To all FS2004, 2002 USERS who refused to purchase FSX!.yet now complain about FLIGHT!

[csefton]

I remember when FSX came out.....just like all the other versions of the sim i soon took the plunge and purchased the thing!.....but hell it just wouldn't run smooth on my pc...so i soon upgraded my pc(always do about every 4yrs!) and messed about with it, went online..forum after forum, still was pretty rubbish until the sp patches arrived, then with a few more cfg tweaks i was then able to see the improvements and benefits of this upgraded engine!!!.....of course many issues and blatant faults still remained and in some cases seemed worse...but overall FSX was a much better sim than FS9....and the point was I TOOK the plunge and gave it a shot!..i got my wallet out and supported Microsoft were it mattered!!...not just PMDG,aerosoft, Capt sim or all the other 3rd party add-on brigade that charge often MORE for one aircraft or scenery than the whole of FSX!!.....

FSX's major downfall was its poorly optimised code and heavy pc requirements and of course having to follow the great example of fs9!..this meant many disgruntled FS9 users stayed with their happy and SAFE! FS9 after reading the reviews or trying the demo....... many of whom even jumped on the forum bandwagons of bad mouthing and deriding FSX at every opportunity!....trust me i remember reading them all!....some STILL do it today!...crazy deluded ideology...fine stick with your fs9..yes it WAS a great sim but FSX is FAR BETTER!......maybe the ironic thing about FS9 was it was far too successful for its own good!...

Even today we still have the fs9 brigade and their obstinate stance on avoiding the upgrade to FSX...STILL preferring to stay with fs9 eh!.....some users are either living in severe poverty (for years it seems!) and cant afford an upgrade to their pc's or just dont want to bother upgrading to FSX for whatever reasons, many fs9 users i remember even said they were going to skip FSX altogether and WAIT until fs11.......

I will never understand why flight simulation enthusiasts prefer their older sims!....hell some still prefer fs2000 or fs98!......yes they are flight simmers...but THEY ARE NOT HELPING THE PROGRESS OR SUPPORTING THE FUTURE OF MS FLIGHT SIMULATOR!..they are DEAD weight...old fuddy duddys stuck in the past, refusing to progress or support future incarnations of this great franchise yet very active in the world of forums, add-ons freeware or payware etc..yet refuse to update their sim version or support Microsoft and spend money to help the franchise develop and continue...... WHY??..when the option exists of flying in the amazing real ORBX FSX world that FAR exceeds any dated fs2002, fs9 world!....all i can say is you ahve all shot yourselves in the foot....talk about cut your nose off to spite your face!...


Anyway...the downside of all this today is MICROSOFT do NOT wish to suffer yet ANOTHER financial failure with one of their FSIM releases solely for the demanding and complaining pc market!........I could GUARANTEE there would STILL be loads of stick in the mud die hard fs9 users that would avoid FS11 even though they may claim otherwise!....the very fact there are still a huge number of fs9 users here who STILL maintain they don't like FSX or cant see the benefits or have too many old fs9 add-ons to loose if they upgrade blah blah blah PROVES THAT!!....

FINE stay with your old and comfortable world!...leave FSX alone....dont support it!......BUT DON'T expect MICROSOFT after such POOR sales figures on FSX to carry on trying to please YOU! all with yet ANOTHER dedicated pc flight sim that half of you would of prob avoided anyway!!!...

IN fact i would go as far to say that ANYONE who didn't support MICROSOFT with a purchase of FSX has NO place in these forums complaining about Microsoft FLIGHT!

IN fact its prob BECAUSE of YOU die hard FS9 users that refused to 'purchase' FSX that FS11 was prob cancelled anyway!...yet how many of those same fs9 only simmers are here NOW complaining and having a go at Microsoft for their new inevitable pay as you go console marketed Microsoft FLIGHT?



In the end I think most users for FLIGHT will eventually and undoubtedly be from the xbox crowd....Worldwide sales figures for the xbox 360 alone are already at 57.6 million!....only a fraction of that need to succumb to Microsoft's sales marketing plan and FLIGHT will easily achieve its objectives....the VERY FACT Microsoft shut down ACES and then had the arrogant cheek to say they included many of them of the FLIGHT dev team shows just how perfidious Microsoft can be......but we ALREADY KNEW THAT...this is and always was about MONEY..ive said it befoire as rich and as greedy as Microsoft are they are NOT a charity!...we have to wake up and realise they DONT care about pc users anymore for games!...we represent a dwindling sales market for games and Flight sims were already becoming a niche market anyway...the failure of FSX on the pc market and refusal by fs9 users to upgrade was i fear the final nail in the MS flight SIMULATOR coffin lid!....so all you FS9 USERS OR ( FS2002, fs2000...fs98 !!!?????) users CAN BLAME YOURSELVES for not SUPPORTING FSX when it was released!....its no good now complaining about FLIGHT being a console focused cut down pay as you go no SDK ETC game for the mass (ie xbox!) market....oh the irony of all this!

[raimondo2]

the simulator as we knew died after the bashing of fsx - very true !
The risks of not supporting - and bashing the aces where clearly explained in forums - that bashing the project was very dangerous and could results in catastrophic consequences for the franchise - now the concerns have become reality !

[Firekitten]

A little bluntly put, but it does hold some truths. Admittedly, I had only dabbled in fs addons (freeware) till x, and hadn't the financial investment, but as a lot of fs 2004 users do... its somewhat understandable, but in 6 years, one might have expected them to begin to move over... the attitudes I think, contributed to a lot snubbing x. It was seen as a 'flop' to be avoided, yet with moving technology, and addon quality, they missed the boat in my view.

Could it have contributed to the lack of fs11? maybe, maybe not. We will never know, but I do think an element of the house with the golden windows is to blame... users see something coming... expect miracles, or expect something entirely unattainable... and in doing so, miss what they could have.

FSX is a whole different beast to 9 in quality, and depth, yes it requires a bigger pc, or laptop (yes, my laptop does run fsx and its an off the shelf compaq) considering the minimum and recommended specs for flight, I was somewhat confused as to how fs9 users that claimed fsx was too resource hungry for their pc, could expect the quality they perceived, on their technology... I see fs9 users on the forum, stalwart fsx snubbing users, with specs in their sigs that would run x gorgeously... *shrug* their own decision.

[fxsttcb]

......MICROSOFT after such POOR sales figures....Huh?! Where have you been hiding? After demand exceeded their supply, MS had to complete another production run to meet the clamor for FSX/FSX Gold. The shelves were bare for over two months while they scrambled to catch up.
Now, the stocks are beginning to dry up again. Poor sales figures?...Don

[Paxx]

..
Now, the stocks are beginning to dry up again. Poor sales figures?...Don

Na, they probably just forgot to maintain their supply channel, kind of like how MSFlight forgot to continue the FS Series in the traditional matter. It happens.

[ViperPilot2]

So... the failure of FSX is due to "the failure of FS 9 users to upgrade", huh? Yeah, right.

Are YOU going to purchase a rig for me to run FSX the way I WANT IT TO OPERATE? Are you going to cough up the funds in order for me to enjoy PNW, CRM, and do the type of flying I WANT to do?

I thought so.

To be blunt... don't start making this issue a childish rant about FSXer's vs. FS 9er's. Microsoft is designing and marketing Flight based on the audience and demographics they want to attract, and that demographic isn't US.

In the grand scheme of the Gaming Universe, we don't even make a dent. Want an example? Here's one...

The WORLDWIDE sales for Flight Simulator X ranges approximately around 1 million units since 2006 when it was first released. To put this in comparison:

WoW: 5 Million units
The Sims: 16 Million units
Battlefield 2: 4.5 Million units
DOOM: 1.1 Million units
Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?: 4.5 million units

So, the FS community ends up being a small whisper in the grand opera of Gaming (contrary to the popular and arrogant belief that the entire Universe revolves around US).

So Microsoft did not release a product that meets everyone's needs.

GET OVER IT!

If you don't like it, don't use it. Don't buy add on's for it (when and if they become available).

Oh, and BTW... you can step off your zircon encrusted FSX bidet you sit on, and come on down to where reality is located... where folks try and ENJOY Flight Simulaton, regardless of what version they're using.

:rolleyes:

[shaungibson]

I have to agree with viperpilot2, we are a small yet magnificent crew in a great simulation world, i have always been for FSX regardless of Performance, my PC is a slow one but i compromise with it just to make it flyable. The point being wether we use Flight or not, the flightsim world wont die, we'll either stick with our current MSFS 9 or X or move on to X-plane etc, too many people see us as their world such as Captainsim, PMDG, AOA etc, without us they would be screwed, okay microsoft might not focus on the simulation aspects no more but others will :)

[Firekitten]

viperpilot2: Why should someone buy you a full fsx rig? hypothetical or not, that post came over as whiny, and frankly irrelevant.

[csefton]

So... the failure of FSX is due to "the failure of FS 9 users to upgrade", huh? Yeah, right.

Are YOU going to purchase a rig for me to run FSX the way I WANT IT TO OPERATE? Are you going to cough up the funds in order for me to enjoy PNW, CRM, and do the type of flying I WANT to do?

I thought so.

To be blunt... don't start making this issue a childish rant about FSXer's vs. FS 9er's. Microsoft is designing and marketing Flight based on the audience and demographics they want to attract, and that demographic isn't US.

In the grand scheme of the Gaming Universe, we don't even make a dent. Want an example? Here's one...

