Phil,I know your a logical person -- and I know you know Vista sales are well below expectations. FSX DX10 isn't going to make much of a difference -- please go to those that provide you with the gold and make them understand the reality. Call it DX9d if you like, but get it on WinXP if you want to survive this. Please Phil. And please no comments on how difficult it would be to do that -- you and I know the reality.No need to respond to this, but please just talk to those higher up in the food chain.Robin.

"Help us, Phil Taylor. You're our only hope...."http://www.textually.org/textually/archive...jection-214.jpgSorry, couldn't resist :-)

roflz!great movie!

Phil Taylor has alrwady dealt with this in the following thread and on his blog:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchWhy are you raising this again?

I guess Phil can't help you. You have to contact Bill directly... Trust me !

I applaud the poster keeping the issue of DX10 at the forefront. To meekly spend significant money on Vista, in addition to that already spent to make FSX run on a PC, is becoming a bit of a sore-point. The only practical argument against an XP "hack" is support from microsoft. The reality is that the majority of people here at AVSIM rely on the self-help forums. Microsoft OS policies may have run their course. The sales of Vista seem to illustrate that the ever increasing OS costs, and lack of significant advantages, are diluting the marketplace. They made XP "too good". Corporate customers need to go to Vista to maintain support for their suite of Microsoft products. However, with the AVSIM forums FSX customers are not so constrained.One additional note is that FSX is a flight simulator. Is the cost of buying Vista, and new hardware, worth it given that none of that outlay will improve the actual simulation of flight?Regards,Dick BoleyXP!!

I see the point and agree but disagree from my perspective. Vista cost me 10 dollars when I bought a new system in November and I'm actually enjoying the new OS. I'm in a 2 to 3 year cycle with pc's and was fortunate that my old pc was on the cliffs edge when FSX and Vista were out. Many average PC owners will follow the same route I believe as their pc's slowly near the end of their viable usability.But, for those on the cutting edge who constantly upgrade and get the latest and greatest including hardcore gamers and simmers then it's a valid argument. XP is a good OS (after several years of patches and updates) and improved upon with Vista and as more and more gaming companies write optimized code to take advantage of DX10 capabilities then the hardcore gamer will most likely be compelled to update.The only problem with the argument is that nothing has really changed. Hardcore gamers and simmers have always had to pay the price for new systems and most likely always will. Add to the mix that MS is not a charity but a business like many other companies, they are forced to release new products to promote their business and keep the revenue stream alive. Capatalism at it's best, and a fact of life for companies in a free market society. Love it or hate it, it's the way things are.Please note this is how I see it, it may be not be correct but it is my perspective.Ian. Ian.

What is the impetus to have DX10 in the first place? More eye candy?You sound so desperate ....like without DX10 it is make or break FSX. To begin with..are you even abl to move all the eye candy sliders to the right yet? The water to 2.Max and Bloom and what not?

Here is my opinion,I am starting to tone down my own expectations about DX10 for FSX. I really don't think it is going to be the big "WOW" factor that many of us are expecting. I don't think DX10 is going to give us that "WOW" factor until FS11.I am very seriously considering sticking with XP when I do my new upgrade build later this year. There is still too many performance/driver related issues with Vista. For this to be the case nearly a full year after Vista's release is just plain scary. What an opportunity other OS developers and web-based OS developers have when competing against Vista.

>Phil,>>I know your a logical person -- and I know you know Vista>sales are well below expectations. FSX DX10 isn't going to>make much of a difference -- please go to those that provide>you with the gold and make them understand the reality. Call>it DX9d if you like, but get it on WinXP if you want to>survive this. Please Phil. And please no comments on how>difficult it would be to do that -- you and I know the>reality.And why'd you even want to use DX10 and get even less FPS? Stick with DX9 and XP! :(Marco

This has been pretty clearly covered more than once, and the link to the blog post has been posted here already.Phil has stated that as far as he knows, it's not going to happen, for the reasons listed on his blog.No number of posts on this forum will change that. I would certainly think that it's time to move on to the "acceptance" phase of things.

I agree with Manny. What is the point? Will DX10 balance the quality versus performance issue?FSX reminds me of a department I managed years ago. Corporate left my department alone (we were very profitable) for years until one day a bright executive realized we were not in full step with corporate. Everything changed from that point. So.... back to FSX.Maybe this is how it went? The security department recognized that FSX gauge dlls and XML thingy's could compromise their new operating system Vista. So gauge licenses were created. No big deal. The revenue department recognize the opportunity to generate revenue from gauge licenses and created vendor fees. No big deal. The Genuine copy department realized that FSX could be copied so they created a machine code level protection scheme that reduced casual pirating. No big deal. The ACES graphics artist realized the new palette would allow very hi-res textures and lots of polygons and cows and birds and cars and lions and tigers and bears, oh no. They created major cities. No big deal. FSX was created with VISTA in mind; Vista was delayed beyond the release of FSX. No big deal.When you combine all the "no big deals" you end up with a unacceptable licensing issue for some (i.e. reformatting to install), poor performance out of the box and a simulator that 90% of simmers can use 20% of the new features. Just guessing; I was not invited to the project meetings. :)Bob... :)