I don't know if this is going to be a popular statement, since I have seen a lot of people expressing unhappiness and frustration about FSX (which is understandable, I have to say).

Personally, in spite of all the issues, I like FSX and I am going to stick to it.

I don't have a system capable of taking advantage of its full potential, but I can see that potential in the future.

Most of my payware doesn't work with it. Chances are I will need to pay for upgrades to get that payware to work.

I can see graphic glitches all over the place, especially where the water meets land or where water is shallow.

Pulling up one or two extra sub-windows (like the G1000) slows the system to a crawl.

When the issues are fixed and the payware is working ... and I got a new system (it will take a while, I don't grow money on trees, but let's tell the truth ... sooner or later you gotta upgrade to a new system, I mean, none of us are not running 80286 anymore, are we?) ... FSX will shine.

In the meanwhile I still like it as is. I think that the modelling of the acceleration effects on the Point of View in the virtual cockpit contribute IMMENSELY to the immersion.

I fly in real life and I can't claim I am a "super pilot" (I had a flight in Pitts once and pulled a few Gs ... I fly a Piper Cherokee most of the time and 99% of my flights are takeoff, straight and level, land ... all in good weather). But I have to say that I find it exciting landing in a vicious crosswind with moderate turbulence ... and FSX, given similar conditions, does give you a feel of "adrenaline rush".

The feel of having to fly the path and fight the plane at the same time is something that FS9 never quite gave me.

True, moderate turbulence in my world, means getting my ass kicked. Moderate turbulence in real life is nothing to sneeze at. In FSX in order to get close to the same "feeling" you need to turn the intensity all the way up ... but the feeling of "fighting" the plane and the weather is there all right.

I also love the fact that you can fly out of the atmosphere. I can't wait for developers to come up with some kick-ass X-plane and then take that into VATSIM ... or the pilot-club network. Let's watch the controllers deal with a space-shuttle re-entry for once!

FSX has issues, yes, but it's got potential and even with all the effects turned to medium-low (which is the most my system can take) I am still getting a kick out it.

I think that as it is right now FSX for me is already beating FS9. I am already finding it difficult if not impossible to go back to FS9. In fact at this point, I can't fly FS9 anymore ... as is, FSX is my game.

FSX is a worthy successor of FS9.

Sorry to say: I like it.


--------------------------------
The Pilot Lounge Aviation Community: www.thepilotlounge.com

I don't think you'll find that anyone who has been critical of FSX has said it's because they don't like it. That's far too simplistic. There will always be features in any program that people like and don't like and there's no point going into those again.

The points of criticism have been about things that are much more fundamental - mesh errors that we weren't told about that must have been apparent when the program was tested,  lots of autogen that hangs off valley and canyon sides that (a) shouldn't be there, (b) wasn't there in FS9, and (c) shouldn't be suspended in thin air anyway, MS's promotion and packaging of the product, stuff like that.

I think that we have a right to expect more from a piece of software that has had so much money thrown at it - especially marketing money (look at all the seminars, promos and demos that were held all over - must have cost an arm and a leg). As purchasers we have a right to question whether the priorities were right and whether that money would have been better spent on completing the development of the product to the level we had all been given to expect it was at, before it was launched.

Please don't let's start another 900 page thread over this one as we know from an Insider that there was some level of agreement with this notion within the development team.

I agree with the fact that FSX has potential. It's like an old '65 Mustang that will be sitting on a garage for quite a while before someone comes along , dusts it off and revives it to its full potential.

Quote:


No, it's more like a brand new Ferrari that is supposed to have fuel injection - but someone's fitted old carburettors to it. It'll start and run, but not like a Ferrari should. And we paid for fuel injection.....

Then there's a ring on the doorbell, and the guy from UPS says, 'Got a package for yuh...'

We're waiting for that guy from UPS....

Is their bombarding the tv with ads everywhere? Here in Phoenix the ad must be on about 5 times a day on the Military channel. Seems like they're really pushin for sales. I don't think I ever saw a commercial for FS9.


Keni

Don't wait upgrading your rig too long. I read in a PC Magazine that there are now mobos supporting  "quad" CPUs. Soon "FSX-E" will be out before FSX had time to perform as expected. Peronally, I will keep my rig (above average) and play with the FSX the best way I can. If I upgrade my rig now, to what level of performance shall I upgrade it to? And am I willing (or able) to spend a few hundred bucks to upgrade my rig just for the FSX. If I get frustrated with FSX, I still have FS9, CFS3 and Lock-On, all at max setting that I can enjoy playing.