The WORLDWIDE sales for Flight Simulator X ranges approximately around 1 million units since 2006 when it was first released. To put this in comparison:

WoW: 5 Million units
The Sims: 16 Million units
Battlefield 2: 4.5 Million units
DOOM: 1.1 Million units
Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?: 4.5 million units

So, the FS community ends up being a small whisper in the grand opera of Gaming (contrary to the popular and arrogant belief that the entire Universe revolves around US).

So Microsoft did not release a product that meets everyone's needs.

GET OVER IT!

If you don't like it, don't use it. Don't buy add on's for it (when and if they become available).

Oh, and BTW... you can step off your zircon encrusted FSX bidet you sit on, and come on down to where reality is located... where folks try and ENJOY Flight Simulaton, regardless of what version they're using.

:rolleyes:

Lol..MAYBE YOU NEED to do MORE research!!! :D ......yes FSX only sold an estimated 1 million copies...but this was less than a quarter of what FS2004 a century of flight achieved! in fact if you look at the Guinness book of records you will even see that up to 1999 that 21 million copies were sold for the whole franchise before FSX even appeared!.......... according to Guinness World Records: "MS Flight Simulator was released by Microsoft in April 1982 and had sold a total of 21 million units by June 1999!...that's before the HUGELY successful fs2004 which outsold fsx at least 4-1....and when you consider the development costs alone for FSX where probably triple that for fs2004! its no wonder Microsoft did NOT want to invest more money trying to please a pitiful die hard crowd of Persistent FS9 users!...as for your comments on my post being a childish rant, i have both sims and found fs9 an excellent sim...but i also believe in upgrading and supporting the whole Microsoft fsim franchise!!..... obviously unlike millions of FS2004 users who over the years could only offer moaning and REAL childish rants! :rolleyes:

Oh if you cant afford a new rig pity for you!....:D ..you prob spent more on fs2004 add-ons than a new i7 based pc costs today anyway!...i find it PATHETIC and sad that fs9 users are still moaning about tehy cant afford a new pc rig!..hey GET OVER IT! :D.. in case you Havant noticed pc's everywhere have MOVED on today, its NOT just FSX that requires a new rig!...life goes on and people need to upgrade things, cars, tv's, fridge freezers..the list is endless..if you cant afford to keep up with the pc world thats your prob...not mine!.....GET OVER IT!.....if you STILL prefer to use the age old argument that you cant afford a new rig then maybe you would be better off sticking to your xbox! ;) pc's since i can remeber involve a constant upgrading to keep pace with new advancements in software!......anyway in real terms pc's are far cheaper than the ones needed to run fs98!...even a little ram back then cost a small fortune!..
...
I realise many fs9 users will comment negatively on my thread but i expected that anyway....after all they did the same constantly moaning and winging about FSX when it was released!...

My whole point here is..... FSX was the turning point for Microsoft.....poor relative sales compared to previous versions and masses of negative feedback over FSX sealed the lid shut for any future FS11,12 etc...... compare the negative feedback and poor sales with FSX to the huge often positive, successful and well fed lucrative 3rd part add-on market its easy to see whey Microsoft went the way they did with FLIGHT!....yes...i said it once and i will say it again...3 quarters of FS2004 USERS FAILED TO purchase and upgrade to FSX...so GO BACK TO YOUR BELOVED FS9!....who knows what Microsoft would of done if they had sold 5million units of FSX instead of 1?......

As for my zircon encrusted FSX bidet yes its NICE AND COMFY THANKS and so is MY enjoyment of flight simulation, WHICH by virtue of FSX, Orbx, rex etc etc is prob a magnitude of ..oh at least 3x better than anything fs9 has to offer...maybe your FS9 fogged Ray Ban Sunglasses need a bit of a polish to let you SEE where REALITY is really located at...it aint FS9! :D:D:D

[fxsttcb]

...The WORLDWIDE sales for Flight Simulator X ranges approximately around 1 million units since 2006 when it was first released...You didn't read the whole article or references.
...the venerable Flight Simulator PC franchise. 2006's Flight Simulator X for the PC has sold more than 1 million units through December(*2008*) in the US, according to the NPD Group, making it far from an unsuccessful outing.That was also before the latest production run. Wiki's reference data is OLD, all of it, for all of the titles mentioned.
The (*2008*) date is my inclusion from the reference article. Seeing as it's US release was October 2006, a million US copies in 14 months ain't too shabby.

I'm also pretty sure that the "venerable" Flight Simulator franchise, as a whole, has fared quite well for MS.
"Flight Simulator" actually pre-dates the PC. Is there another PC game, still offered, that can claim the same?

Like I've stated previously, I will download Flight, and if sufficiently impressed I may purchase additional content.

Meanwhile some big software house is bound to see that a true, hi-fi, PC simulator, with 3rd party content capability, has long range financial merit.
Come Ivy Bridge-E, I may not see a need for anything beyond FSX anyhow...Don

[torkermax]

Well I'll run right out and buy FSX and a 2000.00 computer to run it just so you feel you got a cupcake in your lunch sack and will quit stomping your feet and crying! Now, I dont need you telling me which "game" I should be using.

[angels355]

MS managers could not get along, their quarreling closed Aces, that from the horses mouth the former head of Aces. He also stated that the FS series was making money. Funny that they should close down a money maker in favor of the X-Box money pit as if that made business sense.

I still don't like activation programming and big brother, but I have always liked FSX itself. Just listened to "Money" the cover version by Velvet Revolver on a new Q9450 system with W8 beta. After this I can build an i7 system too. I have three FSX Gold may buy two more before they disappear off the shelves. For business I'd like to buy some Corvettes, and see if I can buy a plane.

I don't think MS gives a hoot what we think. I thought it was interesting that Battlefield 3 is available to X-Box and Windows PC. I don't know anything about X-Box so correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't Battlefield 3 look drastically better on a full blown game PC? With 1000+ watt psu's, huge video cards that can't even fit in some cases, and my giant heatsink from Coolermaster that is so large I had to remove a case beam to make it fit, and ever faster Intel processors, I can't see desktop gaming ever going away. Can you?

[loki]

I don't know anything about X-Box so correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't Battlefield 3 look drastically better on a full blown game PC?

Yes, the capabilities of current PCs far exceed the current game consoles, and Battlefield 3 does look better on a PC. However, it is somewhat unique in that that EA and DICE put in the effort to take advantage of the PC. Most games, like Call of Duty, are developed primarily for consoles, and for the PC second. In these cases, they rarely enhance the game, so it looks almost identical across platforms. PC gaming isn't dying (there are almost 1500 PC games to choose from on Steam, for example), but console gaming is a much larger market.

[Firekitten]

Well I'll run right out and buy FSX and a 2000.00 computer to run it just so you feel you got a cupcake in your lunch sack and will quit stomping your feet and crying! Now, I don't need you telling me which "game" I should be using.
Erm, Sorry to burst your bubble, my £280 Laptop from a high street PC store runs fsx nicely. All this guff about it needing a super computer is crap.

Depends what payware stuff you throw in, but it does in 9 too... its swings and roundabouts, but with a few config tweaks, I get 30fps (yes, on a laptop). It looks great, its playable, and its absolutely 10 times better than 9, even in that state, and that's just my 'test bed' copy I use for testing repaints. My main rig on the boyfriends pc is... a setup that's mid range now, and pulls 60 in orbx country. Its not WHAT you use, its HOW you use it, so please quit with the 'omg I need supar computar' guff.

Plus, your current machine, judging by the specs is touching 2k... so that argument is flat... it would run fsx perfectly.

[benEggleston16]

csefton, you have a highly prejudiced view on the loyal FS9 users who to some degree I respect for their efforts to improve what a sim that, I agree, is a significant way behind default FSX. But you obviously have never thought about the financial situation of such people, whom I don't wich to patronise by describing their 'poverty' (a word you used in your original post). I understand yout point but your attitude and language convey a sense of resentment, patronising and disregard for their lifestyle. Why in your response to viperpilot2 did you use 6 lol smileys? I see your point and I don't agree FS9 users are solely responsible for FLIGHT's change of course, but it's your attitude I don't get. What's wrong with people liking old things? Why are you so angered by it, saying things like
FS2004 USERS FAILED TO purchase and upgrade to FSX like it was a quota they were required to fulfill but failed. And what about FS9 users who purchased FSX but still didn't like it? They boosted Microsoft's sales figures yet you say anyone not upgrading to FSX is responsible for FLIGHT's unpopular course change. You are hypocritical, saying FS9 is good, then saying FSX is waaaaay better and FS9 is for 'fuddy-duddys stuck in the past'.
With decent addons, until about this time last year, FS9 was just as good and possibly exceeded FSX in addon quality from PMDG, Captain Sim, LDS, although they've now migrated to FSX exclusively, their back-catalog's are about as good as the top 1% of FSX addons.
I use FSX, and have about 20-30 payware addons which is impressive for a fourteen year old. But I am careful how I spend the money and only purchase form trusted developers/publishers like Aerosoft, Just Flight, Flight1, RealAir, ORBX you know these don't come cheap but if you add up all the money I've spent, you wouldn't be able to afford the laptop I'm typing on now (an Xmas present) and it isn't even my FS machine. I won't be able to upgrade my FS machine for at least a year (my desktop FS machine is 2007 I think), the RAM and graphics card capacities have been doubled, can you imagine not buying any FS addons for a year or two to save up for a HDD or CPU?
You mention you enjoy FSX because it's at least 3x as good as FS9: well I enjoy, say, MarioCart but that's not three times better (realism) than Gran Turismo 5 for example. Realism and enjoyment are different: don't confuse them.
Take a look at these screenshots: a mixture of FS9 and X. The majority are FS9, so I challenge you to prove which ones are FSX: with these sort of addons, the difference becomes negligible. http://forum.justflight.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=17399&KW=

[benEggleston16]

Erm, Sorry to burst your bubble, my £280 Laptop from a high street PC store runs fsx nicely. All this guff about it needing a super computer is crap.

