http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchHistory repeats itself ;-)http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

I dont care what you say, Thats FUNNY! :D :-lol *:-*

Good ones Andre.. it sure does. :)

Excellent! :--)))))))))Very interesting to see that when FS9 was at alpha stage a lot of guys said "it will be a patch for FS2002".For sure, we won't hear that kind of stories anymore before FS11 release with its new architecture. That's at least a good point.And I really believe that in less then a year FSX will become the new "FS9", the "creme de la creme".Yes, history repeats itself :-)

It certainly does, same arguments, discussions etc..... Interesting to see some of the predictions and requests for FS-X as someone called it. Looks like the devs were listening to a degree.

LOL..this is so surreal. "Now I will be flying FS2002. It looks better than FS9.I have a 2.1GHz GF3 system with 512 ram and by the time I scale down FS9 to run smooth all the eye candy is gone."Just substitute versions.

OMGLOLWTHROFL! No way, you can't compare FS9 - FSX to FS8 - FS9, it's a whole 'nother beast. It's just not the same argument (insert justification here) OMG OMG OMG.So yeah, I've been saying this for a while, but the people who hate FSX refuse to agree. I've searched through these threads as well before this post and actually found a few folks who refused to move to FS9, these are now the same folks who now swear by FS9 and refuse to use FSX, no name dropping though :)I hear ya Andre!Jeff

Just one maybe two things.Compare the volume of this type of posts.... One year after release of fs9 most of the negative post had already vanished.Compare the new postings in the library. One year after release FS9 was the section in which most of the new content was posted.Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5 FS-X posts against ~40 FS9 postsFS-X is very slow in replacing FS-9. My guess is that this is caused by the drawn out release (RTM, SP1, Acceleration, SP2) and the fact that it relies on top of the line hardware more then ever.But if you want to simplify things by saying that both era's had those nasty 'the glass is half empty types' be my guest.

o-ver-sim-pli-fy (ō'vər-sĭm'plə-fī')v. o-ver-sim-pli-fied, o-ver-sim-pli-fy-ing, o-ver-sim-pli-fiesv. tr.To simplify to the point of causing misrepresentation, misconception, or error.v. intr.To cause distortion or error by extreme simplification of a subject.

Actually most of the negative posts had vanished here-we didn't have to "moderate" this forum for most of the summer.Problem is the new releases of patches/accel tend to bring the same issues up-and we just saw that with sp2. I think you will see things quiet down quite a bit.As for fsx very slow replacing fs9-what statistics do you have to show this? The data I have seen based on forum hits, and sales figures would seem to indicate otherwise. It does appear that the serious add on jet drivers are in the slow to replace group-understandably-but I don't think that is the base of the series.I agree fsx needs top of the line hardware-but I have always found that to be the case-difference is I just upgraded at 1/3 of the cost I used to have to.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Ah, here we go again. The same cast of characters, after all that's been said in this particular forum over the past few days...All is well.Later,PatAMD Opteron DC 185 @ 3GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 2GB DDR, 7800GS-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, WinXP-sp2

>Ah, here we go again. The same cast of characters, after all>that's been said in this particular forum over the past few>days...>>All is well.>>Later,>Pat>Just have fun in whatever sim only when you have gone to a few releases you see things a bit different...We struggled with FPS and FS2004 in the beginning and some still do...and FS2002 or from FS4 to 5 or FS98...It just reminded me those old topics how it was in those days...When you call that simplifying fine by me I call it realistic ;-)http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

I agree with the trip-wires for anger. Two comments:1. Microsoft created an open environment and now we find that they cannot test each permutation of that environment. We are therefore left with some disturbing original and updated programs.2. The FSX version raised the expense bar to the point that no current computer, of reasonable price, can run the program with all settings at their maximum. This inserts yet another "disturbance factor". Perhaps a more conservative design would have caused less issues. I am quite satisfied with my modest setup's FSX performance. It is a matter of realizing that chasing the Holy Grail (sliders right) is useless and very expensive. SP2 provided even better performance and for that I am grateful. Unfortunately I am a victim of the "menus in full screen" problem which crashes FSX. In the past we had the same uproar. The same will hold true for the next patch and new program. It is not the skill of Microsoft employees, or mis-management, it is an open system that is a quagmire of endless variations of software, settings, and owner skills. Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

>o-ver-sim-pli-fy >(ō'vər-sĭm'plə-fī')>v. o-ver-sim-pli-fied, o-ver-sim-pli-fy-ing,>o-ver-sim-pli-fies>>v. tr.>To simplify to the point of causing misrepresentation,>misconception, or error.>>v. intr.>To cause distortion or error by extreme simplification of a>subject.>>Main Entry: what Pronunciation: ˈhw

Thanks Andre, but I've been at this thing since the early 80s and this version has been one of the most frustrating in terms of performance (HW lagging SW by several years at best due to bloatware and MS misreading the processor roadmap?). So, I wouldn't see things differenty as you put it.Here's the deal: flying GAs low and slow over stock air fields surrounded by desert sandunes is pretty good with today's HW. Only when you combine a PMDG744 type addon, FS9-equivalent AI traffic, autogen, weather, and a detailed airport (like a FlyTampa XXXX) would you appreicate how this version falls short for some of us in this community. Sorry, it's not as simple and amusing as what happend after FS9 came out or when FS5.0/5.1 came out. As for FS9 whining when it came out, I think lot of people expected performance improvements from FS8 by optimizing the engine so that it would be less processor bound and better utilize the gfx adaptors that can efficiently push and transform polygons. To be fair, I would say the FS10 water effects are most excellent.Later,PatAMD Opteron DC 185 @ 3GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 2GB DDR, 7800GS-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, WinXP-sp2