Bubblehead

Quote:


Here in New Hampshire I'm seeing ti all the time on the History Channel.  I never saw one for fs2004 either.  What is very intreresting is the content of the ad and the obvious target market.

best,

....john

I have about 30 hours so far of flying time on FSX and I am pretty impressed with it. I knew before I got it that I wouldn't be able to run it with everything maxxed out but my system seems to handle it with everything at medium to medium high settings. The flight dynamics for aerobatics haven't improved <sigh with dissapointment> but oh well. I am a line service specialist at Colgan Air Service in La Crosse Wisconsin <towing, refueling airplanes> and I think its pretty cool that I can request fuel trucks. Also the terrain has improved greatly. In FS9 the bluffs in my area looked like small hills and in FSX they actually look like bluffs and all the bridges are where they are suppose to be.
I also enjoy the challenges but I also miss the lessons and getting the virtual pilot certificates. I start my flight training in the spring time and I was talking to my future instructor and he said that the simulator is a good aid for getting idea of certain procedures. Sure there are a few glitches but if you look at the upside of the sim, its well worth it.

Bill Beseler
Pilot
American Virtual Airshows

1. would like to say i love FSX great improvemtn from FS9

2. most of the people bitching about FSX are ones who 1)cnt run it or b) bought it then found out they are only getting min settings and 15fps tops.... so tis thier own stupidity

Quote:


flymo, I'm surprised at you after all the in-depth discussion that has appeared on this board. Obviously gone right over your head, so don't blame anyone else  ???

And just because folks are using the software - and, yes enjoying it (and I'm one of those) - it doesn't mean that the problems have gone away.

I did a flight out of one of my favourite little airports today (Le Touquet-Paris Plage in northern France) and lo and behold, same mesh problem there too. Rocky terrain blocking the river right next door to the airfield same as the other areas I've highlighted.

So unless I can be convinced otherwise, my conclusion is that mesh errors are pretty widespread and it ain't the job of the freeware community to clean up the mess as a few people have suggested.

Third party designers enhance, not correct. That's the job of the original designers, especially when they made such a big noise (and selling point) of the new, enhanced mesh.

I upgraded my video card from 128mb to 512mb and I can't go back to FS9 either.  FSX for me!

Quote:


Joe, there are only two points I'd like to address from what you wrote...

First of all, there were actually three beta teams in place for FSX.  The first consisted of ACES employees who's sole responsibility was to find ways to break FSX, using methodical, scripted test scenarios.  This resulted in fairly instant feedback to the various developers at ACES so they could make whatever 'code fixes' needed for the next day's build.

The second tier of beta testers consisted of > 300 individuals representing a wide cross-section of the entire sim community.  The range included professional developers from every payware company, freeware develolpers of FS addons, long time flightsimmers (many of whom were on previous beta test teams), as well as some relative "newcomers."  This group tested three seperate "beta builds" over the course of five months, and as an aggregate reported just over 50,000 unique bug reports.  As each new beta build was tested, the beta team was expected to re-test whatever bugs they had reported and provide updates to their reports to indicate whether or not they were fixed.  This ends the task of the beta tester.  Their job is to report, test, and report again.  Whatever ACES does with the bug reports is out of the tester's hands.

The third tier of beta testing was new this time around.  This of course was the "public beta" hosted by FilePlanet, and AFAIK, the sole point of this was to test the installer and performance "out of the box" on as wide a variety of hardware combiniations as possible.  There was no formal reporting system in place other than the internal FSX "Dr. Watson" reports that (hopefully) many of this "beta team" sent.

The second issue I take is the comments about Mike Gilbert (aka: taildragger).  Mike announced over six months ago that he'd been promoted to head up another ACES game development project, but that he'd be multi-tasking both "jobs" for several months as he was responsible for (a) hiring his own replacement and (b) training the replacement.

Contrary to what you've suggested, Mike Gilbert was never simply a "mouthpiece" or "shill man" for ACES.  In fact, he personally coded the new User Interface as well as the new Flight Planner, and pitched in with his programming skills in whichever department in ACES needed help.

As a matter of fact, Mike continued to pitch in long after he'd finished training his replacement.  He used his "free time" to continue posting to various fs forums so that those who had their noses buried in the code wouldn't have to.

These attemps to protray Mike the way you (and others) have is simply - wrong...  

BTW, the current crop of FSX 'bugs' are entirely new ones, that were never encountered by the 2nd level beta team.  They crept in between beta3 and the RTM "Gold" version, which was never even seen by any of us on the 2nd level beta team...

