>FSX Deluxe/Standard is bad, period.>Then why does my FSX world look so clear and crisp below, while it gently fades into the background. And yet my FS9 world still has those coming and going blocky blurry squares and muddy textures. Is this "good".Now I must admit, that my payware addon of the Portland airport area looks mighty fine in FS9 and beats anything I have in FSX as of yet; but when flying in the outlying areas, the improved high resolution textures of FSX beat FS9 all to ####. The same crispness applies to the cockpit panels too! Is this ALL bad? Or does your statement just leave out the obvious?L.Adamson

>Cut them some slack!!? How much bloody slack do you want me>to cut them. When I posted regularly on here a few months ago>about this FSX turkey some said that it was a repeat of the>FS2002 to FS9 transition. Well, here we are three months on .>. . . very few payware addons, endless freeware addons for FS9>with the odd FSX addon in reply. A thriving FS9 forum. It's>not the same as last time. People are still with FS9 or are>going back to it. FSX has failed. It's in the FSX history>books already. Even Peter Wilding who launched a pro FSX>tirade initially has come around to the truth. FSX is for GA>flying with little else to suck FPs going on around. Not many>are drawn to that kind of set up. And there *is* a point to>these posts. Such issues need to be raised. I've walked away>from the hobby and you can bet your life that there will have>been many others who are doing the same too!>>>If you like FS, you and us all better hope FSX doesn't fail, because if it does, their won't be an FSXI! I'd be interested in knowing what system specs you have? Mine is a E6700 2GB mem ATI X1950 512MB card! I have my system running pretty good at the moment. True I get higher FPS in FS9 in fact much higher, but I also get scenery load pauses that we're all to familiar with. As long as I can get frames in areas like Seattle and Las Vegas at this detail like these below, I'm perfectly happy with FSX. What I get extra, is greater detail textures, better default weather graphics! (ASV6 though is still better) a smoother flight with no blurries or pauses. All in all while FS9 is good, FSX does give me much smoother graphics. I will say though, that even at the levels I'm getting now, I don't think it can currently handle (well) a more complex aircraft like a PMDG or LDS, but that's down the road anyway, and MS's SP1 will be released before then. So if they are able to come up with something to bring FSX close to the level of FS9 there is still a chance for it yet! I think the big problem is MS/Aces set the config settings, especially the autogen levels too high initially, coupled with the default.xml problem, they never fixed from fs9, that even at sparse settings systems had trouble handling it. So it got a reputation as a bad performer. As you know, first impressions are lasting impressions. This is especially a problem in the mainstream. At least here, we can find out what settings to modify to help. The other "gamers" who don't visit this site or ones like it, will just try to set using the sliders, and get frustrated. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166486.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166487.jpg

No I didn't say that it "historically it progressed from bad to better" -I said "started out lower and over time increased to a 4".However if I take your first 10 as the single benchmark I stand corrected-it looks like the popularity of fs9 has dropped over time from 4.2 to 4.0 while fsx deluxe is gaining popularity, rising from 2.6 to 3. (or if you want to average?! (2.6 to 2.7):( You din't used to work for Enron did you? :-lolWhy don't you post the polls that I posted at the time avsim did their poll? Both had thousands of respondents, and were taken at a similar time after release vs. 114 total reviews for fs9 on amazon. Don't you think that would be more statistcally significant? It is in the threads where you posted the same amazon figures the past...over and over.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>>FSX Deluxe/Standard is bad, period.>>>>Then why does my FSX world look so clear and crisp below,>while it gently fades into the background. And yet my FS9>world still has those coming and going blocky blurry squares>and muddy textures. Is this "good".>>Now I must admit, that my payware addon of the Portland>airport area looks mighty fine in FS9 and beats anything I>have in FSX as of yet; but when flying in the outlying areas,>the improved high resolution textures of FSX beat FS9 all to>####. The same crispness applies to the cockpit panels too! >>>Is this ALL bad? Or does your statement just leave out the>obvious?>>L.Adamson>>>That's why my framerates abruptly fade into the nether land when I try to see that "crisp" and "clear" world below of FSX. Yes, while FS9 continues to please my senses and computer, my computer in FSX is stripped of any value. Oh the beauty of the dog simulator of all time - FSX. Oh, and those desert lands between cities are also a great delight in FSX. But the frames do improve there, lol!

>No I didn't say that it "historically it progressed from bad>to better" -I said "started out lower and over time increased>to a 4".>>However if I take your first 10 as the single benchmark I>stand corrected-it looks like the popularity of fs9 has>dropped over time from 4.2 to 4.0 while fsx deluxe is gaining>popularity, rising from 2.6 to 3. (or if you want to average?!>(2.6 to 2.7):( You din't used to work for Enron did you?>:-lol>>Why don't you post the polls that I posted at the time avsim>did their poll? Both had thousands of respondents, and were>taken at a similar time after release vs. 114 total reviews>for fs9 on amazon. Don't you think that would be more>statistcally significant? >> It is in the threads where you posted the same amazon figures>the past...over and over.>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgNo actually the average for FSX is 2.7 between the 2 FSX versions where FS9 (yes there are two versions) is 4.0. The model of consistency it is whereas FSX remains a sub-par product. Now taking the first 10 from FSX Deluxe (didn't do the standard) it is 2.6. So if you think 2.6 to 2.7 is an improvement, well you're welcome to,lol!

