glenecho3

I have the MSI QE72 Apache with the i7-4720HQ. It does a good job but still struggles when trying to attempt too much (all ORBX layers...traffic....big cities). But it still does a great job for a laptop.

If you don't want FSX-SE displaying the ads you can always add the following to your Windows "hosts" file: 0.0.0.0 www.fsxworld.com This fools your computer into thinking the address is unresolvable and you'll get a much more generic startup screen. I have no idea whether or not that tweak would effect multiplayer as I don't use it.

This. This. and This. It's going to be important for FSX-SE people to remember that as IE goes...so goes the splash screen. I did an FSX-SE install on a Vanilla Windows 7 machine a couple of weeks ago and got tons of javascript errors because the ancient version of IE didn't understand the syntax. MS is going to be getting away from IE...wonder what they'll do next. Regardless of the 'best answer' at the top of the page, while FSXinsider's site doesn't have malware, if a PC was already infected with malware or became that way it certainly could change the behavior of the start up screen. If IE has been compromised by malware...all bets are off.

MS FS is a lot like Windows isn't it? They really seemed to do a good job of making every *other* version a dud. FS95 (hated). FS98 (loved). Fs2000 awful (installed it the other day for grins...still only runs at 30fps). FS2002/2004 I have a tendency to lump together and thought both were great releases (they really are nearly the same sim). Then (and here comes...please don't get UPSET for this...it's just an opinion) FSX. Honestly...had FSX only been out 2-4 years followed by the next version I FIRMLY believe it would reside in the "Absolute Dud" category. People still struggling with the graphic engine (just like FS2000). Only the fact that FSX is what we're all basically stuck with has made it the uber-success that it is. Again IMO only...anyone who gets offended about this really needs to relax...you can still love whatever you love.

The idea of building a sandbox engine to sim within is a great idea and one that much of the industry is already going towards. Sometimes I find it upsetting how afraid of change my fellow flight simmers are. I would absolutely ADORE to fly coast to coast, then jump in a truck...AND go fishing. I don't think that's silly at all. Actually...it may be a goldmine waiting to happen. I also think that people are underestimating the possible financial feasibility of flight simulation and simulation in general. Might want to take a look at Steam once in a while (which is hard when you've already decided to bury your head in the sand and label Steam as "evil" without even knowing what it is). There are simulations all over the place...some poor and some great. Somebody out there is buying this stuff. Many of MS's Flight Sim released did GREAT monetarily. I still hold the minority belief that Microsoft gave up on Flight Simulation because almost nobody could actually use FSX when it came out. Computers then could barely run it and it is quite telling that years later a lot of computers today can still barely run it (in many situations...). I can only imagine how many people returned (or attempted to return) FSX when it came out. Or...how many issues MS support took on when it was released. And that leads me to my last point....whatever you do, Dovetail, either dump the FSX graphics engine entirely or fix it to be efficient. While we all think it looks oh so beautiful, it's because we haven't known anything different or better for a VERY long time. I don't buy it...I think the graphics world that an efficient flightsim could take on nowadays should not only meet FSX expectations and blow it away. It really makes me nervous to see so many other posters that want to see that awful FSX engine be continued. I think Dovetail should run SCREAMING away from it...unless it can be very quickly and easily optimized.

Thanks all...I'm pretty convinced at this point that I'm thinking about something in the pre-FSX and barking up the wrong tree. Probably FS2000 as I remember specifically having a lot of FPS issues with that particular version. Wow...Lago...there's a name I'd forgotten about. Wonder what happened to them....

Who said the WoAI stuff looked rough and wrong? All I've seen is WoAI guys saying that about MYT6? I only stated that I don't want the hassle of all the separate packages. I've used WoAI before...I know that it's well done. That really isn't the issue....

And likewise I prefer MyTraffic because a) I don't want to have to be bothered with downloading multiple packages as with WoAI and B) To me one of the biggest benefits of MyTraffic (and one that goes largely undiscussed) is that it comes with a TON of AFCAD files that increase the number of parking spots and supply mostly accurate gate numbers to them (not to mention providing the proper carrier code to those parking spots). Someone earlier mentioned the idea of worldwide traffic and I agree. I flew into (of all places) Magadan in Russia (Gulag capitol of the country from what I gather) and it was populated with Russian and otherwise appropriate traffic. I don't know how many WoAI packages I would have had to install to get to the point of populating that PARTICULAR airport with that PARTICULAR traffic but i have to guess that it would have taken a lot of packages down the road. Heck, I would have paid just to have the collection of AFCAD files, which are another thing that while easily found on the internet, requires the downloading of MANY separate packages but in MyTraffic are all bundled together. Different strokes for different folks. If you're super hands on then WoAI is a perfectly valid solution. Just not one I want to spend the time on...I wanted more of an out-of-the-box solution and I like MyTraffic in that particular situation. I think it needs to be understood that MyTraffic is about a lot more than scheduling traffic at airports. It's about getting MOSTLY appropriate traffic at ALL airports quickly and easily. Those of us that want to fly to Magadan but don't want to study up on finding Magadan specific carriers or searching for a Magadan AFCAD files really can use this solution. If I decide I want to add Allegiant Airlines to be a Magadan carrier I can do that as well (yes...that's insane...but possible). In my opinion Burkhard should emphasize the fact that MyTraffic comes bundled with AFCADS for virtually every major airport in the world (and a lot of no-so-major-ones). That's a LOT of value added and Burkhard does not seem to highlight that fact at all. Also, as someone who still flies FS2004 on occasion I love the fact that they made MyTraffic 2006 free for that platform. That, to me, was an awesome thing for them to do and it is still very much used by this simmer over here...