ACES is well aware of them and are in the process of discovery, triage, and hopefully a resolution to be rolled into the already planned and announced "DX10 Update."  8)

That’s where you are wrong. M$ does not have to deal with anybody. You speak as though the entire FS world is boiling oil and making picket signs. I don’t see that. What I see are a few hard-nosed complainers who continue to make statements that are based in anger or annoyance they did not get what they wanted or expected... and who persist in portraying FSX as a negative experience with M$ as the Evil Empire.

PR?

Gee probably the best source of information and inside discussion for PR was run up a tree here and hung like some kind of spy or terrorist. Get real.


The software will get fixed, just like all the other MSFS titles of the past and just like any other game that comes out and needs work.

Here is a good one:

If I had not been privileged to have an advanced look at FSX, would I have bought FSX when it was first released? Absolutely NOT

Why?

Because just like any other software or hardware that is new on the market there will be BUGS and to this date I have always waited before purchasing because I know better.

There have been times when I threw caution to the wind and went for something new (sometimes it worked great, sometimes it didnt) but I never complain, I just deal with my decision and wait for the bug fixes OR I return the merchandise because I know damn well anything new is more than likely going to need work.

Ill tell you what, when the first DX10 video card hits the market PLEASE BUY IT, RIGHT AWAY… and come back here and tell me how good it is and how everything runs perfect.


If it does not run perfect,,, I want to see the same complaints posted along with how the company that made it tricked you into buying it and how they are an evil empire that needs better PR

now THATS "A Total Joke"

My viewpoint on FSX is that it's creation was/is a MASSIVE task - I mean MASSIVE. Trying to build a virtual planet & earth as we know it. a 1000 staff would still result in complaints.

It's easy to pick holes (& yes there are actual holes ) but let's take what we've got - & build.

& What we have here has enormous potential.

Please let the mesh problems rest. Yes - there will be many users - especially cauual ones (the majority) who will be pissed off if they live in a bad mesh area - & yes it's easy to say 'unfinished , etc- which it is ... but let's accept what we have & be positive.


Taking FSX as is - the build potential is fantastic. There is so much already there & so much that can be done.

I'm 100% that an official patch will be released.

I really think that whining now will achieve nothing more than a negative atmosphere round here. Life is too short. The message has been sent.

Please let's take what we have.  Know that MS knows the problems now & is prepared to work on them. & think of FSX as something with a long & bright future.

Quote:



I totally second this... its all about building on a good foundation.

From a business standpoint, you can not have a spreadsheet that remains in the red and continue development on a project...

FSX was released, and, in its current condition it is a good start to build from. The sales of the release will go to getting that spreadsheet closer to the green so further development and upgrades are possible and will be approved. The guys and gals in the board room don’t care if our flying experience is smooth and if they don’t see that spreadsheet start to balance, they won’t approve further development.

Support is what is needed.

There is nothing wrong with posting bugs and having something to say about it however it's the constant pointed growling designed to to do nothing but start more bickering that goes nowhere and will never get anything fixed.

I still think that what's good, better and right about FSX is 97.7 % ..  And the bugs amount to about 2.3 %..    

Every FS up to and including FS9 has provide entertainment and education that are pretty much priceless.. (much of that because of places like SimV)

FSX is even a step beyond.. I find something new and better, every time I run it..

Quote:


It's anything but universally agreed upon. It's just that the moaners post way more often than those enjoying it.

If software this complex and cutting edge was held until bug free (and it's really not that buggy).. it would never hit the shelves..

I'm more than satisfied.. and know it will only get better..

Naw...  they're to busy flooding multi-player rooms and posting stunning screen-shots...

I'm one of foolish one's, thinking that those upset can be convinced they're over-reacting 

What a marketing disaster FSX is. Many hundreds of $000s spent in developing and promoting the product and the hard core of its market is now told that

- we should have expected problems and software glitches
- we should NOT have expected to be able to run it on the hardware we have or are expect to have available to us in the reasonably foreseeable future (and which probably a very large minority at least of its core market will NEVER have access to)
- that it is actually a work in progress towards some unspecified goal to be used on currently unavailable technology at some unspecified time in the future
- that unless we are grateful and give em our money now, development would just be stopped
- that we should stop saying nasty things about it and the people who have created it (and who have very well paid jobs in one of the biggest, most successful and most profitable companies the world has ever seen), because it's a tough job writing games software these days
- it would have been a much better product if the suits had not become involved and said it has to make money

BTW, I'm paraphrasing and converting Unofficial-MS-PR-speak into everyday language here.

Now let's deal with this tdragger thing. There has been nothing yet to suggest other than MS knew that there would be problems with FSX's core market when it was launched, as indeed there have been, and that he was one of several company members who were put in place where they could directly communicate with the core market (ie 'personal' blogs and various fs forums) to 'smooth the way'. Various people 'in the know' have said as much and that is what has been implied here on SimV. Now you can call this and the people who questioned the policy what you like, but is it ethical marketing? And how can the boobies on the receiving end be blamed when they began to see this ploy for what it was, here and on other flightsim forums, and the policy was apparently hastily reconsidered and the guys like tdragger were withdrawn.