Depends what payware stuff you throw in, but it does in 9 too... its swings and roundabouts, but with a few config tweaks, I get 30fps (yes, on a laptop). It looks great, its playable, and its absolutely 10 times better than 9, even in that state, and that's just my 'test bed' copy I use for testing repaints. My main rig on the boyfriends pc is... a setup that's mid range now, and pulls 60 in orbx country. Its not WHAT you use, its HOW you use it, so please quit with the 'omg I need supar computar' guff.

My FSX machine is a 2007 Dell Inspiron with upgraded graphics to 512mb, RAm to 3GB and a stock 222GB HDD (completely full)
It all depends what you do, I like flying in ORBX 'lo n' slo' in Carenado, and with photoscenery get over 100fps, but around Heathrow (EGLL), I get about 17 in Aerosoft Airbus X (I used to get 4fps though before I got inot tweaking) It's all about your settings. All my sliders are to the right and I reckon my computer is worse than 90% of successful FSX users. The only sliders that make a difference to me are 'Scenery Complexity' and 'Autogen density', ORBX products fps are incredible considering what the products contain. At imagineSim's KATL (world's busiest airport) I got about 30fps departing in a 747, FSX runs on almost any desktop PC, laptops, I'm not so sure. It's addon dense addon scenery (aerosoft Manhattan) and visually impressive and gimicky planes (captain sim 757) that hit the frames hard.

[angels355]

Ben beautiful shots.

[benEggleston16]

Ben beautiful shots.
Waaaaaaaaaaooooooooh they're not mine!!!!!!!!!!! I could only dream of a PC like that. But they are very good and I'm glad I dug them up (I saw them about a year ago)

[Firekitten]

The duke one is fsx for sure :P That beauty is one of my personal favorite touring machines! Piston, naturally!

[ricardo_NY1]

Since I fit the description of the OP's topic, let me say this. 1) Don't blame the performance of FSX sales figures on people who refuse to upgrade to a newer version of flight simulator. If you do, why not include in your message those who decided not to buy Microsoft and instead went with X-Plane or any other flight simulation software out there, flight gear, etc. To put things in perspective, whether it be MSFS,Paint Shop Pro, Ulead Video or any other software, some people do try out demos and decide that the current version they are using suits them better. Tell me what companies have stopped development due to that reason? I'm using Cyberlink Power Director 8 because after trying their later version demos, I still like this one better. Are they stopping the development of their software because of people like me? I believe they are at least another two versions ahead now and still going.

FSX was not a failure for MS, despite the fact that it demands hardware we do not have 'till this day. Whatever outcome "Flight" has will be directly related to the decisions and directions taken at MS by the people in charge of developing it.

[angels355]

I think I have five units of FS9, it is still a beautiful simulator, and it changes subtly the better the computer is. I have it running on a 700 mhz P3, 1.1 ghz P3, and 3.2 ghz 478 P4. I have a 3.2 ghz 775 P4, 3.4 ghz 775 P4, 775 Pentium D 3 ghz, and socket 939 AMD computers all waiting for Windows and FS9.

I nearly bought five FSX standard ed's when it first came out, however the activation programming policy and big brother, bothered me so much I put them back on the shelf. It's a free market place. Recently, just because I wanted to buy many PMDG aircraft, their most cutting edge models, I purchased 3 new units of FSX Gold, and may be buying two more. Because I wanted the most advanced PMDG's. Built my first FSX computer. I plan to build more.

I am looking at Windows 8 for purchase for my FSX computers. PMDG specifically declined to give aircraft to MS for MS to license them to allow PMDG's on Flight. They would have been requiired to not sell any of their aircraft to anyone else, and MS would probably have dumbed them down for a general audience and to be PC. PMDG declined to participate, thank God. Does MS bear any responsibility for having a product that is less than appealing to one of their steady multiple orders customers? If MS wants to sell add-ons they should compete in an open market format, where innovation and quality count.

[SeanC]

i have an i7 2600k clocked to 4.5ghz, ATI 6970 2GB card, P8P67deluxe board, etc, etc. I prefer flying heavy metal around mid-large airports. I'm sorry but performance for me doesn't cut it in FSX, however, gave it a chance and bought it with the acceleration pack anyway...went back to FS9 and enjoy the smooth experience flying in and out of KLAX, KJFK, EGLL etc with all the add on bells and whistles. I like all of my sliders maxed as they should be. So it baffles me why anyone cares that people plain and simple prefer FS9, Xplane or even FS2002 over FSX? I really don't care if someone tells me they use something I don't. I like driving my 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 Hemi but you don't hear me ranting to friends that prefer driving a Ford F150, Silverado, or Toyota Tundra. Personal preference. Perhaps you don't get out much?

[Firekitten]

I don't understand how you can't get fantastic fsx performance on that system... I really don't.

[djadlib]

I don't understand how you can't get fantastic fsx performance on that system... I really don't.

+1

[Jayskits]

Like other FS9 users who have posted here like angels355 and ricardo NY1, I also need to comment. After all, I've been accused of willingly staying in the stone age and refusing to leave the past behind and upgrade to FSX. Worse, because of what I did, I am now said to be responsible for MS abandoning its true flight simulation franchise and going off in an arcade direction with their program.

Well, before the hangman's noose is tightened around my traitorous neck as I stand side by side with the other Neanderthals waiting for the lever to be pulled, let me offer this.

I love FS (notice no version number). Been enjoying it for years. Still have my SubLogic floppies to prove it.

When FSX came out, I fully expected to upgrade to it from FS9. I read all the reviews and articles on the new FSX. The more I read, the more I realized that I didn't currently have a machine that would run it satisfactorily and would cause me great frustration. I also knew that the computer I had at that time was quite acceptable to run all the business and recreation software I was using, and that I was not in a position at that moment to spend a lot of money to buy a more powerful computer just to accomodate FSX.

As time went on I kept reading. The more I read about FSX, the more I realized that users who had made the jump to FSX spent untold amounts of time being a tech guru, tweaking, configing, etc, in an attempt to get acceptable frame rates, rather than spending that time enjoying their passion for flying. Since I have a normal life, full of real-world obligations and varied interests, I knew that I did not have the time necessary to invest in endlessly tinkering with my config file like some Geek Squad guy. The little time I had to devote to FS, I wanted it to be to enjoy the illusion of flight.

So, for the moment I stayed with FS9. And bought a few 3rd party add-ons.

As months turned into years, and I continuously read about FSX, I came to the conclusion that MS did a poor job in advancing our beloved FS to a true nex-gen level of performance and reality. Seemed to me like MS management needed a new version to market to make more money, and that FSX was rushed out the door without taking the time to refine the code to make it more efficient. The consumer was left to make up for this shortcoming by being expected to buy the most powerful CPU he could get.

T that point for me, the jury was still out on FSX. I bought some more great add-ons for my FS9.

I also read from those who had finally gotten FSX to run with acceptable frame rates that the immersion factor was only slightly better than FS9 because the visuals were only slightly nicer than FS9 - not a true eye-ball popping generational leap. Other elements were not improved such as the cludgy ATC over what was already in FS9.

I eventually had to admit to myself that it really wasn't worth the monetary investment to move over to FSX. To duplicate what I already had with FS9, I would have to buy a powerful machine, and then re-buy a lot of great add-ons in the FSX version. That would be a lot of money. And if I did that, all I would wind up with is a sim that looked slightly better when flying low & slow VFR GA, but not as good as FS9 when flying long haul high altitude flight plans.

Like a lot of others, I came to feel that FSX was largely a money-grab by MS. I wouldn't play, and would wait for a future version when MS did a proper job and truly advanced the flight sim genre.

Now, MS has said no more, and is making their play for the big bucks with Flight which is directed to a totally different market.

Where will I go from here (the question all of us have to answer for ourselves)? Even though I now have a more powerful computer as shown below which could probably run FSX adequately, I'll stay with FS9. I have too much invested in it. If there is a new Flight simulator in my future, it probably won't come from MS, unless they have a huge change of plan. My next sim might come from the likes of a Lockheed Martin, or some as yet unnamed author. And whoever it is, if they do it right, they will get my support and dollars.

Am I to blame? In a land supposedly based on the right of the individual's freedom to go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose, a person can not be blamed for doing what is best for him. So I declare "Not guilty as charged!"

Put the hood over my head and pull the lever!

[loki]

I don't understand how you can't get fantastic fsx performance on that system... I really don't.

Something that many people forget to take into account when talking about FS performance are the personal expectations and preferences of the users themselves. One user may be happy with reduced settings and 20FPS, another does only bush flying nowhere near any large cities, and yet someone else wants 30FPS+ with all of the eye-candy turned up over a very detailed NYC in a PMDG airliner.

