Interesting FSX performance comparison.

[Mace 1,909]

>Hi,>>I don't even think Fs needs to try to attract people who don't>like flightsimming. I agree. But you know, they weren't trying to attract people that *don't like* flight simming. That's not what Microsoft said. Rather, they were trying to attract people that are sort-of-kind-of-a-little interested in flight simming...and draw THOSE people in. Fence-sitters.> I mean John Madden doesn't ever dumb it>down lol, heheh. I know they are complex, but you can't really "dumb-down" a sports game, any more than it's already dumbed down, anyway. :) If they really simulated football it would be too intricate to play and have fun.>always great (even if I don't understand it). Personally I>think they should just make the best sim that they (the>developers) want to fly and not bother thinking if we like it>or not.>>That's my opinion anyway!(?)>My opinion too! But then MS is driven by sales figures. So we have to take the good with the bad.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Guest robains]

Doubt that will happen in 18 months, heck it takes them that long just get an SP1 out for their development tools (which are in bad shape, you think FSX is Beta, just try VS 2005 someday).Anyway, I think most agree and know their is something wrong on the performance side of FSX -- I think it's current state of performance will hurt the 3rd party vendors more than anything.Rob.