And please don't try and say that that's a wrong interpretation of the facts - getting a bit tired of that one when more and more is being said by guys with 'inside' contacts which indicate it to be true. Look, nobody likes being found out.

Better surely to get the product right and ready for sale and then launch it, than to launch it with known problems and then try to bluff your way out of it with vague promises of assistance and 'it'll be sorted like all MS products' in some unspecified way and some unspecified time in the future. After all, we know from another one of these 'in the know' characters that scant regard was paid by the marketing company to many of the serious comments made before launch by its beta testers, so why should things have changed now?

And just one last thing. People around here are getting fed up with being accused of 'pissing and whining' to coin a phrase when they make comments as users of a product they have spent their hard-earned money on. I see that Phil Taylor of ACES, when asked elsewhere about the totally unrealistic claims on the box about the minimum spec needed to run the software said, 'We will just have to disagree on that one'. You then have to imagine the smile and the knowing wink. Yeah, right.

Many hundreds of thousands of people will go into their Computer and Games shops this Christmas and buy this product on the basis of that information. The great majority of them will not be hard-core flight simmers and they won't be along to forums like this to 'piss and whine'. They will just throw it in the drawer and just say with a sigh, 'OK, yeah - caught again'.

I think it's lucky that there are people who can 'piss and whine' on their behalf and are ready to take companies on, big as they are and whoever they are, who think that it's OK to tell institutional fibbs just so long as you don't get found out.

I've been quiet lately on this because I'd made my points earlier on, but I'm getting fed up of all the pseudo semi-official bluster that's coming out now that this one has been.

Look, MS - just get on with it, fix the problems with the product and make an honest statement about the minimum system needed to run the software, especially as you're now apparently running a heavy TV campaign in the States and maybe other countries soon. Save us the cr*p and semi-official PR which seems on this forum at least now to be taking up more server space than the 'pissers and whiners'.

I think that's a pretty reasonable request, don't you?

BTW, I apologise for this somewhat offensive phrase, but it wasn't mine.

Just one more last thing.

I don't have any contracts with MS and I don't sell any products that directly or indirectly depend for their success on me being 'in the loop' with MS, for pre-releases and all that kind of stuff. That's not so true for some of the guys who are banging the MS drum in a pretty big way around here just now. Now as for whether that should be interpreted as 'vested interests' or not is not for me to say...

Quote:


Yes Joe, I do in fact have some "esoteric info," along with an eidetic memory for what I've read elsewhere in "bits and pieces," and have (re)assembled into solid facts.

Yes, "public perception" is most certainly a "bit different." That's precisely why I've spent some of my free time to try to slay a few of the myths and outright false statements that've been made here and elsewhere.

Everyone who posts here (or anywhere else for that matter!) has precisely two choices:

1) to be an enabler; one who tries to help

- OR -

2) to be a disabler; one who seeks only to tear down.

I choose to be an enabler whenever and wherever possible.

I will not for one moment try to deny there are - in FACT - some serious flaws in FSX.  However, there's little to be gained by restating those flaws ad infinitum, ad naseaum.

To the contrary however, there is a LOT to be gained by working together and seeking ways to either circumvent or mitigate the effect of those flaws in the sort term, while waiting patiently for the inevitable update that will  eventually ensue.

BTW, for information's sake, I will assure you that those of us on the 2nd level beta team continue to hold the ACES dev's "feet to the fire" as much as we possibly can, and for as long as they keep our access open...

Quote:


Point of order.....
Crtisizing those who report problems or have a less than rosey view of the way FSX was released is also being "negitive."

FSX has problems.
Some don't care.
Some do.
Let's leave it at that. 

Quote:


Nick, if you care to notice, you're the one with the big mouth who has lately been bad-mouthing anyone and everyone on this forum who has voiced even the mildest negative comment about MS or the software. I actually have been keeping very quiet for some time.

I think we can let the members of this forum decide who has been insulting and talking down to them don't you? We don't need for you and .....  let's say your somewhat 'tainted' judgement .....  to do it for them.

Unlike you and your somewhat pathetic attempt at 'humour', I can't say there's much love lost from my side though.

Guys I'm having to lock this:

1. Personal insults - not nice for onlookers ...

2. Off topic ---- & uninformative.


Personal stuff is irrelevant.

Positivity is what makes the world go round. Negativity is what drags it.

Locked. Sorry.