Every day we check for the update.

[Guest Vilk]

"i'm a pilot" never worked for me either... :-(:-xxrotflmao

[Geofa 108]

Actually fsx deluxe is a 3 star now on amazon.com (the standard is a 2.5)-and if you looked at fs9 you would see it initially started out lower and over time increased to a 4.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[victorwest2 0]

>"i'm a pilot" never worked for me either... :-(>>:-xxrotflmaoYou're obviously not asking right. :D

[Guest Vilk]

hmmm... you mean after "hi, i'm a pilot" i should still "say my intentions"?:-)

[Guest Len]

>Actually fsx deluxe is a 3 star now on amazon.com (the>standard is a 2.5)-and if you looked at fs9 you would see it>initially started out lower and over time increased to a 4.>>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg1. Prove it.2. How bad it is can be determined on the very vibrant FS9 section with the still huge FS9 addons being uploaded with the scarce FSX addons.

[Geofa 108]

Prove what?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Len]

>Prove what?>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgProve what you said about FS9.And actually, the standard version of FSX is still 2.5 stars. That works out to 2.7 stars between them.:-)

[Geofa 108]

I think I also stated the standard version was 2.5 stars. What you left out is the Deluxe version is 3 stars. We have been around the amazon.com ratings before, as well as polls done on fs2004 at a similar time after its' release. Don't really need to do it all again do we?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Len]

>I think I also stated the standard version was 2.5 stars.>What you left out is the Deluxe version is 3 stars.>> We have been around the amazon.com ratings before, as well as>polls done on fs2004 at a similar time after its' release.>Don't really need to do it all again do we?>>>>>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgFor revisionist history we do. So 2.7 stars. Poor.

[Geofa 108]

Ok Len. Will we see you again in a month?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Len]

>Ok Len. Will we see you again in a month?>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgIn fact averaging the first 10 historical reviews of FS9 we an average of: 4.2 stars.Averaging the first 10 reviews of FSX Deluxe we have: 2.6 stars.

[Geofa 108]

Really Len-w'eve been here before.I could as easily say fsx deluxe started at 2 stars and is now at 3.We know you don't like fsx. The message is loud and clear.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Len]

>Really Len-w'eve been here before.>>I could as easily say fsx deluxe started at 2 stars and is now>at 3.>>We know you don't like fsx. The message is loud and clear.>>>>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgNo you said historically it progressed from bad to better - FS9. Not the case from Amazon.FSX Deluxe/Standard is bad, period.Yes, maybe with the update it will improve. But who knows.

[LAdamson 240]

>For revisionist history we do. So 2.7 stars. Poor.>For "revisionist" history's sake, FS98 "sucked" as compared to Pro-Pilot. Pro-Pilot was first with topography data-bases & flight models that had meaning.FS2000 was a huge improvement with elevation topography that allowed for far more airports, highly improved flight models, and 3D looking clouds since Pro-Pilot had beat MS to that too.Now, todays "revisionist's" who compare FSX to FS2000, pretend as though FS2000 was a setback for MSFS, while in reality FS98 was getting too far behind the times and other simulators. FS2000 had it's teething problems, just as FSX, but in reality, was a real advancement for it's time. And where FS2000 changed MSFS from a very flat table top world to a world with elevation topography, FSX has once again changed this world from a map with loose ends, to a cirucular globe. Personally, I'd hope that the world stays round, as is the REAL one, and that we're not stuck with the lower resolution textures of those in FS9. To go back to the old ways, just for the sake of higher frame rates at high density airports, would be like going back to FS98 with it's table top world and "cinder block" clouds.L.Adamson

[Guest Stoopy]

>Yes Adamson, you and who else. Who else keeps going on about>the improved flight model. Chance would be a fine thing. . .>at the frame rates most are getting? There used to be some>Austarlian chap who kept spouting on about how good FSX was>but now he's disappeared....(etc)I'll step up...count me in please please please!!!!!!Been flying the FS series since version 3 (well, that was a copy so maybe I should say "4" since that one, I did buy).Anyhoo heck yeah I've noticed a difference and after 20-some years of playing with every MS flight sim version and loads of time especially doing aerobatics and formation flight work (not just pushing Flight Director and Autopilot buttons) I DEFINITELY feel the difference!!!!Prob'ly what yer seeing is that lotsa folks, and I don't blame 'em, are "disappearing" from boards and such discussions because they're tiresome and a dime a dozen anymore. Another day, another FPS or Patch or Vista post...(yawn).....We're having way much more fun flying - or at least having positive and helpful discussions about actually flying - than chewing the same tired ol' fat. Bleeaahhhh....