AVSIM Is Very Supressive When People Complain About FSX

[Geofa 108]

Very well spoken post-I'll buy you a beer any time!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

Well, when you try SP2 in a few weeks, please let us know how you come out.;-)

[boshar 6]

>I fail to see how my response would cause the OP

[Orlaam 306]

The OP's post is so true in many ways. Whenever a single person complains about poor performance, you get a slew of useless posts by users who type nothing but the same ole "runs great on my machine". Fine, your computer is working the way you want it too, now move along or contribute to a possible solution. Granted a couple will post that it works fine for them and offer suggestions, so that's understandable, but the attitude about any bad comments is dealt with such hostility in many cases. It's almost an elitist "sucks to be you" attitude, or at the very least accusatory drivel berating the users inability to make it run right. Personally, I just think some people have a hard time dealing with the idea that anyone have their own opinion, no matter how negative it may seem. I know I irritate people with my opinions, but I'm just being honest and I could care less about those who dislike my comments. You will always know where I stand, good or bad. I have reversed much of my initial criticisms of FSX for a myriad of reasons, but it doesn't mean I like the idea that certain problems still exist, or moreover, that ATC and AI were neglected this time. I have commended ACES on their wonderful support with this version, so that is my positive opinion with FSX for now.

[Guest Thad]

Wow! Very well spoken indeed, Lee.I vote we archive that post and display it as a sticky 3 months before and 12 months after every FS release. It could serve as a reminder, to all of us, to keep some perspective with respect to this hobby we're so passionate about.-Thad

[boshar 6]

>Sorry for the rant. I just think that if people back off a>bit, and understand that we are dealing with a highly complex,>constantly-evolving product that will inevitably have a few>hiccups, then we'll all get along better and probably have>fewer ulcers along the way. So what would you like the nay sayers to do. Just be quiet about the ulcers and maybe nextime they wil be the ones who are lucky with their machine. Would your views even be the same if you wheren't that lucky with your older computer first.The negative rants and this kind of glowing 'its great posts' have one thing in common they are off the scale and make caricature of the typical common experience you are likely to have with the product. Both types of comments are counterproductive. But only one type gets cencored. The negative comments get locked because they in nature are ussualy supported by negative remarks and colorfull language to support the statement. Nobody ever cencored a comment because it contained superlatives and (maybe unwarented) praise to support its message and those posts can do just as much damage.So just maybe naysayers should post comments like.- It is an unique experience with framerates like I never ever experienced in a flightsim...- Never before I've seen a product delivering such a different experience from the pre release hype...- SP1 even brings back all those blurry things we know an loved in FS9!- With the 20% aveage FPS gain in SP2 I now gain a full 2 FPS! (do the math he now gets 12 fps instead of 10) I know its all badly exagerated but pro / con posts basicly are exagerations I think its bad we only let the positive exageration live and lock the negative ones. It skews the overal view.

[maxter 0]

>>hmmm Geofa, you out to go back to the early days of hanging>>around Flightsim.com forum and check out the verbal fights>you>>and I and a few others would get into. Makes what your>talking>>about look like a picnic. Just plain nasty. ;)>>>>The Pro-Pilot days...>>:-lol >>Ahhhh yes, I remember them well... Not to forget about the Fly/FlyII days as well :-)Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

[maxter 0]

>So what would you like the nay sayers to do. Just be quiet>about the ulcers and maybe nextime they wil be the ones who>are lucky with their machine. I'd suggest that if anyone get's ulcers over a $100 piece of software (in Oz that is), than frame rates and blurries are the least of his/her worries :-)Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

[maxter 0]

>The OP's post is so true in many ways. Whenever a single>person complains about poor performance, you get a slew of>useless posts by users who type nothing but the same ole "runs>great on my machine". If I were to say that "The sim works fine on my PC" and post the specs of my machine, IMHO that is of much greater value than someone who posts Ad nauseam about their (possibly underpowered) machine not being able to run FSX at satisfactory levels.Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaIntel Core 2 Duo E6700ASUS P5N32-E SLI Deluxe Motherboard4GB Corsair VS DDR2 667Mhz RAMInno3D 8800 GTX 768MB GDDR3 590MHz VideoASUS MW221u 21" Wide Screen LCD2 x 320Gb WD SATA DrivesCreative X-Fi Platinum Sound Lian Li PC-B20B Aluminium Black CaseMS Vista Ultimate OEMCH FlightSim Yoke USBCH Pro Pedals USBCH Throttle Quadrant USBTrackIR 4 Pro and Track ClipMSFS FSX Deluxe Edition Full install at 1400x960x32Check out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.html

[boshar 6]

>>So what would you like the nay sayers to do. Just be>quiet>>about the ulcers and maybe nextime they wil be the ones who>>are lucky with their machine. >>I'd suggest that if anyone get's ulcers over a $100 piece of>software (in Oz that is), than frame rates and blurries are>the least of his/her worries :-)>>Chris Porter>:-outta>>Perth>Western Australia>If you realy do get ulcers from it (and you can prove it) its time to sue for compensation anyway.The problem with software is that its hard to measure or quantify if it lives op to the advertised feautures. Its even hard to distinguish between pure marketing claims (like the magic screenshots) and the real feature set.In a serious hobby like FS none of this is funny and a $100 piece of software on $2000 hot new hardware especially bought for the 'total experience'* that performs less then expected might even give you a real ulcer or at least a serious depression if you are that serious into the hobby. Some people are a little naive and belief all the marketing claim be it in the FS core sofware or in a new add-on. The best thing we can do is not only discuss the pro's but also give serious attention to the con's without the happy go lucky 'I don't have a problem' or 'It must be on your machine' Bury your head in the sand attitude we see al to often.Now go and joke on this because we aren't trying to have a serious discussion anyway...---* none of the hardware bought by me and no I'm not that serious about this hobby