[benEggleston16]

Something that many people forget to take into account when talking about FS performance are the personal expectations and preferences of the users themselves. One user may be happy with reduced settings and 20FPS, another does only bush flying nowhere near any large cities, and yet someone else wants 30FPS+ with all of the eye-candy turned up over a very detailed NYC in a PMDG airliner.
You're absolutely right, different settings need to be applied depending on your area, in mountains, autogen might be on very dense because it's just trees but in a populated are, the maximum FSX autogen would kill most systems as well as looking horrible. I had a bad experiens with performance when I first got FSX, now I'm amazed to get figures in the teens over a very poor New York where the (same) computer would without fail crash a year ago before I started 'tweaking' and creating scenery 'profiles' (very useful: for example, you have a new scenery product, set the sliders to the settings recommended in the manual, then save them using the FSX feature. Save profiles such as 'urban' (low autogen), rural (high settings overall) large airport (high or low AI as a compromise for realism and performance), high altitude (low resolution ground textures) etc.) Top tip though: ALWAYS set FPS to Unlimited: frames are 20-30% better always, sometimes double! In FS9, a target improves frames. In FSX, Unlimited improves them: weird. Downsides incude a fluctuating rate (if you consistently achieved your target before) and more crashes but regular saves should keep that from high annoyance and the performance increase will be so great you won't regret it.

[Firekitten]

Something that many people forget to take into account when talking about FS performance are the personal expectations and preferences of the users themselves. One user may be happy with reduced settings and 20FPS, another does only bush flying nowhere near any large cities, and yet someone else wants 30FPS+ with all of the eye-candy turned up over a very detailed NYC in a PMDG airliner.To be fair, I get 30-40 frames over ORBX cities like Vancouver and Melbourne on full autogen, and 60+ in wilderness... my specs are far lower than his.. heck, I have NZSI maxed, and you'll find trees can be a far bigger frame killer in those volumes! a little attention to how you set up fsx makes all the difference, you don't need to be a tech expert, as someone said... All I did was keep AI at a sensible level, and use the www.venetubo.com/fsx.html tweaker one time, and its been pure gold since. Simple.

[benEggleston16]

To be fair, I get 30-40 frames over ORBX cities like Vancouver and Melbourne on full autogen, and 60+ in wilderness... my specs are far lower than his.. heck, I have NZSI maxed, and you'll find trees can be a far bigger frame killer in those volumes! a little attention to how you set up fsx makes all the difference, you don't need to be a tech expert, as someone said... All I did was keep AI at a sensible level, and use the www.venetubo.com/fsx.html tweaker one time, and its been pure gold since. Simple.
I don't wish to lecture you (it is your experience) but ORBX product's offer amazing fps in ANY situation especially compared to the competition, like aerosoft, which is interesting since ORBX say they want their products to be future-proof: I'm not saying they're not good now, but imagine what they'll be like if we see them how they were designed to be... I don't know how big a consideration peformance is on a developer's mind but it's what entices me to products: ORBX are often faster than default.
I've never tried a 'tweaker' before, just messed around with sliders, what are your (firekitten; or any other FSX user's) PC specs exactly?
Mine:
Intel Duo Core processor
Nvidia 9500 graphics 512mb
3GB usable RAM
W7 32-bit OS
c.2007 Dell Inspiron 530 base (OS, graphics and RAM extra)

[loki]

All I did was keep AI at a sensible level

You're missing my point. Your definition of sensible will be different than others, and what works for you won't satisfy them. Being a 5 year old game, some do expect, and want, to run the sim with everything maxed out or enabled. For this you do need a powerful machine.

[SeanC]

yes in a lot of cases I'm sure we are dealing with apples and oranges as far as expectations and preference and on top of that what in game settings but also your GPU settings are. I have everything maxed for FS9 in game and same goes with GPU settings. My FPS are fantastic. As for FSX....i can get at 100 and higher FPS(highest i have seen is in the 180s)....if all i want to look at is the clear blue sky....on the ground i just fired up FSX at CYYZ maxed setting using an add on E170 as well as a CYYZ addon with ultimate traffic x....i was at around 23-26FPS on the ground with massive stutters...not fun...in fact I have bought prepar3d for this month and so far that hasn't been much fun either....too bad Aerosoft decided to kill their sim....

[csefton]

csefton, you have a highly prejudiced view on the loyal FS9 users who to some degree I respect for their efforts to improve what a sim that, I agree, is a significant way behind default FSX. But you obviously have never thought about the financial situation of such people, whom I don't wich to patronise by describing their 'poverty' (a word you used in your original post). I understand yout point but your attitude and language convey a sense of resentment, patronising and disregard for their lifestyle. Why in your response to viperpilot2 did you use 6 lol smileys? I see your point and I don't agree FS9 users are solely responsible for FLIGHT's change of course, but it's your attitude I don't get. What's wrong with people liking old things? Why are you so angered by it, saying things like like it was a quota they were required to fulfill but failed. And what about FS9 users who purchased FSX but still didn't like it? They boosted Microsoft's sales figures yet you say anyone not upgrading to FSX is responsible for FLIGHT's unpopular course change. You are hypocritical, saying FS9 is good, then saying FSX is waaaaay better and FS9 is for 'fuddy-duddys stuck in the past'.
With decent addons, until about this time last year, FS9 was just as good and possibly exceeded FSX in addon quality from PMDG, Captain Sim, LDS, although they've now migrated to FSX exclusively, their back-catalog's are about as good as the top 1% of FSX addons.
I use FSX, and have about 20-30 payware addons which is impressive for a fourteen year old. But I am careful how I spend the money and only purchase form trusted developers/publishers like Aerosoft, Just Flight, Flight1, RealAir, ORBX you know these don't come cheap but if you add up all the money I've spent, you wouldn't be able to afford the laptop I'm typing on now (an Xmas present) and it isn't even my FS machine. I won't be able to upgrade my FS machine for at least a year (my desktop FS machine is 2007 I think), the RAM and graphics card capacities have been doubled, can you imagine not buying any FS addons for a year or two to save up for a HDD or CPU?
You mention you enjoy FSX because it's at least 3x as good as FS9: well I enjoy, say, MarioCart but that's not three times better (realism) than Gran Turismo 5 for example. Realism and enjoyment are different: don't confuse them.
Take a look at these screenshots: a mixture of FS9 and X. The majority are FS9, so I challenge you to prove which ones are FSX: with these sort of addons, the difference becomes negligible. http://forum.justflight.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=17399&KW=


Hey BEN!...read the TITLE of my thread before posting your comments!.....i said!...FOR THOSE WHO NEVER PURCHASED FSX yet now moan about FLIGHT!!!!!!!!!!......what do i have to do to get through to some of you fs9 aficionados!.......YES WE ALL KNOW FS9 IS PRETTY BEN!!!!!! so is fs2002 or fs98!......who cares!...my point was VERY VERY simple even for someone of your age!......FSX IS BETTER!!!!!!...FAR BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....and yet three quarters of you FS9 DIE HARDS chose to AVOID the purchase of FSX like the plague!!!....so hey ben stick with your swirly whirly silly water effects in FS9!!!!.....stick with you low res scenery textures and other obvious limitations!...And whats with the 'Realism and enjoyment are different'...i never said they weren't!..they go hand in hand and both contribute to a great sim!...any sim needs REALISM to be enjoyable i nthe WAY it was intended!....FSX is NOT a GAME!!!..so dont pretend FSX is the same as MarioCart!....THE WHOLE POINT OF FLIGHT SIMULATION IS REALSIM..to acheive a realistic flight experience..why the hell do you think everyone is complaining about '''COLLECT THE COINS'' Microsoft FLIGHT!!! ....its YOU that's confused...if you cant see what i was trying to point OUT ben then am afraid you fall into the VERY category of FS9 users i was referring to!.........MY POINT was very SIMPLY even though it somehow eludes you!!!!! most FS9 users NEVER purchased FSX!!!!! yet they NOW seem to feel justified in complaining about FLIGHT!!....WHY????...... they DIDN'T want to take the plunge THEN into the world of FSX even though ACES had spent years trying to honestly give us all better and more of what fs9 had to offer!!!......yet still NOW even NOW i still see FS9'ers waffling on about how good FS9 is and how disappointed they are with FLIGHT!....pathetic!.... ......AS FOR THOSE WHO NOW! (YEH RIGHT!) claim they purchased FSX and yet STILL prefer FS9 THEY are either lying, deluded or BLIND!...no argument period!

Anyway its ALL academic now as the franchise is more than likely ruined!....like i said..FS9 users who DIDN'T PURCHASE FSX but who chose to stick with fs9 thats fine!.....BUT dont complain NOW that Microsoft have gone down the FLIGHT road!..i see it in all the forums its a joke!...two faced stubborn fs9'ers!...LETS BE VERY BLUNT AGAIN HERE!!!!....like it or hate it i dont really care!..complain or refute it....Its PROBABLY because of you die hard stick with FS9 guys WHO REFUSED TO PURCHASE FSX AND SUPPORT MICROSOFT! that we have probably LOST this sims future!...Remember that WITH YOUR 1000 BUCKS worth of FS9 addons AND SWIRLY WHIRLY WATER EFFECTS! yet they still complain they cant afford a pc upgrade!!...boo hoo!...I remember when you all declared..'AM GOING TO GIVE FSX A MISS altogether AND WAIT UNTIL FS11 arrives' to see what that is like!.....

The sad irony HERE IS you WILL ALL END UP USING FSX ANYWAY SOON!!!! in 2-3 years when you are eventually forced to change to fsx because soon you realise that most companies like Aerosoft and Orbx will no longer support or develop for old and fuddy duddy FS9!...whats really SAD here is EVEN NOW! we have FS9 users defending their choices and decisions NOT to purchase FSX and support MICROSOFT!....make no mistakes i am pretty certain this was a BIG factor in their NEW direction of FLIGHT!.....

