Whatever happened to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism?

[fbass 1]

Alex,Here are my FSX settings:[GRAPHICS]TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024NUM_LIGHTS=8AIRCRAFT_SHADOWS=1AIRCRAFT_REFLECTIONS=1COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=1LANDING_LIGHTS=1AC_SELF_SHADOW=0EFFECTS_QUALITY=1GROUND_SHADOWS=0[sCENERY]LENSFLARE=1DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=4[DISPLAY]BLOOM_EFFECTS=0SKINNED_ANIMATIONS=1TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=100UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=26[PANELS]QUICKTIPS=1PANEL_OPACITY=100[TERRAIN]LOD_RADIUS=3.500000MESH_COMPLEXITY=60MESH_RESOLUTION=22TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=26AUTOGEN_DENSITY=2DETAIL_TEXTURE=1WATER_EFFECTS=4[WEATHER]CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=4DETAILED_CLOUDS=1CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=7THERMAL_VISUALS=0DownloadWindsAloft=0DisableTurbulence=0[TrafficManager]AirlineDensity=100GADensity=1FreewayDensity=51ShipsAndFerriesDensity=99LeisureBoatsDensity=40IFROnly=0AIRPORT_SCENERY_DENSITY=3What do I fly - several FSX default aircraft and the payware aircraft I mentioned in my post on system specs.Frank

[slashed2 53]

Ah, an east coaster, I live outside Philly. I'd have to give your suggestion a go, but most likely I'd have to kill the autogen so I agree that flying into a major airport in the Northeast no matter which aircraft you use is going to be a choppy experience. I've had that problem through many versions of FS.I have, however, flown into smaller cities out west like Denver and Las Vegas using the default 747, and Sunday I flew the Lear through moderate turbulence on descent and pegged a crappy landing outside of Anchorage Alaska, all within my threshold of acceptable FPS (around 18-20).I do hope the SP will alleviate the issues of performance for most users and erradicate some of the anger some have. It really is a great addition to the FS series in my opinion.Nice post though, and I'm crossing my fingers it works out.Ian.

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

>Perhaps you saw a post here in the last few days that was not,>and that was the straw that broke the camel's back?Hi Rhett,I see your point that the negativity seemed to be more widespread right around the time FSX was released. I agree with that. The difference, I think, is that over the past few days there has been a substantial change in the way the message has been delivered. And further, the stabs that people are taking at ACES have become much more sinister. For instance:1) I saw posts comparing MS and/or ACES to a really bad dude. 2) Posts containing SHOUTING claims that ACES are a bunch of liars and are not to be trusted. 3) There were posts threatening legal action.4) The all-too-common M$ label was thrown around quite heavily. 5) There were posts that basically bashed anything and everything to do with the hard work that ACES has put not not only into FSX, but also their new commitment to communicating with the community.6) All of this took place in response to an unprecedented event... ACES laid out the entire FS roadmap for the community to see. For the first time...ever.Instead of accepting and appreciating that ACES has committed to 2 FREE updates (Service Pack 1 and the DX10 update), as well as a major content update in the XPack, a large part of the "community" (or at least a vocal minority) decided that the best course of action was to personally insult the developers, demand reparations, threaten legal action, and basically make the community look much less intelligent than it actually is.Thats the straw right there.Nick

[Mace 1,902]

>>1) I saw posts comparing MS and/or ACES to a really bad dude. >I found that post and started laughing out loud, actually. But then I was in a weird mood.You know, I just read that a really bad dude thing, and I must say, there was an apology for **anyone who took offense**, NOT for actually *saying* it. Don't know if anyone picked that up...But at any rate, I digress...needless to say I agree with the moderators in that things should be tight around here.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

[bnic 0]

