I'm angry! I really am...and need to get it off my chest....

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I think that **FSX+Plus**--- (my personal label, now to mean FSX with only two aftermarket programs (GEXnhanced, UTX (both USA and Canada)is the sim, and 'look' of the visual world--that I have ALWAYS wanted from the get go of around 1984 when I got my first Atari 800, then Commodore, etc. You have, or most of you have been there, too. I mean the climb-out through the differing systems to the present.I'm angry. I actually feel at this moment, quite angry! I am in a fantastic visual flight just south of San Diego at around 3,500 feet AGL. I have the scenario set as a beautiful day (weather) for visual flight rules. So...in using the words 'fantastic flight', and 'having waited for'...where does the word 'angry' fit into the landscape?!?!?Here it is...you may agree, you may also vehmently disagree when adding to this post, via thread.Fellow sim'ers, Like most of you, with all the hype leading up to and surrounding the release of FSX--I was having a drool-fest with the teaser shots from Microsoft and their ACES design team. This looked to be (in my opinion of the teaser screen shots) the Big Daddy, the great Kahuna of flight sims, by pulling all the best of the past, and then adding onto that base the latest in programming, etc.I couldn't wait until the product went RTM.It was released! I drove like a mad fool to each store that was supposed to have them in stock. I couldn't find a copy of FSX Pro for almost ten days after the shipping date.Got one! Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! Went home. Installed........and was so disheartened by the performance, the look, oh boy...I'm in a cartoon! The world is one block of patch and desert. Oh boy...this is what I was waiting for and at 3-5 FPS!!! NOT!I was so let down at initial release---and NO other sim at release RTM, ever had left me feeling so deflated. This was the big hype? Since having flown FSX-Plus, I see now that FSX as a flight simulator should NEVER have been released as it came to us. NEVER! It was crippled and down on its knees before the wrap came off. **It was not the product's fault**. Not as a generality of thought. It was not polished, and was unfinished in my opinion. FSX-Plus tells me that, and shows me that with every minute of use.Today, the sim brings me such ***pleasure***, in its accurate and wonderful depiction of flight---and so importantly---of what is below the wing. I can't believe how much, simple road traffic brings to the table in making the world you are immersed in---to bring on believability of mind-set.If we consider our minds to be liken to a CPU, with 'cycles of processing', to have your mind see the life-like animation below you, as you would see road traffic on any climb-out, or while descending in a commercial jet over inhabited land-mass---it would only stand to reason, that your mind would 'align' itself to the viewed scene, collaborate that it is 'normal' and hence your acceptance that YOU ARE INDEED FLYING OVER REAL TERRAIN---and is then delegated to the subliminal sub-set of the active mind. You can now focus your attention to enjoyment, and learning of flight and control,--- rather than much mind-set staying devoted to 'selling yourself' that you are in the real world, and at the control of a 'real' aircraft.Please consider what I am putting forth. The more 'real' it seems in a simulation, the less time you are ACTIVELY thinking about 'how real it looks', or that you 'would wish it to look real', No,... the mind sees the highways, highways in real life should be there, with interchanges---and traffic should also be there upon them. End of statement. Your mind moves on...and you enjoy the simulation experience. If it looks real, it mentally feels real.So..back to being angry. I see now, that FSX should have NEVER been shown the heat it took from the flight simulation community as a technological base. IT wasn't delivered polished, and tuned. It is a fantastic piece of software. It has all the elements and more importantly--built in capability to deliver that which we all want most---the advance and push--to realism! FSX did not deserve the lambasting, as a piece of software. The developers behind its RTM release point---should. Microsoft should.They released an unfinished, non-polished product to market. It was as rough as sandpaper! This is my personal opinion. From then, to now...what is was then...to what it could have been, THEN...if coded properly and with attention to visuals, post GEXn and UTX.Please don't even offer... that is what addon developers are for. For my money, I deserved then, what I have now..right out of that wrap!I am angry at all the time lost, that could have been devoted to sheer flight simulation Nirvana. Enjoyment, rather than frustration, disappointment, and angst.Today, with what I consider a FINISHED product that DELIVERS the true next-generation post-FS9 advancement in the believability of flight... and that of outside developers that picked up the torch and literally SAVED THIS PRODUCT. They shouldn't have NOT had to....Is FSX a keeper...NOW, post GEXnhanced, that corrected the sheer ground texture CR*P that was FSX RTM, and UTX-X that brought to view a real world with superstructures in place that makes the animation of FSX shine---is FSX a keeper? You had better believe it. I am angry that Microsoft short changed us. I am angry that they went for the dollar at Christmas time, rather then having a responsibility to deliver to me, the end user who PAYS FOR IT---a post-beta tested, POLISHED product, and one that could run on a older high-end system (at time of release to market)such as mine---PROVEN to be able to run---by the release of SP1...so it could have been programmed that way out of the box! I am indeed angry! I didn't need the angst and initial disappointment-of-use. I actually paid for that.... It is my personal opinion that as it was delivered,...with all its negatives--it SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE!That was then, this is now. To all those that were so turned off of FSX, and haven't thought to revisit the product---I heartily encourage you to give it another review. But..only with adding on the programs that CORRECT the blatant deficiencies that was FSX RTM. In my opinion , they are of course GEXnhanced, and UTX-X (whatever). I do NOT work for, get paid by, have any reason to 'promote' for personal gain. I am ONLY, a user who paid his one hundred bucks to buy the three programs---and that in doing so, makes FSX--what it SHOULD HAVE BEEN...on the year of its release.OK, I finally got the above off my chest, and will now only enjoy what FSX-Plus (the CORRECTED version) brings to the table--and in my personal opinion, it bring a cornucopia of adventure, discovery, putting you into the seat of a machine that flies...and with beautiful detail and execution. FSX-Plus...that is. I want that to be clear!OK, back to my flight over San Diego..and so much to see at 3,500 feet... Thanks to all that bore with me, and made it to this last sentence. Here's to the hobby! It is now nearly perfect...Cheers!Mitch R.

