I just finished uninstalling FSX and writing my one star review at Amazon.com. I will just chalk it up to a bad deal that I should have done more checking on before I bought. Of course since I pre-ordered it from Amazon.com, I didn't spend the time to track down the system requirements. I would have probable bought it anyhow since I am sure I have the minimum. But minimums don't cut it with this software.

Here's the way I see it. Microsoft released this early before Vista to get more people to buy Vista. When people see how crappy it runs on the average system with XP, they will want to go buy Vista to make it look better. But I ask myself, is Vista going to make this software look better. Sure Vista might have DX10 but will that help if you don't have a DX 10 compliant video card and right now they cost  around $600+. I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed.

I notice on the commercials that Microsoft does not tell you how much money you have to spend on hardware to get the results they show in those commercials and in the screenshot from microsoft. IF you ask me, it is false and misleading advertising.

I only hope this post will save somebody else some disappointment.

Signed:
Very Disappointed (but should have known better since it is microcrap)

Here we go again...

It's not Microsoft's fault your computer couldn't handle FSX, they are trying to sell a product, so of course they're not going to limit their customer base by telling people that a brand new, top of the line, high end video game will require a beefy machince to run it on full settings (which is an obvious given), they want people to buy it and tweek it, which is what 95% of the community is doing, the other 5% are just complaining about how difficult FSX has made their life (e.g. you).  Just so you know, I am running FSX at a constant, locked 30 FPS at med-high settings, with a med-low computer, because I actually wanted it to work, and I appreciate the fact that MS is putting out the best flight simulator on the market.  Welcome to the free world.

No, I'm saying MS has no fault in the shortcomings of your PC.  The only shortcoming in the software I've found so far is the Airbus glitch mentioned in another topic.  My point is that FSX runs well at high settings on high-end PCs and well on low settings on low-end PCs.  There are plenty of videos on youtube that show FSX running great on high end PCs, and from experience, it runs great on lower-end PCs as well.  It seems people are especially angry at MS becuase their four-year old PCs can't run FSX on full settings or like they ran FS9.  It seems this is because MS is an extrememly successful company, and people are angry because of that.  To use your murder analogy Ashman, it's like being angry at the gun manufacturer becuase their gun commited the murder instead of being angry the murderer himself (which is your computer in this case).  I'm just tired of people claiming everyone's FSX is running poorly, when that is not the case at all.

Check out Alrot's screens here, and he's running FSX on a P3 system!  What's the deal, I thought FSX ran awful on all computers?...
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=screen;action=display;num=...

That's probably it for me in this thread, I've made my opinion clear.

Quote:


You're just very unlucky that it runs like crap for you. Instead of bitch about the game and at the people who have gotten the sim to run smoothly, why don't you do alittle research and fix it? Bit of a no brainer really.

If you're here to ask for help, we're glad to offer; but if you're just here to bitch, we, frankly, couldn't give a rat's ass

Get it hot off the presses...

http://www.fsgenesis.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=FSG&Categ...

It just keeps getting better and better

If you have a galaxy membership from FS9 like I do... its FREE!! With all the future updates

No i dont hate microsoft at all, think they do some great stuff, also, to those of you who think i was whining about pc not up to spec, i wasnt, my pc is beyond the spec required, my gripe is that the product was released before it should have been (check the ms newsgroups about probs that were not picked up in beta testing) as for research i have trawled and trawled to find a solution to install error 1772/1605 (apparently it is also driving the guys at Aces mad as well), so in your infinate wisdom, if you know where it can be found, then please enlighten. Like i said earlier, why dont you share your positive experiences with others.

Quote:



If your not running a dual Xeon processor, Conroe, a server type motherboard with 8 gigs of memory and a 5 drive RAID-0 SCSI array, you have absolutely no clue how fast Adobe Premiere is SUPPOSE to run for it to work at a level a pro or anyone who demands performance out of a video editing system needs

You totally have your right to your opinion however if you want anything out of MSFS that comes even close to performance you better learn what the words 'minimum hardware recommendations' means

It means you get the MINIMUM SOFTWARE PERFORMANCE

Adobe Support would laugh you off the phone if you called them up and told them your system did not seem fast enough encoding frames with their software and your system slowed to a grinding hault

So it's Microsoft's fault that they decided to make the next installment of Flight Simulator too advanced for your computer?