I have to agree with many people here that there really has been too many rude and crude responses throughout this forum over the last several months...I actually decided to stay away and just forego reading the great ideas and responses we all seemed to share before it got so out of hand...Personally I've been really happy with FSX running under Vista Ultimate 64, it just runs great on my system, with everything maxed except clouds which I just normally keep at 60 miles and simple... I lock at 30fps, and most of the time it runs between 24 to 28... If I'm running real weather with heavy clouds I drop to 20 when on approach to KSEA in Seattle flying a Project Opensky BOEING 767-300... AI Traffic is 50%, Autogen Dense, Global Maxed, Terrain Mesh 75 and the rest of the graphics maxed, 1280x1024x32... I did add all the major local highways and roadways with moving traffic using Google Earth+, and all road traffic is set to 25%...In addition to my Engineering work I also build Servers and Business Workstations for a living and the new workstation I built several months ago to do my Architectural work is not what you'd consider a slug, but this server still is only accessing one of it's ASUS 7800GTX graphics boards in SLI mode while running FSX, and only one Opteron Processor is being used in FSX, while the other 3 Processors are sitting idle... Sad I know. haReason I'm sharing this is that even though only one of two 7800GTX Graphics board, and only one of four Opteron Processors are running in FSX, they all run unbelievably fast in many other High-end SLIMulti-Processor enabled games, such as BF2 and GRAW...When I first started running FSX on XP Pro 32 the fps were down to what I read most everyone else is seeing 14 to 17 but that all ended when I went from 2gb to 4gb of Ram and had started running Vista Ultimate 64... Much has also been written on how much ram the old XP 32 can read versus the 64bit Vista OS...I'm presently running 8gb for my Design work, but the biggest speed difference came from the 2gb to 4gb ram upgrade when I was testing FSX performance... With heavy weather and the latest West Coast 10m mesh, Vista Ultimate 64 has never burped even once, runs rock solid, and is way faster than XP Pro ever dreamed of being, especially in startup, shutdown and program loading times...Sorry I drifted so far off the threads topic, I'll be more careful...As a builder I'd recommend a perfect bang for the buck FSX machine would have 1 or 2 Nvidia based 8800GTX Graphics, fastest Single or Core2 Processor you could afford, fast SATA3 drive, Newest Mobo with PCI-E2 SLI capable, 4gb fastest ram within budget, a high-end Mobo and Vista 64...Have a great week everyone...Server Workstation Vista Ultimate 64bit Tyan Thunder S2895 Mobo 600watt Pwr Supply 4: AMD Dual-Core 270 Opteron processors 2: Asus 7800 GTX 512mb SLI Mode Graphics (Nvidia v100.65) 8: GB SDRAM 4200 1: Western Digital 500gb SATA-2 drives (for Vista 64FSX)3: Western Digital 250gb SATA-2 drives (for applications and backups)21" Viewsonic Creative Audigy 7.1 Surround Sound

[Guest fundies]

I dont understand how fsx would benefit from 4gb of ram over 2gb. Running memstatus during fsx for me reveals a peak memory useage of 1.2gb.

[FTD1949 0]

>OP-ED: I don't know, from what I've been reading, there ARE>NOT a significant number of people satisfied with FSX. No, I>have no numbers or statistical data, but I read these and>other forums. Sure it takes time for hardware to catch up with>any newly released version of FS, but I can't remember when>I've read so many posts from people who have shelved it>altogether, vs working out the bugs and issues. The coincident>release of a new OS I'm sure complicates all of this too, not>to mention a new DirectX platform. >>But are the tweakers all aging baby-boomers who have just>generally tired of spending what little free time they have>rebuilding and reprogramming their rigs to get FSX to squeeze>out 15 FPS in a slow Cessna at an un-occupied bush strip in>northern Canada? Are the younger simmers just more patient and>able to deal with the same issues we have always dealt with in>the past, with each new release of FS? Or is there genuinely>something amiss here with this particular release? We'll see>what the release of SP1 has in store for us in due time it>seems.>>Food For Thought,and Peace....>>>http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gif>>Alex Christoff>N562Z>Baltimore, MDAlex,I think it's the other way around. I think the tweakers who have madeFSX work to their liking are the aging baby-boomers and the younger simmers who are from the instant gratification age are the ones complaining the most. At least that holds true for me. I continue to be amazed at the graphics in each new generation of FS and I'vehad everyone since FS3. I've come to expect that whatever requirementsare listed to make any game run are simply to be ignored.Craig

[Mace 1,902]

Don't rely on MemStatus as its accuracy is suspect. Look at task manager instead.Also, keep in mind that some data is being moved to the page file. Peak mem usage may show 1.2 but that leaves open the very real possibility that if one had 4gb, Task Manager would show 1.8 gb being used.In a 64-bit environment, I can see how 4gb would give a concrete advantage over 2 gb. I am not going to doubt what he says, especially in light of the way Windows uses memory.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 FxF3]

WOW did it get that bad with the name calling. I know in some threads it was getting pretty heated. I really thought this was over the bashing ACES and FSX. I still don't get why some people hate FSX. I love it. It looks great runs pretty good. I'm no pilot so not sure of the flight models but I do love the way the aircraft handle. I may be to easy to please who knows.:)

[Guest iwantmydc3]

Right on Nick! Only problem is, the characters won't stop being the characters. Every hobby has them.

[Guest iwantmydc3]

>Just because your happy to sit in silence over a flawed>product doesnt mean that other people should. Different>people express themselves in different ways. FSX should never>have been released in its present state, and people have a>right to be angry. Id say the only reason M$ are reacting to>the FSX problems are due to the large number of people blowing>off steam. So stop feeling sorry for ACES, they stuffed up,>and now theyre copping the flack.copping the flack? Maybe you can tell me what this means-"Fancy a look at the buthcers?" I've been trying to figure that one out for ages.