[Guest cbuchner1]

Looks like Microsoft merely provided "the platform", and other add-ons provided "the content".

[Mace 1,902]

I did not see you mention this. I think the inevitable march of hardware advancement has also helped matters a lot more. Not just the Service Packs and add-ons.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Hi Rhett. The reason that I did not mention that, is because we (at date of release) did not have those systems...and hence, NOBODY could have a great or even 'usable' experience. Everybody was telling of FPS in the toilet. Not flyable on any body's system by the numbers. My angst was that it was ON THE DAY OF ITS RELEASE, a crude piece of software--that could not deliver what people paid 70-100 dollars for. We certainly, as the simulation community, deserved better from Microsoft right from the get-go!Cheers!Mitch

[Guest cbuchner1]

If it hadn't been that slow (or ugly with sliders on low) I would not have bothered to develop Tileproxy ;)

[Geofa 108]

Mitch-one point considering the ground textures. Did you do your initial trial of fsx a year ago with them set to 30 cm-at least 1 m, as you probably do now?Because-though I agree with you gex improves them, and that fsx could have been a more finished product-the default textures are not bad.But of course you have to have them turned up to see.Why I and some others were raving a year ago at the great textures that remain sharp down low and look photoreal from altitude (even recommending that autogen did not need to be used, and actually could get in the way). How many persons fired the sim up then-looked at basically the default settings which can be quite ugly-saw low fps and gave up quickly?As an interesting experiment-disable the gex textures and leave your settings where they now are-do a compare on the screenshot forum...But yes gex, utx, fex all improve fsx, as did their predecesors for fs9.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[LAdamson 240]

Actually, I liked it the first day I saw FSX on my newer computer. The mountain textures/resolution were a lot more photo like, and had a good sense of "depth", that I hadn't seen before.I suppose this is a case, of where a first flight experience in FSX takes place. If it's one of the vast desert regions, then I wouldn't have been impressed. But for me, I took off out of KSLC, headed up the mountain canyons, and was very pleased to find a lake that's been missing for the last two versions, as well as a new reservoir. These lakes, and the much sharper and better looking textures, made it a hit on day one.L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

You are right about that first sim experience. Speaking of lakes-the one I live on never appeared in fs and add ins up to fsx only had a crude rendition of water. My first flight in fsx I took off from my home airport and went to my lake-and there is was-in perfect rendition!If my first try had been in a commercial jet at klga I might have had a different impression!http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Manny 1,293]