[boshar 6]

>If I were to say that "The sim works fine on my PC" and post>the specs of my machine, IMHO that is of much greater value>than someone who posts Ad nauseam about their (possibly>underpowered) machine not being able to run FSX at>satisfactory levels.Your comment shows how you would like readers to react to it. You seem convinced that underpowered machines are the cause of the problem. With that attitude we would not have had an SP-1 or the extra fixes in SP-2. We would have had a simple DX10 patch without bugfixes and features.Instead we got a patch that among other things specificaly targeted FPS which promised a ~20% FPS increase. So ACES determinded that plain FS-X had a FPS problem and worked on fixing this. On your machine that problem likely never even registered because you are far above even the ACES recommended spec.Posting Ad nauseam about your ubermachine not having any problem does not help in this this discussion. It might help as a buying tip in the hardware forum (as in: This hardware does run FS-X without any problem). Your post is only a sollution for those people who are willing and able to buy another machine those that have machines within the ACES recommended specs have a valid complaint if they keep on having problems even with all the sliders to the left.

[Geofa 108]

I fail to see how locking posts when a poster uses rudeness, or is clearly inciting/encouraging a flame war, insults fellow simmers, or when a flame war erupts on its own, is biased moderating.All locked posts are still here to read in all their glory-look them up......there is no censuring-only a stopping of poor behavior.I also have my opinions which I express as others do but...I haven't locked a thread (and I haven't seen Brian do so either) because it expressed a negative opinion.Rudeness, insults, labels are another story. As mentioned above-I started out on another site years ago and came here because that is the policy here. I think it is a good one.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[slashed2 53]

<>And there is the point, every nuance of FSX good and bad has been discussed over and over. FSX isn't perfect, FS9 wasn't perfect, FS8 etc.... we all know the pros and cons.The problem is some of these discussions spiral down into what Geof calls "internet rage" and that is what the moderators are trying to prevent.There are also the whole bashing posts which have no other purpose than to incite a response from someone........You know, I could go on and on but this has been discussed over and over for a year and it gets tiresome typing the same stuff over and over. Short and sweet for both sides of the coin, constructive criticism based on fact is good and productive for the community. Intentional inciteful posts will most likely be locked.

[Guest tmholopa]

perhaps you can run FSX maxed with complex addons with 5 Ghz 8-core nehalem and 10800GTX after 1,5 years, dont know.u need the best hardware available and it isnt even enough.thats how it works.there is 5-6 times more autogen in FSX than in FS9, you need power to run that. maybe bloom and 2.x water dont cause so big performance loss after sp2 is installed, we will see. thats the best we can get. there is not going to be more patches. we have to comply with the fact. in FS11 we probably can run the sim decent out of the box with current (future) machines, there is not going to be any old code left, the engine is going to be builded from the start. thats a good thing, imho regards tero

[fbass 1]

There are a couple of things in this thread that are missing from the discussion - the original design and what the product is today.First, FSX was designed to push the envelope from both a hardware and software perspective. When the software was first released, these two factors became obvious to everyone except those living in a cave. There were hundreds of posts here about performance issues. So, those that read the tea leaves went ahead and upgraded their hardware. These are the people who post comments here that both FSX and Vista are providing satisfactory performance. I am one of those so I can vouch for the improvements. In my opinion, those that continue to complain about FSX did not (or could not) upgrade their systems. I don't mean to be blunt, but it is not Microsoft or ACES's fault that FSX runs in a degraded mode on what I would call marginal or below spec systems. You folks knew from the beginning that your systems would not run the software - unless of course you didn't read any of the posts in the AVSIM forums. Note: Yes, I know the specs for minimum system requirements on the box are somewhat misleading - hey, that's marketing for you.Second, the next set of performance issues were associated with multi-core CPU driven systems. Since the original design addressed advanced technology, the developer had to specifically improve this part of the software design - it was consistent with the stated goals. Along the way, several tweaks were incorportated into FSX that addressed single-core systems. While these additions might not have been as extensive as the multi-core design issues, at least ACES was trying to help as many folks as possible. So, we arrive at SP1.Third, moving from SP1 to Acceleration required further design solutions because within this addon package there were elements of DX10 and this required a number of modifications to much of the display code. Acceleration also contains fixes from SP1. This was also something everyone knew was coming - from the git-go. Someone in this thread mentioned the FS9 track included in the final release. While I don't pretend to know the details on this issue, I believe ACES was doing a whole lot of you a favor (including many developers) by addressing some backward compatibility issues with both FSX and DX10. I can't go into the details because of the NDA but I can tell you it was an ugly picture before ACES included some fixes associated with FS9 transition. Note: If this is not a fair description of the problems then I appologize.Bottom line - every one of you knew the status of the software design and the upgrades that were necessary in order to run FSX - even under XP. So, none of this is a surprise. Complaining about something you knew a very long time ago does not make any sense. Deriding people who made the necessary upgrades and posted "glowing" reviews of performance does not make sense either.As for the anger and tone of posts - well that's not my issue and I will leave that to others to discuss. It has been my experience that if you state your position in a calm manner without resorting to personal attacks you almost always get a positive response - the old honey attracting flies routine. It is hard to argue with mature thought processes and verbal responses.fb