[SeanC]

LOL who is this guy? yes we are delusional...lol...do you even read what you type before you post...it's hilarious. Did you get beat up at school often? I'd bet my dust covered copy of FSX Gold that you did - A lot.

[csefton]

Since I fit the description of the OP's topic, let me say this. 1) Don't blame the performance of FSX sales figures on people who refuse to upgrade to a newer version of flight simulator. If you do, why not include in your message those who decided not to buy Microsoft and instead went with X-Plane or any other flight simulation software out there, flight gear, etc. To put things in perspective, whether it be MSFS,Paint Shop Pro, Ulead Video or any other software, some people do try out demos and decide that the current version they are using suits them better. Tell me what companies have stopped development due to that reason? I'm using Cyberlink Power Director 8 because after trying their later version demos, I still like this one better. Are they stopping the development of their software because of people like me? I believe they are at least another two versions ahead now and still going.

FSX was not a failure for MS, despite the fact that it demands hardware we do not have 'till this day. Whatever outcome "Flight" has will be directly related to the decisions and directions taken at MS by the people in charge of developing it.

I REFER YOU ALONG WITH OTHERS HERE TO THE title OF MY THREAD!....

To all FS2004, 2002 USERS who refused to purchase FSX!.yet now complain about FLIGHT!

If you seriously expect me to believe 3 million FS9 USERS who refused to support Microsoft and purcahse FSX sudenly decided to go over to XPLANE or flight gear! then am afraid you really do need to take your REALITY pills Ricardo and stop talking utter BS!

99% of FS9 users who refused to purchase fsx DID NOT!!! give up all their expensive addons to suddenly transfer their loyalty to take up pathetic xplane OR any other dodgy niche market sim just because of their disappointment in FSX!!!.....

And FSX was not the success Microsoft hoped for!..in real term of costs to develop and profits it represented a failure!...do some REAL research and see how it stacked up against FS2002 or fs9!..it was to intents and purposes a flop!!!!...FLOP!!!...........yet the REALITY IS IT NEVER DESERVED TO FLOP!.................it was in part (and still IS!) due to the loyal die hard, obstinate hard to please STICK with FS9 brigade!..the same sad pathetic fs9'ers that now IRONICALLY complain about FLIGHT!

[clayton6221]

What about those who bought it and just didn't install it? Yup, still in the box...

Perhaps FS9 was enough for them? Since I get to play with the real thing...

And the last time I checked, Microsoft was doing quite nicely... In spite of the gaming world going off in a different direction.
I am not here to line Microsofts pockets for the sake of the simming world, to ensure you get a better FS version. There are better things to spend my money on...
Alot of folks take FS just a little too seriously. They seem to be on some romantic quest for Valhalla in the sky.
Sorry folks, it is still just a SIMULATION... Fun, but still not real world...

Only so much one can do with any flying simulation, the real world of aviation is quite a different thing altogether. I haven't ever gotten the smell of JP from my computer yet, no matter how many pounds of JP I try to burn...
Real world JP smells bad...

[ricardo_NY1]

Hey BEN!...read the TITLE of my thread before posting your comments!.....i said!...FOR THOSE WHO NEVER PURCHASED FSX yet now moan about FLIGHT!!!!!!!!!!......what do i have to do to get through to some of you fs9 aficionados!.......YES WE ALL KNOW FS9 IS PRETTY BEN!!!!!! so is fs2002 or fs98!......who cares!...my point was VERY VERY simple even for someone of your age!......FSX IS BETTER!!!!!!...FAR BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....and yet three quarters of you FS9 DIE HARDS chose to AVOID the purchase of FSX like the plague!!!....so hey ben stick with your swirly whirly silly water effects in FS9!!!!.....stick with you low res scenery textures and other obvious limitations!...And whats with the 'Realism and enjoyment are different'...i never said they weren't!..they go hand in hand and both contribute to a great sim!...any sim needs REALISM to be enjoyable i nthe WAY it was intended!....FSX is NOT a GAME!!!..so dont pretend FSX is the same as MarioCart!....THE WHOLE POINT OF FLIGHT SIMULATION IS REALSIM..to acheive a realistic flight experience..why the hell do you think everyone is complaining about '''COLLECT THE COINS'' Microsoft FLIGHT!!! ....its YOU that's confused...if you cant see what i was trying to point OUT ben then am afraid you fall into the VERY category of FS9 users i was referring to!.........MY POINT was very SIMPLY even though it somehow eludes you!!!!! most FS9 users NEVER purchased FSX!!!!! yet they NOW seem to feel justified in complaining about FLIGHT!!....WHY????...... they DIDN'T want to take the plunge THEN into the world of FSX even though ACES had spent years trying to honestly give us all better and more of what fs9 had to offer!!!......yet still NOW even NOW i still see FS9'ers waffling on about how good FS9 is and how disappointed they are with FLIGHT!....pathetic!.... ......AS FOR THOSE WHO NOW! (YEH RIGHT!) claim they purchased FSX and yet STILL prefer FS9 THEY are either lying, deluded or BLIND!...no argument period!

Anyway its ALL academic now as the franchise is more than likely ruined!....like i said..FS9 users who DIDN'T PURCHASE FSX but who chose to stick with fs9 thats fine!.....BUT dont complain NOW that Microsoft have gone down the FLIGHT road!..i see it in all the forums its a joke!...two faced stubborn fs9'ers!...LETS BE VERY BLUNT AGAIN HERE!!!!....like it or hate it i dont really care!..complain or refute it....Its PROBABLY because of you die hard stick with FS9 guys WHO REFUSED TO PURCHASE FSX AND SUPPORT MICROSOFT! that we have probably LOST this sims future!...Remember that WITH YOUR 1000 BUCKS worth of FS9 addons AND SWIRLY WHIRLY WATER EFFECTS! yet they still complain they cant afford a pc upgrade!!...boo hoo!...I remember when you all declared..'AM GOING TO GIVE FSX A MISS altogether AND WAIT UNTIL FS11 arrives' to see what that is like!.....

The sad irony HERE IS you WILL ALL END UP USING FSX ANYWAY SOON!!!! in 2-3 years when you are eventually forced to change to fsx because soon you realise that most companies like Aerosoft and Orbx will no longer support or develop for old and fuddy duddy FS9!...whats really SAD here is EVEN NOW! we have FS9 users defending their choices and decisions NOT to purchase FSX and support MICROSOFT!....make no mistakes i am pretty certain this was a BIG factor in their NEW direction of FLIGHT!.....
You sir are out of touch with reality. I'd like to ask you in what business is it a sin for the customer base to skip out on a version or year? What car do you drive? Do you buy a new one every year? Do you feel you didn't support your car manufacturer if you missed out on purchasing a car from them every year? How about your computer. What brand computer do you own? Do you buy their yearly offerings? Do you buy new everything every time something new is offered? Your argument has zero substance in regards to supporting the development of Microsoft or any of their products.

Secondly, I'd like to ask you why you pick and choose this aimless and unsubstantiated topic. Why aren't you touching on the people who had half a brain and skipped out on Windows Vista? Did that stop the development of Windows 7?


If you seriously expect me to believe 3 million FS9 USERS who refused to support Microsoft and purcahse FSX sudenly decided to go over to XPLANE or flight gear! then am afraid you really do need to take your REALITY pills Ricardo and stop talking utter BS!

Firstly, where did you get your 3 million FS9 user figure? Did you put out a national phone survey? Secondly, who are you quoting? Aside your quoted amount of FS9 users, I asked you why are you not throwing into the mix people who simply decided to not purchase FSX and went on to purchase a non MS flight simulation software. Do you understand that question and concept? Are you aware of the fact that it is not written in stone that someone has to upgrade to a product issued by the same manufacturer? They have the option to move over to someone else. So I'll ask you again, why are you not throwing in ex FS98, FS2000 and FS9 users who simply decided to leave FSX alone and buy X-Plane into your reasoning for the issues surrounding Flight. And if possible, please provide a link or source to the 3 million specific FS9 users who refused to buy FSX........well 2,999,999 since I already know about myself.

Lastly, it's probably due to gullible people who are ready to swallow whatever is thrown at them that a company would have the confidence to issue a product that is out of touch with its customer base and expect people to buy it. If our community of FSX users are unhappy with FLIGHT, the best outcome will be for them to stick to their FSX, ala FS9 user. Don't support Flight. Support development of a product made for the community, not for gamers. Your support would be more worthwhile with the 3rd party developers who'll make your FSX even better. And this will further set the path for this OP to blame you, the FSX user for the failed development of FSxx because you didn't download Flight or buy add-ons at their marketplace.

[SeanC]

You sir are out of touch with reality. I'd like to ask you in what business is it a sin for the customer base to skip out on a version or year? What car do you drive? Do you buy a new one every year? Do you feel you didn't support your car manufacturer if you missed out on purchasing a car from them every year? How about your computer. What brand computer do you own? Do you buy their yearly offerings? Do you buy new everything every time something new is offered? Your argument has zero substance in regards to supporting the development of Microsoft or any of their products.

Secondly, I'd like to ask you why you pick and choose this aimless and unsubstantiated topic. Why aren't you touching on the people who had half a brain and skipped out on Windows Vista? Did that stop the development of Windows 7?

out of touch with reality is putting it lightly with this guy...lol i want whatever he's smoking...looks like lots of fun. lol..anyway i think maybe i'll fire up my antiquated FS9 with swirly whirly water - LOL- and go flying.