Two versions of Fs9? Shoot I beta tested it-what did I miss?Been fun-gotta leave.....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Two versions of Fs9? Shoot I beta tested it-what did I miss?>Been fun-gotta leave.....>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgThe tin can version as well. Remember that one?

>already? No, you're not. Why don't you give the guys at Aces>just a little slack here. They have said there will be a>patch.They have said FS-X would perform good with current top hardware. That it scaled up for future technology. Now we are waiting for a patch to give us acceptable performance on current top hardware with little hope that this version ever will suppport future hardware (ie multi core).They need to deserve that slack first. Lets see what tey come up with. If its beter then the little hopes I have for it they will get plenty of slack from me.

Why not take advantage of our beloved X-Plane if you want high res textures? It also has the added bonus of a lot less desert effect.Also sounds like you have problems with your FS9 install. Maybe make a fresh install and give it the same attention that FS-X needed and update it with all the performance goodies that are out there. Seriously FS-9 looks and moves a lot beter then FS-X. The only thing you get with FS-X is the higher texture resolution (helpfull if you run it on a Cray). Sure the flight model might be improved. Who will notice that if the FPS goes up and down like a yoyo.

>Why not take advantage of our beloved X-Plane if you want>high res textures? It also has the added bonus of a lot less>desert effect.>>Also sounds like you have problems with your FS9 install.>Maybe make a fresh install and give it the same attention that>FS-X needed and update it with all the performance goodies>that are out there. Seriously FS-9 looks and moves a lot beter>then FS-X. The only thing you get with FS-X is the higher>texture resolution (helpfull if you run it on a Cray). Sure>the flight model might be improved. Who will notice that if>the FPS goes up and down like a yoyo.I have NO problems with the FS9 install, my FSX install, nor my X-Plane 8.50 with global scenery install. All are installed on whats been a dedicated flight sim computer as of the moment. All run very well, and the CPU is not top of the line.I just can't get myself to be a real X-Plane fan, as hard as I've tried! L.AdamsonAthlon 3800+/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/1600*1200*32 res.A few FSX & FS9 shots. No problem in the looks department here...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166497.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166498.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166499.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166500.jpg

>The best thing to do is to uninstall FSX, put the DVD back in>the box, put the box up on a shelf somewhere, and reinstall>FS2004. I did this about two months ago. I am not an FSX>hater. I will eventually move over to FSX probably towards>the end of this year I would imagine. By just accepting>this fact will make the frustration of waiting alot easier. >Just act as if the release date for FSX isn't until October of>this year, and if they get the DX10 patch out earlier, well>that would be a nice surprise.>>Lets face it, Microsoft has a silly theory on when they>release their flight simulator. It makes absolutely no sense.> They release a flight simulator to run on next-generation>equipment that isn't even out yet so the game has a long>life-span into the future. Sounds nice, but MS releases a new>Flight Simulator every three years. How stupid. There>practice of releasing for next-generation hardware would be>fine if they didn't release a new game but every 5 to 10 years>maybe. It is laughable.>>Anyway, you need to adjust your purchase of MS Flight>Simulator to compensate. When the new Flight Simulator comes>out, plan on moving over in about a year or a little longer. >All of the nice add-ons that really make up the Flight>Simulator won't be out until then at the earliest anyway. >Just stick with FS2004 for now.>>And don't, I repeat, DON'T, go out and upgrade your computer>to run FSX today. I doubt FSX will be ready for DX10 for>several more months, and hardware prices are going to fall by>the time you really need to upgrade. You will save loads of>money if you wait out upgrading until Microsoft gets>everything ironed out with Vista, and FSX. Now, you make some excellent points. I would agree, and would say to everyone, with all due respect, that we should indeed, from this point forward, not buy the new version of FS till maybe a year after it comes out. And quite frankly, nobody should buy a new computer just to run Flight Simulator. I got a new one rencently, but that was because I needed a new one (I was running a 6 year old Presario). I feel that if we, as the customer, band together and resist grabbing every new version as soon as it plops out, MS MIGHT change their ways. It's sort of like politics--it doesn't do any good to complain and moan amongst OURSELVES-we need to let THEM know we aren't happy.

Sometimes bad news may also not promising.The only markable new Announcement in the last 4 weeks was that a part of the Aces-team is now working on a new Train-simulator based on the FSX-Engine.Very frustrating also to mee and surely not a reason to by this Train-simulator if it will arrive on the marked. Too much risk for me to wait again for months on a Train-simulator SP1 w/o enjoying the initial product.Regards Heinz-Werner Arens (Germany)