no thread have I found these two statments to be true. I'll let you do the work to prove me wrong...

>Bottom line is one sim should serve all purposes just as it's>done with every prior release of Flight Simulator before FSX>(even FS2000 was a one sim show. No one switch between FS98>for Commercial flying and back to FS2000 for GA flying. See>how crazy your outlook is on FSX)... There is no bottom line..Microsoft has now given us a round world, instead of a map pulled together with loose ends. It's causing quite a compatibility problem with past airport addons, but will be the realistic way to go, in the future. Do you really expect complete re-writes of major airport addons to occur in as little as three months? AH..........what would we use in the meantime.Microsoft has given us new high resolution textures, that FS9 can only die for! Not only is the ground crisper, but so are the panels, the gauges, the exteriors, the interiors, and other details. It's certainly the way to go for future products; as I always knew that X-Plane and FLY had the edge in cockpit resolution until now. All future FSX addons will take advantage of these changes, or at least they had better!It's already been proven that an FSX designed aircraft can fly even more realistically in FSX than was possible in FS9. And FSX aircraft, really DO require a re-write, not just a port over.And BTW, did you know that FSX weather has far less impact on frame rates than FS9? My deepest regards..L.Adamson

:-lol Those are choices, with FSX you have to switch because your not going to fly airliners like the CaptainSim 757 into airports like KLGA in FSX... Your logic is still crazy on this one L.Adamson...

>"You WILL find me saying that FS9 is going to do better than>FSX in some scenarios.>>You WILL find me saying that FSX is going to do better than>FS9 in>some scenarios.">>:-lol >>In no thread have I found these two statments to be true. I'll>let you do the work to prove me wrong...No, you waste the time to prove ME wrong. With all my postings, they're everywhere! :7

>:-lol >>Those are choices, with FSX you have to switch because your>not going to fly airliners like the CaptainSim 757 into>airports like KLGA in FSX... >And that scenario should play with a strong 9-15 fps in FS9! :-lol Perhaps a high res, FSX turn around a point, in the meantime...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/164361.jpg

Sorry Mike, saying "these people" is patronizing. What I mean is, Tom and others are clearly posting messages that are posed to help others with their performance issues, and he's being ignored or instead of someone acknowledging him and others like him who want to help, "these people" continue to suggest that FSX runs poorly. Understand please, that this is completely subjective, FSX may run well for some "other people" so to those who think "those people" are lying, please, give them the benefit of the doubt, that's all. And if you think I'm biased, not that I care, I challenge you to find one thread where I said "FSX rocks and FS9 sucks" in the same sentence, because here's the inside scoop, I see it all the time just reversed from the "same people."Jeff

####, I'm still sitting here like an idiot waiting for my free AVSIM Meeting copy of FSX!! :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol:-lol:-lol:-lol:-lolI have become, as a result, highly skeptical of what MS promises....for FSX, for Vista, and even for DX10......http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

Alex,What have they ever promised you? A flight simulator? An operating system? A GUI?Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

I would if I was the one coming in here telling others what they shouldn't do. I've done enough proving you do the very same thing you accuse others of doing. Bill Leaming would do good to start paying attention to what you write versus focusing in on others just because they have an opposing view of FSX...

>I would if I was the one coming in here telling other people>what they shouldn't do. I've done enough proving you do the>very same thing you accuse others of doing. Bill Leaming>would do good to start paying attention to what you do versus>focusing in on other just because they have an opposing view>of FSX........:-violin

"It's not all good and it's not all bad, and it's still just a game that costs less than $75USD. That's still 45 minutes of flight time in a real Skyhawk. If you want 100% reality with unlimited fps, go to your local airport."This will always the Granddaddy of cop-out arguments, "Go do it for real if you want reality". With this kind of logic Flight Simulation wouldn't be where it is today. Heck, technology would be where it's at. I'm glade many more expect much more especially with what we've seen done already.If you