As mentioned before, Alrot got his FSX running very smoothly on a second rate maching, and he's friggin from VENEZUELA. No one here from any highly developed westernized country have the right to say ANYTHING.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the "Minimum Requirements" terminology. But here are your options

1. Tweek PC
2. Upgrade PC
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Find a dunce corner, sit in it, bitch about how Microsoft made FSX too good, and casterate yourself and take yourself out of the gene pool in the process.

Well, I'm back again.  Like Brett said so well in the other thread almost exactly the same as this one...

Quote:


...which is exactly correct. 

There are many people out there running FSX extrememly well, because they've realised it is a brand new, high-end video game, and as with any other brand-new, high-end video game, it has one or two bugs (other than the aforementioned Airbus bug), and requires huge amounts of computing power to run fast and smooth.  I have recently bought a few other brand new games (BF2142, Dark Messiah, GTR2) and they all run exactly the same as FSX does on my computer.  Are you saying Microsoft should have waited at least a year, probably more like two or three years to release FSX, because that is undoubtedly when mid-range computers (at that time) will be able to run FSX smoothly?  I, as well as most of the rest of the people here would be very upset with that, becuase I've been enjoying FSX ever since it came out.

If you want my tweaks, like I already said, move your sliders down (to the left), becuase if your getting low frame rates, it's becuase your computer can't handle FSX on ultra-high settings.  That is all I had to do to get FSX running at 60+ FPS. 

Hopefully I've made my point clear enough with four posts saying the same thing, as well as everyone else's, so I hope this is my last post in this thread, probably not though...

Some of this is already the obvious, however I think the only fault on microsoft's side of things is their minimum system requirements printed on the box, which is really misleading.  Which can disappoint their customers if they don't know a whole lot about gaming performance. 

The other is their activation policy.  I noticed that on places like ebay and amazon that there are used copies for sale.  If you are only supposed to activate twice, then how do you sell the game if your not happy with it?  Of course theres always going throug hthe hassles and stuff. 

Just my two cents...

Quote:



I second that

Quote:


Point the first, I've no reason yet to get mad. I did not buy it and have no intention of forking money for it. This doesn't mean I'm not going to point out its shortcomings. I wish it was worth of being bought, but as it is FSX is configuring itself to be FS2000 V2.

As the "next gen" crack... read Joe_D's post. Never read a cleverer post about the matter at hand ever since the "FSX disaster" has been making itself known to those who have eyes to see.

Quote:


I have to ask... if you have not bought it or you have not run it how can you comment on it at all and why would you comment on something you have no experience running? At that point your comments are not from an educated or experienced point of view and instead are generated out of some type of hearsay and/or a dislike for the company in general.

I’m not trying to be a smart arse... everyone is entitled to their opinion however comments like Joe_D's (which have now been edited) are not very substantial. It provided a very general opinion which is obviously generated for impact. It contains absolutely no information or value.

===================================

Moving on...

There was a lot of personal mud-slinging in this thread and that is where it needs to stop. If someone wishes to post an opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that and if someone wishes to post a dissenting opinion, that’s OK too... which is where some really good and helpful information comes from, however this obvious personal mud-slinging generated and hidden behind the preface of someone being a Microsoft lover or hater is nothing but rubbish and it needs to stop.

I watched the same exact issues come out when FS9 was released... software bugs, driver bugs, scenery glitches, it was all the same. And one element that was especially the same was how demanding the software was on the hardware.

FSX is not something new in that respect. It is not Microsoft’s responsibility to write a software title that runs full boar on medium or low grade hardware. The opposite is true. They have a responsibility to maintain innovation with the cutting edge hardware, what is on the drawing board for next year and for years to come AND they have a responsibility to support customers which purchase their products. They are doing both.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with voicing an opinion. Where it goes wrong is when an adolescent (or an adult) who both need lessons in manors makes comments that are not informative or helpful and instead persists in low grade insults and/or insulting innuendo. The same is true with persistent complaining with absolutely no input other than a general overview the software is flawed and the doomsday attitude it is ‘finished’ and ‘destroyed’

These same attitudes pushed this forum out of the professional limelight with Microsoft and that is something that may not be recovered very easy if at all.

