Geofa:Why do you say that? Aces has stated that they are done with FSX. Vista is (so far) an unmitigated disaster; PC Magazine has an article on the Vista 'death watch' in the latest issue. It doesn't seem that there are any fixes on the horizon for Vista or FSXBrian

I get fixes for Vista almost weekly thru the automatic update-just like xp.It is very stable now and doesn't give me any trouble.I like it very much. Unmitigated disaster? Sounds rather dramatic doesn't it-I am sure words like that sell magazine copies..The problems with fsx right now (dx 10) are the drivers-which are being worked on.So that is why I say that.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Please can enough with the a really excited user comments. Can we just grieve in peace?

You do a great job of it...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>>FS9 'full open' with all the add-on's that are ALSO running concurrent with it, and still producing clean 30 FPS on my present system.<

>Please can enough with the a really excited user comments. Can we just>grieve in peace? a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...An irritating and seemingly childish term....L.AdamsonFANBOY...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...a really excited user...

>The impression I get while reading these forums is that there>are a significant number of individuals who blithely feel the>need to mump and grump without first reflecting on the>complexities of this issue. I doubt there is a software>developer out there who doesn't wish that he or she had more>time to get it right and finish the product to their>satisfaction while, at the same time, meeting the consumer>needs of the day. Instead, frequently they are found facing>those financial realities which dictate otherwise.Should a consumer be concerned with the complexities involved for the developer? Or should he merely be concerned that he gets what he expects out of the product?I've seen many forums' complaints come down to this: PC software is one of the very few products that is normally brought to the marketplace in an incomplete or broken state with the expectations of it being finished or fixed afterward through patches. That's simply the way it is in the software business. Many consumers are still not agreeable to this way of business. (Nor should they be, IMO) And that generates hostility. Especially when the developer drops support for the product in a less than "complete" state.On the other hand, many consumers have an unrealistic set of expectations for PC flight sims. "Unrealistic" being a word that can have as many definitions as simmers.

>Please can enough with the a really excited user comments. Can we just>grieve in peace? I don't want to interfere with the grieving process an'all but I just wanted to pop in and say that I predicted a couple days ago in post #10 in this thread that the word "a really excited user" would show up...so while you'uns is grievin' can I please have a cookie for being right? :9

>>I look at FS9 as it is on my system and certainly don't>personally see anything of an inferior nature as compared to>FSX.>The difference in higher resolution textures, is like night and day. But that also helps slow FSX down a bit...This effect is very noticeable when flying over mountain/city scape combinations; as I do often. The higher resolution combined with a glossier photo-look, really adds to the perception of depth, and looks much more 3D. This phenomenon has been noted in several articles; and I'm certainly not the first to notice. :7 So seriously; as I do like looking over my virtual cockpits wing view to the scenery below, it's usually the "fresher" look of FSX that I prefer. A notable exception is FlightScenery Portland for FS9. If ALL of FS9 looked that that, I would have a true change of heart. But it does not, and is very noticeable when out of FlightScenery's limited boundaries.L.Adamson

With all due respect Jeff, you are entirely right about the hardware upgrades constantly following MSFS releases, and as a matter of fact, FS9 STILL couldn't stretch all of it's legs even on my last 3.2Ghz P4 system and now is only really running 100% flat-out and smooth on this latest Core2Duo E6750 hotrod. Right on, perfectly true. But - it simply departs from reality when you attempt to introduce the "scheme of things" conspiracy theory aspect. Those of us who have been doing flight and combat flight sims for years and years know full well that the new generation of software will always exceed present system specs, and a hardware upgrade is necessary. It's just a given that you'll be behind the times when the latest and greatest comes out. And even the latest and greatest hardware may not be enough since software designers LOVE to pile on the features and plan for the hardware to address it in the future. Microsoft isn't the only sim publisher in the last 20 years to have driven that path...Erich

I remember 25 years ago running Sublogic's Flight Simulator II on an Atari 800XL. It was jerking like mad everytime I tried to land on the blocky outline of the runway. The hard drive would go crazy. And the screen would change only every 1-3 seconds. Then crash! with the cracks.The technology just wasn't on par with the software. And looks like today it's still stretching it. Of course today's Flight Simulator X and even fs9 are quantum leaps beyond those pioneering Bruce Artwick ventures. FSX aimed very high imo. I did try acceleration and I have vista and a DX10 card. I felt like I was really floating up there in the Cessna! With PMDG's 747X out now with bugs but decently flying(im more of a systems jetliner flyer than a performance bush flyer) I'm currently satisfied with FSX. Yes, it should have been here a half year ago or earlier. FSX maybe came out too early within a year. while PMDG 747x underwent revision and testing for 14 months. Overall I'm glad they aimed higher. I hope they continue to fix FSX and delay FSXI for as long as possible.

Mike,> Pressures on time are inevitable in any competitive economy...I just want to reflect on this statement. You are right if you do have competition. But looking at the leisure flight simulator market I for one do not see a lot of that.My 2 soaring Canadian cents,

Hi Mats,"Pressures on time are inevitable in any competitive economy..."I was thinking more along the lines of getting the product out there ASAP in order to alleviate the sleepless nights experienced by those much maligned dyspeptic accountants. ;)Mike

Ah! Got ya! I focused more on the word 'competitive' in your statement. Yeah you might be right there. Then again these maligned dyspeptic people should be aware that there is no competitition and relax a bit and have a bite to eat, and a good night's sleep... ;-)Cheers,

Hi Jeff,Yeah..I know...that's been the pattern, upgrade and 'buy' the performance that is missing.I was schmoozing around the Dell site yesterday and for fun put together a pretty nice system for around $5,000.00.But..I think that I need to see a WHOPPING technological upscale for that kind of dough, and I'd only see about 15 FPS more than what my present system ran FSX on as seen by other folks with their high-powered quad and duo systems of today.Let's see:$5,000.00 divided by 15 equals: $333.33 the cost of each gained frame per second. A little too costly for my financial pallet. ;)I'll wait until the cost-per-frame rate makes good financial sense. Probably in two or three more years.Cheers,Mitch'er