NOPE... he has not stoppedHes like the energizer bunny!... http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/189425.jpghe keeps going and going and goinghttp://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...it-deliver.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...ng-add-ons.aspxAnd Aces is NOT going anywhere but UP....http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...-franchise.aspxEDIT: and this one just came up! http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...-coming-up.aspx:-beerchug

Less time spent mud-wrestling in forums translates to more time available for blogging.*:-*

>Less time spent mud-wrestling in forums translates to more time available for blogging. ROFL[/size]http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/189423.gif[/size]Its safer mud-wresling crocks.. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/189424.jpg

Hi,I missed the fireworks, but it appears he might have calmed down a bit.I guess now is a good time to say "please consider most folks don't have the absolute latest hardware". :) I see Phils last couple of blog posts refer to future technology that is still in development, that will help FSX. That's no good for a sim released 18 months ago.Best regards,Robin.

With all due respect... Phil was not in control of development with FSX and what he posts about the future is directly influenced by his experience being a pioneer in DX technology, and, hardware through experience with ATi.The bottom line is people need to let go of the past and start realizing real quick that change is on the horizon and a lot of the credit to that goes to the new organization which has taken place and a shift in thinking.Enough of the past.. its time to move forward. The new hardware coming IMHO will allow FSX to come into its time... just like it took 2 years for FS9 to get there.however this time around the FS9/FSX dev path appears to have a different course and mindset for FS11 and this is seen everyday as communication between the team and the public demonstrates. This is what we should all be watching and focusing on because it is that type of leadership and development which will influence positive outcomes for the next installment.

Thanks for the info Nick :--)Robin, this was, is and will remain the rule. If you want to really enjoy a complex game like FS you have to change your hardware two years after this game is released. When FS9 was released no one had the right computer to take benefit of it. It took an average of two years before a new generation of hardware was on the market.That's why folks were reluctant to jump to FSX 18 months ago :--)

I see Phils last>couple of blog posts refer to future technology that is still>in development, that will help FSX. That's no good for a sim>released 18 months ago.>>Best regards,>Robin.You had posted about having a high-spec machine and not getting adequate performance out of FSX. I can tell you, the the system listed in my signature, below, gives me good FSX performance even with complex add-ons in urban conditions.That's with a $280 cpu. Soon to be a $230 cpu.You have a 1st gen core platform and DDR2. Nice, but the Penryn and DDR3 really makes FSX tick.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.16 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Of course Phil contradicts your assertion with one his latest posts where he essentially says:"Look, FSX sold more than FS9!"Perhaps, while reluctant, people certainly did jump on FSX 18 months ago.

There is a difference between buying the sim (supporting the developers) and making the jump from FS-9 to FS-X.Maybe one good day I will have the hardware to make that jump...

HA! Change a machine every two years? I probably went through at least 6 or 7 machines over the course of FS9. The rig below was just built for FS9 too... I am more into the heavies so FS9 is more applicable to me. The point is H/W that is coming out over the past year or so is just putting FS9 into it's true sweet spot. This is nothing new to simmers.My problem is I don't think FSX will have the loyal following that 9 does when FSXI is released. Hence I think FSX will become just like Windows ME and fall by the wayside with almost no one remaining on it once the next version is released. Then, I have a hard time going out and spending money on add-ons when every new patch seems to break them. Who knows what will happen to all those add-ons come FSXI.I TOTALLY understand that FS9 has limitations that FSX needed to overcome but to do it in the middle of the release and break add-ons that people spent money on may not have been the best way to go about it. Not to mention the developers that have had to go back and re-do releases that were working. It is a very tough position to be in as a simmer and a developer...So my .02 (and that is all this is, please don't kill me) is that FSX will have a much shorter shelf life than FS9 never actually catching up to the H/W required to run it.Personally, I am quite content using FS9 for 95% of my simming until FSXI is released. I love FSX for the missions and helicopter physics so I am not trying to bash FSX, just provide my assesment.I would have never kept running FS2k2 for years after FS9 was released that is for sure BUT and here is a big BUT I DID keep running FS2k2 add-ons in FS9 and probably still do LOL...Looking forward to XI and seeing what the ACES team can pull off, either that or Q4 for Intel and one of the GFX card makers to prove me wrong. I would LOVE IT for that to happen!!!Cheers-PPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E8500 468X9.5 @ 4.45Asus Maximus Extreme2 gigs OCZ Reaper DDR3 @1400Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0

I'm going to take a little issue with that :) I distinctly remember my amazement when first running fs9 on the same laptop I used for fs8 (1.6ghz, ati9600, 1gig ram). Out of the box it was more than flyable even at higher settings at places like the infamous KJFK. It really only started crawling as I piled on the 3rd party goods.FSX was a much more demanding leap forward for the then current mainstream hardware, probably inevitably so.regards,Mark

>You had posted about having a high-spec machine and not>getting adequate performance out of FSX. I can tell you, the>the system listed in my signature, below, gives me good FSX>performance even with complex add-ons in urban conditions.>>That's with a $280 cpu. Soon to be a $230 cpu.>>You have a 1st gen core platform and DDR2. Nice, but the>Penryn and DDR3 really makes FSX tick.>>Rhett>Rhett I have an E6850 dual core at 3,4 ghz and 4gb OCZ crucial ram + an fine 8800 GT and have great visuals and FPS with full cloud coverage (ASX) and in the air with the heavies LVL-D / PMDG / Maddog 2006 / Fokker F series and more... Hence I have a lot of custom AI but at the new EDDF X version I have on the ground 15 fps and in the air (locked) 25 fps ... and smooth :-) I'm real happy with FSX which has a lot to offer :-)I always have a smile when some one just yells it's only for GA aircraft... Lucky me then that my system thinks the LDS and PMDG are GA aircraft as a matter of fact I fly them all.As with all previous versions you just have to find the correct balance for your system/software(OS) which can be frustrating for some indeed.Personally for me the skies and clouds in FSX are so beautiful and so different as in FS9 more real life look and feeling...Every time I notice the huge difference still using both but most of the times FSX Waiting for some scenery designers to catch-up for FSX so I can clean-up some disk space!Great read from the blog files :-) thanks for sharing...Have fun guys in the virtual skies in whatever sim.http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

In fairness, I can fly default aircraft in JFK at 20-30 fps in a default FSX aircraft with my current system which I purchased Nov 06, shortly after the release of FSX.You've hit the nail on the head though that each release of FS is demanding, but top end systems can handle a default configuration, but where things go awry is when we pile on 3rd party software like AI traffic, Scenery, aircraft etc... as time goes on, hardware advances, software developers get a grip on the intricacies of the SDK and most 3rd party software design improves impacting the system less and less.FSX unfortunately came during an change in path for PC's from higher processor speed to multiprocessors. Now that the growing pains are subsiding for all involved, chip makers, Aces, 3dp's and users, and as more advanced chips hit the streets, FSX should finally get the respect it deserves.Of course, just in time for FS11. :)