Hi Mitch.I see your point but I think your expectation was a little off IMO.My expectation from ACES was not they give me good data... Textures etc/ I was delighted that I could load 9cm photo textures..or whatever the lowest of the slider reads. I knew that it was not possible with the hardware we have. But hope is eternal and that they have thought ahead was a good sign. I look at FSX as an operating system for flight simming. Mind you...I have my own disappointment with FSX... and its certainly not textures nor terrain details since I knew and was expecting to procure from addon vendors. They could have not given me any land class, or even FS8 textures etc and I could care less as long as they giv provision for loading high resolution textures and good land class meta data etc. My disappointment is in the fact addon vendors like Fly Tampa and Flight scenery kind of folks have walked out since the current architecture seems to have clipped the wings of creative people and other Hardware out of sync with the product architecture (Multi core) issues.IF Hardware can compensate in the near future 10Ghz??? :)... I am still ok with FSXManny

[phoenixphire 50]

I can certainly understand your frustration. My own personal story is quite different. I was amazed at FSX right out of the box. When you compare it to my fully tricked out FS9 with all the main addons like all UTX, BEV textures (GEX now for FSX), Active Sky, many airports, Fs Genesis Mesh, and countless other enhancements, the RTM was better in some cases and worse in others. If you compare the RTM of FS9 to FSX I believe there is absolutely no comparison and FSX was an insane improvement. Now that all these addons are out for FSX. I am floored every-time I start up the sim. As far as performance goes I think it is difficult for Microsoft to predict how a piece of software is going to perform not on thousands of beta machines but millions of users machines how can anyone expect that how it going to perform on millions of computers with all the hardware configurations that are possible. I respect your opinion and emotion but my experience is different maybe you should give your computer a shot. ;) Just in good fun, interesting thread thanks for starting it and your articulation.

[Guest DALTech_Ops]

Hey Mitch,When your done having Nirvana in your flying volkswagon at 3500 feet AGL, and chugging along at a steady 180 knots, why not jump in the default 737 and climb to 31,000 feet at 350 knots.You might rethink your post.Although I have to admit, your enthusiam is refreshing in light of many negative posts centering around FSX - even perhaps my own. :)

[Guest]

>For my money, I deserved then, what I have now..right out of that wrap!>Today, with what I consider a FINISHED product that DELIVERS>the true next-generation post-FS9 advancement in the>believability of flight... and that of outside developers that>picked up the torch and literally SAVED THIS PRODUCT. They>shouldn't have NOT had to....Er... whenever did FS come with loads of addons in the box...? I do also think FSX was released a bit hastily and it should AT LEAST be up to SP1 standards out of the box, but the rest of the story makes me wonder where you have been all those FS-simming years... FS has ALWAYS been some sort of OS for pilots: FS is the (quite beautiful imho) bottom of the pizza and you have to add the nice and spicey stuff yourself. It's been like that for years and years. You can't expect MS/Aces to add UTX and GEX into it, worldwide, out of the box. 'I deserved then, what I have now...?' Come on, get real. How much do you think FSX would have cost if it came with WORLDWIDE UTX and GEX like data...? A few hundred bucks? I wonder what you would say if FSX would have costed that much! FSX isn't saved by outside developers, it is made even more better. Just as always. I really don't understand your anger. You totally miss the point and are completely off, if you ask me.

[TheDanger 182]

Mitch,I agree with you. I bought FSX, installed it. Found it looked and ran like crap. Installed the Level-D 767, ran like crap. Installed SP1 when it was released, slight improvements but still ran like crap.I then gave up and flew FS9. When SP2 was released I couldnt be bothered trying it, I thought Id wait.However, after reading your post last week about GEX+ and UTX I decided to reformat, reinstall and try SP2. I installed GEX+, UTX, ActiveSky graphics and the Level-D 767. I then set a some sliders high, some low etc and departed from KSFO.Unbelieveble, I was getting 30fps solid (I had them locked at 30) in VC on the ground, in the air and this was with max clouds overcast.I couldnt believe the difference that both SP2 and a clean install had made.To cut it short I am now flying a lot more in FSX and hardly touching FS9. I even installed PMDG 747X and found the same.I am just waiting now for REX and I think this will be sheer heaven.So, Mitch, thanks again for your inspiration. ( I also had major improvements in FS9 when you posted about the ATI 7.10 drivers!)Graham