[clayton6221]

"As for my zircon encrusted FSX bidet yes its NICE AND COMFY THANKS and so is MY enjoyment of flight simulation, WHICH by virtue of FSX, Orbx, rex etc etc is prob a magnitude of ..oh at least 3x better than anything FS2004 has to offer...maybe your FS2004 fogged Ray Ban Sunglasses need a bit of a polish to let you SEE where REALITY is really located at...it aint FS2004!"

Reality ???
Really now, do tell...

"Reality" in a SIMULATION ???
That is an oxymoron!

"compare the negative feedback and poor sales with FSX to the huge often positive..."
Now, what does that statement tell YOU about the product FSX?
It was junk as first put on the market, and their sales reflected it. Too many. long awaited patches and fixes, for the "I have to have it now crowd".
The latest and greatest, isn't always the best. FS9 was a hard act to follow...
Maybe too hard...

The Comet comes to mind. Good promotion, good plane, UNTIL, it started coming apart in the sky. Then it was too late, the market place passed it by...

[Jayskits]

is it a sin for the customer base to skip out on a version or year?


Yes, yes! I admit it! I can't live with the guilt anymore! Will someone please hear my confession? Oh, the depravity! I admit it! I failed to purchase Vista and stayed with XP! I'm going to burn in hell for destroying Miscosoft! Oh, the humanity of it all ! <sob>

[Firekitten]

I've never tried a 'tweaker' before, just messed around with sliders, what are your (firekitten; or any other FSX user's) PC specs exactly?
Mine:
Intel Duo Core processor
Nvidia 9500 graphics 512mb
3GB usable RAM
W7 32-bit OS
c.2007 Dell Inspiron 530 base (OS, graphics and RAM extra)
lecturing is fine :) Plus, why do you think I use orbx? next generation graphics... frankly, beyond flight.... and great performance, its a no brainer.
My specs are dual core amd at 2.8 per core, 4 gig ddr2, GTX880 card w7 64bit ultimate, gets 60 frames easily,(bf's machine) laptop: amd dual core 2.3ghz, ati mobility 4250 card, 2gig ddr3, gets 30.. (testbed machine not for flying but testing, still good)

As for frames in general, not sure how many of you know this, but the human eye can see a max of 30fps, and your monitor can only DISPLAY its refresh rate... in my case, 60hz. So after 10-20fps over that, you'll never notice it, or find any advantage.

As for the tweaker I linked to, its a simple web interface... plug in your specs or equivalents, press go, download the edited cfg and paste into yours... done, it basically doubled the fps on BOTH of my machines... 20-30 on the pc upto 60, 5-10 on the laptop upto 30... truly awesome software.

Loki: understood, but expectations =/= reality in many cases.

Oh, and for the record, while I agree with elements of the OP's post, I'm not on his side by a long stretch! (Not smoking anything, and not beaten up in school, and no Electra Complex (just to make that clear!) (in fact to be frank, I retract my initial support, as it seems he's either trollyed or on the wacky stash.)

While I believe a lot don't give fsx the chance it deserves ( trying it post sp 1 and 2, or with the tweak tools or addon scenery that make it truly amazing and worth getting simply for things like orbx, at the end of the day, it is personal choice. But when I see users with monster computers claiming it won't run, I have to wonder whether they tried with that build... or are going off hearsay.

[angels355]

Something that many people forget to take into account when talking about FS performance are the personal expectations and preferences of the users themselves. One user may be happy with reduced settings and 20FPS, another does only bush flying nowhere near any large cities, and yet someone else wants 30FPS+ with all of the eye-candy turned up over a very detailed NYC in a PMDG airliner.

I am new to fsx, was surprised that I was getting easy 35 fps and smooth. My monitor res was 1680 x, fsx was at 1024 x, turned it up to 1680 x, and moved the sliders from Medium Low to Medium High if I recall. A solid 1 fps at LA. I reset the resolution to 1280 x, and I turned it down to Medium Low on all settings, now back to a very smooth 36 fps locked at 36 fps. I haven't gotten my setting where I want, but I like it so far. When I had gotten 1 fps, at first I wondered if I made a mistake and how easy FS9 is to run, and I have many other computers that can be overwhelmed. However my processor, Q9450, was flexible enough to allow me to set the settings back downward without freezing solid. I have a new Extreme unlocked 3 ghz QX9650, still sealed, but no gaming mobo, felt it would be better to try selling it and build an i7 system later. The Win 8 evaluation of my system's performance power was 7.3's down the line, but the bottleneck was my 500 gb WD Caviar Blue recertified HDD that scored a 5.3. I think it is a nice system for what I paid for it. Q9450, Coolermaster 612 two 120 mm fans it's HUGE, 4 gb Kingston ram w/ heatspreaders, Asus GTX 550 Ti video 1 gb 190+ processors video card, 500 gb WD Caviar Blue recertified, OCZ 750 watt modular PSU. Everything runs extremely smooth on Win 8 64 bit Developers Preview. W8 is really nice, confusing to get used to, I still haven't found the system monitor. Haven't gotten Linux running on it so far, it doesn't seem to like the video card. I think I have to install Linux using the onboard video, install the video driver, and see if that will work.

Flying FS9 for years and still am, I know that FS9 is an amazing and stunning FS. It is an amazing asset.

I'm starting to get the picture of what was going on at the end of FSXI. It is a fact that it was shut down because of managers arguing, but I wonder if it was over whether to fit FS into a future X-Box. X-Box game images look very nice but they are not as good as a full gaming pc. FS got transferred over to the MS Game development department, and that is where the "Synergies" came into play literally. The MS Games department applied what they knew about console gaming to FS to prepare it to be part of its' ordinary linup of games. What set FS apart from other games in the past was that it was a graphically stunning game that challenged the present hardware at each release, one of the world's most superlative high end games. Even though the FS series was making money in its' present form, I think they wanted to bring it down from a high end game, down to the mainstream console games. The PC World article cited above mentioned that they hoped not to alienate their fanbase...... I'm amazed that they even acknowledge us. Clearly we disagree with management's decision. As yet, MS are superlative experts in designing flight simulators, you notice this when you try any other flight simulator. It is just a very sad situation that MS completely ignores us.

Lockheed won't be the source of our next FS, theirs is still 32 bit and lightly multithreaded, not significantly improved over FSX. What we need is a simulator engine like Loki pointed out, the 64 bit Frostbite engine. The Wikipedia article didn't mention how multithreaded it is, but that is what we need is full multithreading.

I'm having fun with FSX and FS9, I think it is important to remain calm and objective and not get upset.

[fxsttcb]

...But when I see users with monster computers claiming it won't run, I have to wonder whether they tried with that build... or are going off hearsay.
I wonder that myself. My lowly 5year old 3.1GHz, 2GB RAM, Win 7 computer runs FSX at 20-25FPS with most sliders full right.

Jesus Altuve Auto-Tweaker for FSX (http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html) works, and works well, to baseline your system. Learning how and which sliders to "trade" is a matter of trying them.
Autogen, Traffic, Water, and Weather sliders are changed(traded) to accommodate the type of flying I'm doing. Generally for every flight.
The "trade-off" learning curve isn't that steep, and trading settings allows the best performance and visuals for the situation.

Well, actually, I don't tweak that much anymore. I placed shotcuts on my desktop to my FSX.cfg and Scenery.cfg folders.
Notepad is set as default for the *.cfg extension. If I want to fly my AI carriers and Carrier Tracks traffic for example, I dbl/click FSX-Carrier OPs.cfg(set up specifically with that kind of flying in mind) and "save as" fsx.cfg. Same for Scenery-Carrier OPs.cfg. Launch FSX and I'm ready to Rock-N-Roll.
I have a half dozen profiles saved that way plus defaults. When I discover another profile I like I'll save that too.
A few clicks before FSX launch makes it exactly; what I know I like, instantly reproduceable, and is easy.

Photoreal scenery is a boon to lower performance computers. Beyond just looking great, Photoreal precludes autogen, allowing me/you to crank up the other settings and get 35-40FPS flying at 3000ft/300Kias, smooooothly, looking great.

If Flight can expand on a few of those types of scenarios, it will garner some of my attention. Carrier landings are a must in my installs...Don

[Paxx]

FSX can run on a variety of hardware depending on the expectations of the user.

P.S - Don, in a few months 5GHz+/- on your new system will change your FSX experience dramatically. Dare I say, you will find new ways to slow it down.
:)

[loki]

not sure how many of you know this, but the human eye can see a max of 30fps,

No, the human eye can "see" frame rates much higher than 30FPS. 24-30FPS is about the minimum needed for smooth motion.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm


I have to wonder whether they tried with that build... or are going off hearsay.

Some may be going off hearsay, but if you go through the comments there are many who see modern games running at 40 or 50+ FPS and wonder why FSX doesn't. Expectations certainly don't equal reality, however, when they are different it can lead to the user becoming disillusioned about the product.