You can also enable time sync in FSUIPC as well as force sync to GMT. Works faster and more accurately than FS Real Time (which I also have). However, I'm not sure whether or not FSUIPC needs to be registered in order to manipulate those options. Mine is registered.

As much as I understand the fact that having lots of AI traffic at 3:00am could suspend the feeling of realism...a lot of time it's the only chance I get to fly. I want my 3:00am traffic. What could be nice is if a feature were added to make such a thing optional. I've been using MyTraffic for a few years now and have to say that I still don't really know that I understand the difference between "schedule preferences" and "schedule MyTraffic" etc. either. Still when trying to do something custom I find that I have reread the instructions etc. However I understand that the various options for creating the schedules (and ultimately compiling the bgls) are there for the sake of being able to really customize the airport traffic to your liking. To me the 6.0 version is still a winner.

Very cool...I can wait. Great news. I do know that X-Plane is more than able to eclipse MS's airport scenery as I've seen it done on several occasions.

Just saw the release notes for the 10.40 beta. Maybe I should shut my mouth about airports huh? Still feel it's not right to lean on the user community and release it as part of the commercial package but whatevs...I just want some airport scenery. Now...for those seasonal changes... Now if I could just find out where to get the download code for the Beta...

I also didn't predict their demise but I think they'll go the mobile route and eventually that a better desktop solution will appear. As I also said, this may be their game plan as a company. While that would disappoint me it's entirely feasible. But to also use the information above, don't you think after 15 years there would be some airport scenery (or seasonal changes)? That blew me away when repurchasing the 10.x version...I couldn't believe that stuff still wasn't there. It *has* been YEARS...isn't that enough? That said I'm appearing way more negative than intended. I do applaud the developers of this free addon and so far I've enjoyed it greatly. It definitely helps fill the void. I flew to Gainesville (KGNV) the other night and it was great to finally see at least some scenery at the airport. It made for a nice change. Partly the reason I complain about X-Plane is because I still feel it offers the superior flying experience and want to see it improved and developed further. I don't want to see X-Plane's "demise"...not at all.

Neither I or anyone else said this. I even made a specific edit to state that I viewed my disappointing purchase as being entirely my fault as I should have researched it more than I did. I'm just saying "it's time Laminar"...it's time to close the deal on a couple of things that X-Plane has been lacking for too long. Like it or not I'm now a two time customer. I've shown a great desire to see X-Plane become the de-facto flight sim. I felt when FSX came out (and still do) that the graphics engine is absolutely unacceptable. Landing in 5 frames/sec in KLAX in whiteknuckle situations is just as unacceptable as an LAX without buildings in my view. I don't think they're going to have much of a choice either. Like it or not you can see where things are going by checking out the Steam forums. FSX:SE has caused a lot of renewed interest in THAT product. It's also usually much cheaper. Which sim do you think gives a better first impression right out the gate? I ask this knowing that Steam now has a guarantee that you can get your money back within a few hours if you don't like the game? I know many of us seem to scoff at the idea of Steam but believe me when I say that right now it's pretty much where gaming is at. X-Plane no longer has the Steam market cornered for flight sims. I disagree that criticizing it doesn't make sense. The product (and I've bought it twice now) is and was an expensive commercial product and one that (now...once again) has competitors that are offering options. The first time I bought it, it was more expensive than FS2004 which still had basic airport buildings. Again you seem to imply the same philosophy I see too often with X-Plane users in that you behave as if this product is some sort of free or inexpensive open source project that is just getting it's feet off the ground. Reality check: this is an EXPENSIVE and COMMERCIAL product that has been around a LONG TIME. I don't care HOW MUCH it costs to license the data. I only care that competing products have that data. It's like a restaurant saying "you know how much it will cost us to buy better meat?". I don't care...I just want my food to taste good. People create what is "feasible" to them. If Austin truly wanted to find a way to license or import this data he easily could have. Hell...in the 10+ years since I bought my first X-Plane DVDs he could have farmed the work out to college kids over the summer for that matter (take every airport that starts with K....overlay satellite photo...and put SOMETHING in there). It's all a matter of the desire. Business owners find a way to make things happen...ask any of them. Laminar can do whatever it wants, but the stakes are changing faster now than they have been. If they absolutely must license some data in order to keep their product in line with their competitors then they will do it. If they don't then I hope the mobile thing works out for them. Heck that may be the direction they are going in anyhow (probably a lot fewer hardcore picky simmers like us and a lot less to support). I'm the kind of guy that's been simming a long time and I'll be honest with you, I pretty much have always bought ANY new flight sim...if not just to check it out. But Laminar can't survive that much longer because the word is out and some of us feel as if we've been burned multiple times now. The product has "mixed" reviews on Steam which was sustainable until FSX:SE came out. New simmers will think this is a no-brainer when they compare reviews (keep in mind that "mixed" on Steam is really far below average...not just "mixed"). Take a look at those no-so-good reviews. The lack of airport scenery comes into play almost every time. It means a lot to many people...not just a few.

It isn't the same approach as FSX. In FSX the buildings are a) mostly in the right locations and B) are connected to the tarmacs. While I appreciate the effort that went into this, and I have installed this and don't plan on uninstalling this, I view this the same as some others. I view X-Plane as being incomplete until some basic airport scenery is included. I bought the latest version on Steam and just figured that in the 10+ years that I bought my last version of X-Plane that there would at least be some airports. But no...still runways. This isn't laziness on the customer's part...it's laziness on Laminar's. EDIT: And yes...I should have done the research before buying X-Plane 10. But they won't get any more dough from me until they start adding some basic realism to the sim. It's a shame because outside of that I truly do enjoy the sim.