Why not take a second and complete the poll. It'll give everyone a good indication of the general concensus here at the V concerning the latest "Bill's Kill"....

If you have time, post a comment as to what you feel is the ONE best thing and the ONE worst thing about FSX...

I'm reasonably pleased with what I've seen so far*. With the tweaks shown in various threads here I've managed to get reasonable framerates moderate levels of detail - the caveat to that being I tend not to fly near major cities anyway. Certainly with a little tweaking, and a minor upgrade on my part when DX10 arrives, I think it will be very good.

Another plus I've found so far is about 75% of the payware FS9 aircraft I've added so far work faultlessly (Razbam Skyraider, IRIS P-40) or nearly so (AH Corsair).


*the Himalayan River Thames excluded!

I plumped for "Too early to say"......!

I find it impossible to run acceptably on my existing system at present, and I am hoping that over time the program will be "modified*/improved?" by Microsoft to make it accessible to more users......!

In the meantime, because my add-on Payware favourites, ie; FS Navigator, LAGO FSE, Abacus EZ-Scenery, etc, have not yet been released to be compatible with FSX, I am continuing to use FS 2004 for all my daily flights.

Cheers all...!

Paul...  8)...!

* A selection of slightly downgraded packs of folder objects/scenery/effects/etc to replace the existing hi-res/high detail objects, etc, in the existing folders which consume so much memory, resources, etc, on "lower-end" systems....?

Not everyone has gone through the whole FS series and is PC savvy. What about the folks who have bought it for the first time, just like any other computer game. Are they expected to accept that having been fed all the hype about its features, and having noted the minimum system requirements, it actually won't run on their PC? They wouldn't for any other computer game.

Different if there was a warning on the packaging, or a money-back guarantee from the manufacturer.

I think it will turn out ok but it needs a good bit of tweaking with the systems most of us have right now. I was not that impressed it took me a while to figure out all of the views it has. I do not like the default ground textures  but than I have had to tun down a lot of sliders to get a better frame rate my video card is just not up to FSX I use a FX5700LE 256 ram.  8)

Disappointed because I do think my system should be able to cope with this without all the messing about I have had to do to it. I never expected to be able to run this flat out but I did expect to be able to run with higher settings than I do. Having done all the messing about I now have frame rates almost as good as I get with FS9 (I run FS9 on max settings) but the trade off for frame rates is quality of scenery and overall graphics settings so it looks no better than FS9 with slightly worse frame rates. Potential for tweaking but should not have to go through all that IMO. I said this about CFS3 and I’ll say it now about FSX, for £60 it should run well out of the box on ANY system that is above and beyond the recommended specs on the packaging without having to have a working knowledge of how to edit a config. File or being able to understand the software needed to convert textures to a lower resolution and how to over clock my video card to be able to run the sim.
Best bits? None at this point, FS9 still looks and runs better.
Worst bits? I’m £60 worse off and have nothing positive at this point to show for it.
I have learned how to edit a config. File and over clock my video card though, even if I still don’t understand how to convert textures.

Quote:



Absolutely dead on. I'm reading the packaging right now (just like Auntie Aggie would do when she's looking for a Christmas present for little Johnnie, as she will do in a few weeks time ....oh.... no connection of course.....not the reason why FSX was rushed out right now in its present state with all these glitches.... ??? )

"Immerse yourself in this dynamic, living world.....patrol the skies above busy city traffic and waterways......more high detail cities and airports...etc" and then you see the minimum system requirements. But it doesn't then say that none of the above-mentioned features will actually work if your system is the same as that minimum spec (or in fact considerably higher) because they will all be turned off by the install procedure!

Or indeed that in order to get them to work in any shape or form that looks anything like the packaging, you'll need a degree in computer science to install drivers, manually edit configuration and set up files, re-format high-tech texture files and continually scoure the Internet for supposed 'tweaks' and updates. In fact spend all your time after buying and installing it trying to get it to run rather than actually using it!

OMG - just noticed - it's that person again.

pepper_airborne, put up some freakin screen shots of what you've achieved, with details on your system, settings and what you have done to get it running so well.

Otherwise please save us.....you've now had every opportunity to do so

STOP PRESS!!!!

Hold the front page. Now I see how pepper_airborne's system is running FSX and I'm green with envy. Here's his screen shot (the only one I think)



What do you think fellas.....something for us all to aspire to?

Come on pepper ....... give us all the dope. How did you get your system running as well as that?

Danny,

Where is the option "Happy With FS9"