[fxsttcb]

P.S - Don, in a few months 5GHz+/- on your new system will change your FSX experience dramatically. Dare I say, you will find new ways to slow it down.I always have! :D Still debating SB + Ivy Bridge soon, or SB-E now and add IB-E next Xmas. Samsung "830" 512GB SSD and HD 7970 for certain, either way...Don

[benEggleston16]

Hey BEN!...read the TITLE of my thread before posting your comments!.....i said!...FOR THOSE WHO NEVER PURCHASED FSX yet now moan about FLIGHT!!!!!!!!!!......what do i have to do to get through to some of you fs9 aficionados!.......YES WE ALL KNOW FS9 IS PRETTY BEN!!!!!! so is fs2002 or fs98!......who cares!...my point was VERY VERY simple even for someone of your age!......FSX IS BETTER!!!!!!...FAR BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....and yet three quarters of you FS9 DIE HARDS chose to AVOID the purchase of FSX like the plague!!!....so hey ben stick with your swirly whirly silly water effects in FS9!!!!.....stick with you low res scenery textures and other obvious limitations!...And whats with the 'Realism and enjoyment are different'...i never said they weren't!..they go hand in hand and both contribute to a great sim!...any sim needs REALISM to be enjoyable i nthe WAY it was intended!....FSX is NOT a GAME!!!..so dont pretend FSX is the same as MarioCart!....THE WHOLE POINT OF FLIGHT SIMULATION IS REALSIM..to acheive a realistic flight experience..why the hell do you think everyone is complaining about '''COLLECT THE COINS'' Microsoft FLIGHT!!! ....its YOU that's confused...if you cant see what i was trying to point OUT ben then am afraid you fall into the VERY category of FS9 users i was referring to!.........MY POINT was very SIMPLY even though it somehow eludes you!!!!! most FS9 users NEVER purchased FSX!!!!! yet they NOW seem to feel justified in complaining about FLIGHT!!....WHY????...... they DIDN'T want to take the plunge THEN into the world of FSX even though ACES had spent years trying to honestly give us all better and more of what fs9 had to offer!!!......yet still NOW even NOW i still see FS9'ers waffling on about how good FS9 is and how disappointed they are with FLIGHT!....pathetic!.... ......AS FOR THOSE WHO NOW! (YEH RIGHT!) claim they purchased FSX and yet STILL prefer FS9 THEY are either lying, deluded or BLIND!...no argument period!

Anyway its ALL academic now as the franchise is more than likely ruined!....like i said..FS9 users who DIDN'T PURCHASE FSX but who chose to stick with fs9 thats fine!.....BUT dont complain NOW that Microsoft have gone down the FLIGHT road!..i see it in all the forums its a joke!...two faced stubborn fs9'ers!...LETS BE VERY BLUNT AGAIN HERE!!!!....like it or hate it i dont really care!..complain or refute it....Its PROBABLY because of you die hard stick with FS9 guys WHO REFUSED TO PURCHASE FSX AND SUPPORT MICROSOFT! that we have probably LOST this sims future!...Remember that WITH YOUR 1000 BUCKS worth of FS9 addons AND SWIRLY WHIRLY WATER EFFECTS! yet they still complain they cant afford a pc upgrade!!...boo hoo!...I remember when you all declared..'AM GOING TO GIVE FSX A MISS altogether AND WAIT UNTIL FS11 arrives' to see what that is like!.....

The sad irony HERE IS you WILL ALL END UP USING FSX ANYWAY SOON!!!! in 2-3 years when you are eventually forced to change to fsx because soon you realise that most companies like Aerosoft and Orbx will no longer support or develop for old and fuddy duddy FS9!...whats really SAD here is EVEN NOW! we have FS9 users defending their choices and decisions NOT to purchase FSX and support MICROSOFT!....make no mistakes i am pretty certain this was a BIG factor in their NEW direction of FLIGHT!.....

I did see the title of the thread and so did everyone else you're fighting a losing battle against. 'Yes we all know FS9 is pretty': next you say it has nice but silly water effects (like REX for FSX): then 'low-res textures'... if you're going to make an argument, at least keep some consistency... when you say FSX is far better-how do you mean? You've said flight sims have been good looking since FS98 and I always thought visuals were FSX's strong point. Nothing needs to be realistic be enjoyed: the mariokart reference was an example of an unrealistic but fun and popluar game: are you saying the people who 'enjoy' it are not really?
Sticking with flight sims, the people who like to fly upside-down for a laugh every now and then: are they not enjoying themselves? My point was you said FSX was more enjoyable because it was more realistic: I'm saying not everything that's enjoyable is realistic. FSX was already going down the 'collect the coins' route, look at the (enjoyable yet unrealistic) missions, land a plane on a bus, fly a learjet to a fictional volcano island for the british secret service, get an award for flying over three SR-71s, follow a UFO in an FA/18, spot a UFO flying to Area 51, the list goes on, you're the one saying a sim needs maximum realism to be enjoyed, with features like this, is it any wonder old 'fuddy-duddys' rejected FSX even after using it.
Do I fall into the category of FS9 users you were referring to? Firstly, I'm very sorry for single-handedly destroying the flight simulator franchise despite purchasing and enjoying FSX. Your 'simple' point: I'm pretty sure it was that FS9 users destroyed the FS franchise because they didn't buy FSX, so, understandably, MS decided FS had had its day, so they closed it before they lost any more money. The n you say they (the FS9 users) have no right to lament the loss of the FS franchise since they destroyed it. 'Most FS9 users never purchased FSX': why should they? What do you drive? You live in the UK, so let's say a Ford Focus (the uk's most popluar car). When a new focus comes out, do you buy it? Then when its performance isn't good enough, do you spend thousands tuning it to please Ford and make it as good as the previous model? No! And when the Focus is discontinued, do die-hard Focus fans attack those who bought a Focus once but didn't by the later model?
How are FS9'ers waffling on about how good FS9 is any worse than you advocating FSX? Then complaining about FLIGHT, well, FSX was the beginning of the wider market appeal (childishness, to FS die-hards) and if they saw that didn't succeed, why should they continue with the 'wider market appeal', if anything, MS's change of dierction is the fault of those who enjoyed the wider market appeal, ie, FSX users (at least it would appear to microsoft). Most people on this forum like you and me (in the UK) live in countries where anyone can express an opinion however stupid it is (as long as it's not rascist) and have a right to be heard, so it's bad enough to blame FS9 users for the APPARENT failure of FLIGHT (remember, it's still in development) but to say they have no right expressing their views on it... that is deluded. And lastly, 'FSX is better and anyone who doesn't agree hasn't used it, is lying, deluded or blind no argument period'. Your opinion is valid. Sadly (for you), so is everone else's. 'It's YOU that's confused/deluded/needs a reality check'. Also a valid opinion. It's also one that only one person seems to share (ahem, you). However, how many people feel that way about you?

[angels355]

yes in a lot of cases I'm sure we are dealing with apples and oranges as far as expectations and preference and on top of that what in game settings but also your GPU settings are. I have everything maxed for FS9 in game and same goes with GPU settings. My FPS are fantastic. As for FSX....i can get at 100 and higher FPS(highest i have seen is in the 180s)....if all i want to look at is the clear blue sky....on the ground i just fired up FSX at CYYZ maxed setting using an add on E170 as well as a CYYZ addon with ultimate traffic x....i was at around 23-26FPS on the ground with massive stutters...not fun...in fact I have bought prepar3d for this month and so far that hasn't been much fun either....too bad Aerosoft decided to kill their sim....

The foundation of a game is very important. If it is 32 bit and light or no multithreading, you know right off the bat it's not going to be so great. As loki has pointed out Frostbite is a far more advanced engine, it is fully 64 bit, runs Battlefield 3 which features stunning graphics and performance. Wikipedia didn't mention if Frostbite was fully multithreated however.

FSX and the FS series, represents high end gaming, ultimate, unlimited gaming. That is what we enjoy in our hobby. In the business world if a small restaurant has some good recipes, sometimes they expand for the mass market into fast food restaurants or frozen dinners. There are console fans that can't get enough, they just plug them in etc and go. In the future perhaps that might be what becomes of FS. They are an appreciative large audience, especially for 1st person shooters and games like WoW etc. One day perhaps FS will just be another plug in cartrige.

Look on the bright side however. FSX is a daunting simulator. My Q9450 quad processor is bigger than anything I've owned in the past, some of the processes that used to challenge my P4's or Pentium D hardly even register on the Q9450 CPU moniter. However a few adjustments to FSX and it gets choked. We have as many as 10 years of addons ahead of us as someone was saying about Orbx.

I think the best thing to do is for each of us not to be upset, be calm, enjoy our sims. And perhaps once again someone will cater to our high end gaming desires.

[angels355]

Y
Lastly, it's probably due to gullible people who are ready to swallow whatever is thrown at them that a company would have the confidence to issue a product that is out of touch with its customer base and expect people to buy it. If our community of FSX users are unhappy with FLIGHT, the best outcome will be for them to stick to their FSX, ala FS9 user. Don't support Flight. Support development of a product made for the community, not for gamers. Your support would be more worthwhile with the 3rd party developers who'll make your FSX even better. And this will further set the path for this OP to blame you, the FSX user for the failed development of FSxx because you didn't download Flight or buy add-ons at their marketplace.

Companies need to listen to what their customers want, some companies even go to the trouble of taking surveys. In past years, many of us simmers poured our hearts out describing what we wanted. We represent high end gaming customers, I think MS wants to lower the quality and go after the mass market. Instead of pheasant under glass, they want to mass market chicken tenders w/ choice of hot mustard or ranch dressing oooh yeah! Our goose is not cooked yet, FS9 is still smooth, elegant and beautiful, and FSX is really nice, a dramatic improvement. But I always match the software to the computer. I have maybe as many as ten P4's and similar computers that won't ever see FSX, but will see Windows and FS9. I have 3 FSX so far and two more as soon as I also purchase Battlefield 3, they will see either Vista, W7, or W8. Steve Balmer stated in the CES opening speech that they sell SEVEN W7's PER SECOND! The world is supporting MS very well. Despite their resources however they seem to insist on leaving high end gaming fans like us behind. I say, don't get upset about it.