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

>>For my money, I deserved then, what I have now..right out of>that wrap!>>>Today, with what I consider a FINISHED product that DELIVERS>>the true next-generation post-FS9 advancement in the>>believability of flight... and that of outside developers>that>>picked up the torch and literally SAVED THIS PRODUCT. They>>shouldn't have NOT had to....>>Er... whenever did FS come with loads of addons in the box...?>I do also think FSX was released a bit hastily and it should>AT LEAST be up to SP1 standards out of the box, but the rest>of the story makes me wonder where you have been all those>FS-simming years... FS has ALWAYS been some sort of OS for>pilots: FS is the (quite beautiful imho) bottom of the pizza>and you have to add the nice and spicey stuff yourself. It's>been like that for years and years. You can't expect MS/Aces>to add UTX and GEX into it, worldwide, out of the box. 'I>deserved then, what I have now...?' Come on, get real. How>much do you think FSX would have cost if it came with>WORLDWIDE UTX and GEX like data...? A few hundred bucks? I>wonder what you would say if FSX would have costed that much!>FSX isn't saved by outside developers, it is made even more>better. Just as always. I really don't understand your anger.>You totally miss the point and are completely off, if you ask-------------------------------------------------------BTW, sorry about some typos, and a grammatical error as I typed a sentence, and then edited it (missed taking out a word, then not needed, lol) I was typing fast and had to make an appointment, but was on a roll and so continued.What I meant about 'right out of the box'...is that what the developers of UTX and GEX added to the sim, in my opinion, should have been (within the base code) already there in the sim, and to that level of visual quality. That is what I meant, and not that you would see addon software bundled. I can't see that in creating the level of detail and immersion that both GEXn and UTX brings to the sim, would have added a few (meaning three hundred) bucks.Thanks for your thoughts. I enjoy debate, and then meditation that results. :) My opinion will not be another's, and this is totally acceptable!!! Good debate, pro and con is what is the truce spice of a forum!Mitch

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

>Mitch-one point considering the ground textures. Did you do>your initial trial of fsx a year ago with them set to 30 cm-at>least 1 m, as you probably do now?>>Because-though I agree with you gex improves them, and that>fsx could have been a more finished product-the default>textures are not bad.>>But of course you have to have them turned up to see.>>Why I and some others were raving a year ago at the great>textures that remain sharp down low and look photoreal from>altitude (even recommending that autogen did not need to be>used, and actually could get in the way). >>How many persons fired the sim up then-looked at basically the>default settings which can be quite ugly-saw low fps and gave>up quickly?>>>As an interesting experiment-disable the gex textures and>leave your settings where they now are-do a compare on the>screenshot forum...>>>But yes gex, utx, fex all improve fsx, as did their>predecesors for fs9.>--------------------------------Geofa, yes I did...I did the whole gamut of slide combinations. It still was so, so...cartoon. GEXn is totally the reverse. GEXn and UTX-X has totally transformed this sim to such believability (this will be subjective to the reader) and my frustration formed in seeing what FSX RTM COULD have been like--- out of the wrapper. That was the level of view quality that I was expecting, after having seen the teaser captures. Here is an example Geofa. In FS9, we had lakes, ocean coasts, all of it. But..did it look real? No. No beach at Myrtle Beach. No beach along any strand of the East Coast (of the U.S. for example). With such hoopla about the new, better textures, and higher resolution over FS9---and oh..about the much more realistic sense of the FS world per FSX...why were beach textures NOT built into the released RTM sim? It certainly could have been, and what is more realistic and expected, ...than beach textures where beaches should be. It was things of that nature (when I loaded up UTX-X..that PUT THIS STUFF THERE, that opened up my eyes to what had NOT been properly included, IMO.My angst, Geofa---is that FSX RTM should have been what I call: FSX-Plus. It should have come this way, and not having for me to buy addon's to put a beach where the sim shows a beach to be, etc. They say that ignorance is bliss. I guess they are right. Ever since having FSX with superstructures that I can actually identify as I fly over; beaches that look so good, I want to land and walk upon them; rivers that run to a horizon; railroad tracks that actually route themselves through the towns, cities, and byways; lakes, that have true earth-tone shorelines with rock outcroppings; roads with encasement's, REAL...highways, overpasses, interchanges, two lane, four lane, country lanes....THIS is what I expected FSX RTM to be as the next FS generation. I have it now, so the angst is only a getting-something-of-the-chest and is now done with. FSX-Plus is now the next generation. The litmus test---is that when I now look down ANYWHERE, I feel the thrill of flight and movement over the terrain. I have been VFR'ing myself to death! There is now a reason to fly that Volkswagen, LOL....where I only used to fly in the nose-bleed section of the sky with FS9.Cheers!Mitch