FSX Patch?

[Guest IndiaPapa]

It has to be said, if only to quieten the 'continuous whiners' out there!MICROSOFT OWES US ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE WITH FSX - THEY DELIVERED - 'THANK YOU MICROSOFT' - THERE ARE NO SERIOUS BUGS IN THE GAME - JUST PEOPLE WHO ARE CONVINCED THAT THE GAME SHOULD COMPARE TO A $750k AVIATION SIMULATOR - TO THOSE OF YOU OUT THERE WHO WANT A PERFECT SIM, EITHER - JOIN THE AIR FORCE AND GET INSIDE THE COCKPIT OF A REAL ONE, OR BUY A NEW GAME!They (MS)gave us a 'GAME' and mistakenly called it a 'Simulator' that was there only mistake - since then, hundreds of people have CONSTANTLY COMPLAINED ABOUT EVERY FLIGHTSIM PRODUCT, if MICROSOFT want to patch them they will, no amount of criticism will force anything from them - 'THEY OWE US NOTHING' - if you don't like the 'GAME', tough, take it back and stop whinning!Personally, I like the 'GAME' just as it is, FSX graphics are good, performance is good and all-in-all worth the $70 (or so) - for me, it's an 'escape' from reality 'NOT' my life! BTW, This SITE too, deserves much better respect for the 'POSITIVE SERVICES' it provides us (often with inside advance information on upcoming patch releases) than the negativity and abusive comments seemingly becoming more prevalent in the forums towards MICROSOFT and many of the freeware designers all of which are the reason we visit!Terry, IndiaPapa

[sipos 0]

Well FSX had to be made at some point and you should be glad it happened when it did. FSX is simply a huge rewrite of fs2004 with all new ways of modeling the world and terrain etc... Think of FSX as attempt #1 in creating a almost totally new program - The process of throwing a whole bunch of code together really fast in order to meet deadlines. fS11 will be attempt #2 were they can step back and really take the time to organize and correct thier first code. as the saying always goes - You always learn from your mistakes! This is just the nature of programming.FS2004 was simply A refined version of FS2002 AND FS2000. all we got to do now is wait a couple years for the refined version of FSX!

[G7USL 117]

>>I will say that, visually in some aspects it's better but,>>Aces freely admitted that this one is aimed at the 'Gaming'>>market and that is *All* it is! >>>>Nope! :-hah >>The "gaming" market wouldn't appreciate the "feel". FSX has a>lot more "feel" built into the sim, than a previous simulation>known as FS9. :7 There would be no reason in programming>additional feel with a changing airmass that includes>updrafts, downdrafts, and thermals for the "gaming" crowd who>wouldn't have a clue! Besides, since when does a gamer care if>the world is "round" or not? :(>>To know what the "feel" is, it helps to have flown real>aircraft for a while. Much of the "feel" is provided by the>brain to fill in the gaps. These filled in gaps, change a one>dimension monitor screen to a simulation, where changes in the>air mass appears to be felt. FSX has improved on this very>much; yet many around here don't seem to notice, or have not>experienced it. I've therefor concluded that most simmers>around here, have not flown an aircraft, since they just think>FSX is some added "elephants"! :-lol >>L.AdamsonLarry, have you ever heard of FSUIPC? All the effects you mention as *improvements* are available with a registered copy of FSUIPC, and it's a lot cheaper too.

[G7USL 117]

>Well FSX had to be made at some point and you should be glad>it happened when it did. FSX is simply a huge rewrite of>fs2004 with all new ways of modeling the world and terrain>etc... Think of FSX as attempt #1 in creating a almost totally>new program - The process of throwing a whole bunch of code>together really fast in order to meet deadlines. fS11 will be>attempt #2 were they can step back and really take the time to>organize and correct thier first code. as the saying always>goes - You always learn from your mistakes! >This is just the nature of programming.>>FS2004 was simply A refined version of FS2002 AND FS2000. all>we got to do now is wait a couple years for the refined>version of FSX!...And in the meantime we, should pay to be beta testers?