Any more great videos? I'm jealous I was supposed to be a film maker. I've written some scripts, I should try again.

[SeanC]

lecturing is fine :) Plus, why do you think I use orbx? next generation graphics... frankly, beyond flight.... and great performance, its a no brainer.
My specs are dual core amd at 2.8 per core, 4 gig ddr2, GTX880 card w7 64bit ultimate, gets 60 frames easily,(bf's machine) laptop: amd dual core 2.3ghz, ati mobility 4250 card, 2gig ddr3, gets 30.. (testbed machine not for flying but testing, still good)

As for frames in general, not sure how many of you know this, but the human eye can see a max of 30fps, and your monitor can only DISPLAY its refresh rate... in my case, 60hz. So after 10-20fps over that, you'll never notice it, or find any advantage.

As for the tweaker I linked to, its a simple web interface... plug in your specs or equivalents, press go, download the edited cfg and paste into yours... done, it basically doubled the fps on BOTH of my machines... 20-30 on the pc upto 60, 5-10 on the laptop upto 30... truly awesome software.

Loki: understood, but expectations =/= reality in many cases.

Oh, and for the record, while I agree with elements of the OP's post, I'm not on his side by a long stretch! (Not smoking anything, and not beaten up in school, and no Electra Complex (just to make that clear!) (in fact to be frank, I retract my initial support, as it seems he's either trollyed or on the wacky stash.)

While I believe a lot don't give fsx the chance it deserves ( trying it post sp 1 and 2, or with the tweak tools or addon scenery that make it truly amazing and worth getting simply for things like orbx, at the end of the day, it is personal choice. But when I see users with monster computers claiming it won't run, I have to wonder whether they tried with that build... or are going off hearsay.

well, you've got my interest in seeing what i can do with FSX...i'm trying re-sized autogen textures...etc etc any tweaks i can come up with including your suggested link just to see where i can get with my fps...it's just too bad though that i have to resort to so much of this just to get respectible performance out of my "monster machine."

[Woodpecker1214388]

I remember when FSX came out.....just like all the other versions of the sim i soon took the plunge and purchased the thing!.....but hell it just wouldn't run smooth on my pc...so i soon upgraded my pc(always do about every 4yrs!) and messed about with it, went online..forum after forum, still was pretty rubbish until the sp patches arrived, then with a few more cfg tweaks i was then able to see the improvements and benefits of this upgraded engine!!!.....of course many issues and blatant faults still remained and in some cases seemed worse...but overall FSX was a much better sim than FS9....and the point was I TOOK the plunge and gave it a shot!..i got my wallet out and supported Microsoft were it mattered!!...not just PMDG,aerosoft, Capt sim or all the other 3rd party add-on brigade that charge often MORE for one aircraft or scenery than the whole of FSX!!.....

FSX's major downfall was its poorly optimised code and heavy pc requirements and of course having to follow the great example of fs9!..this meant many disgruntled FS9 users stayed with their happy and SAFE! FS9 after reading the reviews or trying the demo....... many of whom even jumped on the forum bandwagons of bad mouthing and deriding FSX at every opportunity!....trust me i remember reading them all!....some STILL do it today!...crazy deluded ideology...fine stick with your fs9..yes it WAS a great sim but FSX is FAR BETTER!......maybe the ironic thing about FS9 was it was far too successful for its own good!...

Even today we still have the fs9 brigade and their obstinate stance on avoiding the upgrade to FSX...STILL preferring to stay with fs9 eh!.....some users are either living in severe poverty (for years it seems!) and cant afford an upgrade to their pc's or just dont want to bother upgrading to FSX for whatever reasons, many fs9 users i remember even said they were going to skip FSX altogether and WAIT until fs11.......

I will never understand why flight simulation enthusiasts prefer their older sims!....hell some still prefer fs2000 or fs98!......yes they are flight simmers...but THEY ARE NOT HELPING THE PROGRESS OR SUPPORTING THE FUTURE OF MS FLIGHT SIMULATOR!..they are DEAD weight...old fuddy duddys stuck in the past, refusing to progress or support future incarnations of this great franchise yet very active in the world of forums, add-ons freeware or payware etc..yet refuse to update their sim version or support Microsoft and spend money to help the franchise develop and continue...... WHY??..when the option exists of flying in the amazing real ORBX FSX world that FAR exceeds any dated fs2002, fs9 world!....all i can say is you ahve all shot yourselves in the foot....talk about cut your nose off to spite your face!...


Anyway...the downside of all this today is MICROSOFT do NOT wish to suffer yet ANOTHER financial failure with one of their FSIM releases solely for the demanding and complaining pc market!........I could GUARANTEE there would STILL be loads of stick in the mud die hard fs9 users that would avoid FS11 even though they may claim otherwise!....the very fact there are still a huge number of fs9 users here who STILL maintain they don't like FSX or cant see the benefits or have too many old fs9 add-ons to loose if they upgrade blah blah blah PROVES THAT!!....

FINE stay with your old and comfortable world!...leave FSX alone....dont support it!......BUT DON'T expect MICROSOFT after such POOR sales figures on FSX to carry on trying to please YOU! all with yet ANOTHER dedicated pc flight sim that half of you would of prob avoided anyway!!!...

IN fact i would go as far to say that ANYONE who didn't support MICROSOFT with a purchase of FSX has NO place in these forums complaining about Microsoft FLIGHT!

IN fact its prob BECAUSE of YOU die hard FS9 users that refused to 'purchase' FSX that FS11 was prob cancelled anyway!...yet how many of those same fs9 only simmers are here NOW complaining and having a go at Microsoft for their new inevitable pay as you go console marketed Microsoft FLIGHT?



In the end I think most users for FLIGHT will eventually and undoubtedly be from the xbox crowd....Worldwide sales figures for the xbox 360 alone are already at 57.6 million!....only a fraction of that need to succumb to Microsoft's sales marketing plan and FLIGHT will easily achieve its objectives....the VERY FACT Microsoft shut down ACES and then had the arrogant cheek to say they included many of them of the FLIGHT dev team shows just how perfidious Microsoft can be......but we ALREADY KNEW THAT...this is and always was about MONEY..ive said it befoire as rich and as greedy as Microsoft are they are NOT a charity!...we have to wake up and realise they DONT care about pc users anymore for games!...we represent a dwindling sales market for games and Flight sims were already becoming a niche market anyway...the failure of FSX on the pc market and refusal by fs9 users to upgrade was i fear the final nail in the MS flight SIMULATOR coffin lid!....so all you FS9 USERS OR ( FS2002, fs2000...fs98 !!!?????) users CAN BLAME YOURSELVES for not SUPPORTING FSX when it was released!....its no good now complaining about FLIGHT being a console focused cut down pay as you go no SDK ETC game for the mass (ie xbox!) market....oh the irony of all this!
------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with some of what is said above about upgrading from FS9 Century of Flight; you must see FSX to believe it; load both to the PC; I use Windows 7 Home Edition and both FS9 and FSX loaded without problems.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago I had the old original Microsoft FS. lots of dots and dashes using a DOS PC, then I moved onto the latest at the time;SubLogic ATP flightsim a great leap in software and flightsim; which I read somewhere was the benchmark for FS9 and now FSX, then I stopped using flightsim due to lack of time.

Then...when FS Century of Flight appeared it was great leap forward in flightsim software; really good and realistic, the only down side to this; if you load the default installation is that you must have Disc 4 in the PC each time you fly; unlike FSX.

A few years ago I had FSX with Acceleration pack Gold Edition and kept it under the desk until I could afford a high spec PC; I now have this, this last 6 months and... what can I say, what have I been missing; it is remarkable, superb, unbelievably real and with my Saitek X52 Throttle and Joystick..... it's just like real flying, apart from cockpit seat sensations; i.e. "G" and turbulence. It is nice, however to sit there flying with a cup of Tea.

The default selection of aircraft is more than most people would want to fly. With default scenery set at full blast it is amazing in detail with buildings, vehicles, aircraft. I recently decided to upgrade the UK with enhanced scenery; should it be ORBX or Horizon; after investigating these two and reading user's comments; Horizon won the day, very good but......Airfields I've flown to appear to have a hill ridge at the threshold; this doesn't really matter although in reality, they do not.

FSX is another reality, mind blowing detail even with it's default scenery especially if you fly into small strips into nowhere where it really taxes your skills in steep approaches, sideslipping, short takeoff and landings.

So.....Congratulations to all those at Microsoft who have done a fantastic job for Flightsim.

[ricardo_NY1]

To the OP who is asking why users support old sims and that such behavior sort of kills the hobby, you should move away from old FSX and defunct FLIGHT and support Laminar (Newer and 64bit!). I'll definitely be sticking with my good 'ol FS9. Best MSFS version to date and we got our bridges fixed!

[Air5]

Hey, I have bought every version of FLIGHT Simulator since day one. Now, I am only flying MSFlight because it has everything I have been looking for and would have had so much more if it had been allowed to live. I have already said it so many times before. Those how have not dug deep into this simulator will have no idea what it could have become. It helps that I like low and slow GA flying. I like to look out the window, not at a cloud deck far below. I can only blame bad management decisions on the part of Microsoft. My own personal belief is that we have not seen the end of this. There are still a lot of us involved with Flight every day and things are beginning to happen. This is the MSFlight forum after all.

Steve