[LAdamson 240]

>>Larry, have you ever heard of FSUIPC? All the effects you>mention as *improvements* are available with a registered copy>of FSUIPC, and it's a lot cheaper too.Of course, but sometimes I think it's more trouble than it's worth.L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

I had a registered version of FSUIPC in fs9-it doesn't come close to duplicating the new effects in fsx. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Geofa 108]

From 1999-same idea...http://www.avsim.com/pages/1099/guest/guest.shtmlhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>From 1999-same idea...>http://www.avsim.com/pages/1099/guest/guest.shtml>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgThat's great, man. And just as true now.

[Guest david W.]

Great article. It seems many here have been using it as a Posting Guide ever since.

[Guest Ozzie]

><<>I understand the hush hush leading up to a product launch,>just never really understood why a patch requires the same>level of secrecy.>>>>>Mainly because until we've implemented everything and ran it>through some test passes, we won't know for sure which>modifications will be in the final patch release (we may>determine that a fix that helps out 30% of users winds up>making life worse for the other 70% or something :-> )>>Sorry to appear rude - but IF GM or Ford were to release a vehicle under those conditions - they would be Bankrupt inside a year and ALL the Directors would be in GaolWhy is your Company so different?

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

>Sorry to appear rude - but IF GM or Ford were to release a>vehicle under those conditions - they would be Bankrupt inside>a year and ALL the Directors would be in Gaol>Phil is NOT RELEASING A VEHICLE. He's trying to balance what code changes go into SP1. Try to see through the hate.>Why is your Company so different?It must be different...and its doing something right...it makes billions of dollars. Your fantasy land where Microsoft is crushed and all of its executives are lead away in chains is just that--a fantasy.

[Guest Ozzie]

>>Sorry to appear rude - but IF GM or Ford were to release a>>vehicle under those conditions - they would be Bankrupt>inside>>a year and ALL the Directors would be in Gaol>>>>Phil is NOT RELEASING A VEHICLE. He's trying to balance what>code changes go into SP1. Try to see through the hate.>>>Why is your Company so different?>>It must be different...and its doing something right...it>makes billions of dollars. Your fantasy land where Microsoft>is crushed and all of its executives are lead away in chains>is just that--a fantasy.>Ummmm! - hello - is anyone out therePerhaps you can explain the difference to me - PLEASECompany A produces a "product" - they actually SELL it to the consumer at whatever price the Consumer is willing to PAY - The consumer is THEN the LEGAL owner of that Product - and the consumer has to make whatever arrangements necessary to protect that Product that they (the consumer) feels appropriate - e.g. insurance etcCompany B also produces a "product" (in fact several products) - they appear to have manipulated the "system" whereby the consumer that has actually paid REAL money for that product - does NOT IN FACT OWN THAT PRODUCT - they basically RENT it at ever changing conditions and ever changing CHARGESTo Illustrate that point - I will point out all the deceptive advertising that accompanied FSX - to wit - the proven FALSE CLAIMS that it was "written for Vista" and that it would "perform better under Vista" - That has now been well and truly debunked from several of the members of staff involved in this fiasco that FSX WILL NOT perform better under Vista - This is aclear case of FALSE ADVERTISING (supported by the printed material on the "box")Can someone please explain to me the difference between Company A and Company B as far as LEGAL LIABILITIES for wrongfull Misrepresentation apply?I would very much like to see thatI would also VERY MUCH like to see the appropriate authorities take meaningful action

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

>I would also VERY MUCH like to see the appropriate authorities>take meaningful action I know...you have to go to your fantasy world for that.

[Guest Ozzie]

>It is a religion to some people. Actually it probably closer to an obsession with some people because religion is irrelevant - lets face it that little foible has created ALL the wars across HistoryBut I would like to think that even you can admit that THIS is one GIGANTIC stuffup

[Guest Ozzie]

>>I would also VERY MUCH like to see the appropriate>authorities>>take meaningful action >>I know...you have to go to your fantasy world for that.>Yes - I realise that after the last "case" where the power of MONEY prevailed