The software is flawed and needs patched, if you don’t like it, take it back and let the forums be free of insults with doomsday comments about the evil Microsoft Empire stealing your money. For god sake do us all a favor and take it back for a cheerful refund, it might just make your day, I know it would make mine.

Quote:


Only to those who expected the universe and instead got a solar system.

Flawed like any other newly released software.. it may need some TLC to get it up to speed what what it does not need is constant whining that says nothing and perpetuates gloom.

I can fly FSX on an x800xt AIW quite well. That's not because I have any special tweaks installed into FSX, its because I know my hardware limitations and do not exceed them or expect the software to run better if I do.

Quote:



AND FSgenesis has the 9.6m mesh!!!

Gotta love support

Quote:



Oh well.. The smoke will clear in a few months and as time progresses the entire situation will get better and better. I mean, look at Alrot.. he was frustrated and instead of slinging gloom, he got to work and made FSX run by looking at his system and accepting its limits, then set it all up and now hes running sweet.

When it gets patched he will be ready for the improvements and they will enhance what he has already accomplished.

I have to hand it to him for not just giving up.

Later

Quote:


To ask questions is a right. If more people would ask more questions... ah, how better would be this world.

The answer to your question is simple. If you read some of my older posts you'll see that one of my "duties" is to make payware reviews for an italian FS site. Now ask yourself, with FSX out, where will be pointed the attention of the various payware developers?

And yes, on one of my two PC I have a copy of FSX (a copy intended as a LEGAL copy, let me be clear) that was given to me free of charge by my "boss" and friend so I could try the soon to come add-ons on.

Boss and friend that refused to give me the hardware, though. And I'm stuck with a 128Mb videocard (a good one, but only 128Mb with the GREAT coding of FSX 'nuff said), a mildly overclocked Athlon Xp 2400 and only 1GB of ram.

I'm in deep sh*t, am I not?

I have it there, FSX, but don't use it. Too many problems and only the water is a REAL step forward. I wish there was a way to bring it under the less fubarred FS9... alas, that is not to be.

So, as you can see, I CAN talk with a modicum of experience.

Yes, I said I did not buy it (I didn't), that I would not fork money (I didn't) and so on. It was of course an attempt of protecting myself from a lynch mob that I hope will target you now. Because almost everyone had forgot my... unfortunate luck with the free getting of FSX.

To you all, gentlemen with the baseball bats, forks, stones, chains, submachine guns, shotguns, katanas, naginatas, nunchakus, anal probes... petrol and torches... a 120 feet stone obelisk? ??? What do you want to do with that obelisk anyway? WHAT? ...now I understand the reason of the anal probes. Well, anyway, you can't touch me. I didn't want to do it. HE made me do it, lynch him, that enemy of the people.

<runs away while Nick is surrounded for the last time in his life>

May you rest in pieces.

Quote:



I try.


Quote:


Answering was my pleasure, shame my ISP is giving me pains tonight and I could correct my post just while you were answering me. It was only a minor change though. Always on the funny side

As for the decisions of M€$, well, I'm not going to reiterate what everyone KNOWS (those who kiss the earth where uncle Bill walks too). The real reasons. The REAL REASONS... of this heaviness.

I am not going to make an issue out of my videocard. FSX is only to work with for me. Read the last part of my signature for further enlightenment.


Quote:


Nope.

Before my actual rig I had a AMD Athlon Xp1700 + 512Mb Sdr ram I used with FS2002. I only had to change the videocard from the old Radeon to a TI4400 to have an acceptable FS9.

Of course I upgraded further later (to the actual rig minus the videocard that was a FX5700le recently changed with the actual) but that's not the point. What difference there is between a Xp1700 and a Xp2400? Are they all that different in power?

Nope nope nope.

I could have brought the ole 1700 to 1Gb and used a little less AI traffic, maybe using the actual videocard. I would have had a good FS9 anyway.

Try please to translate under FSX.

There's no comparison. Default FSX, in exchange for a modest betterment of graphics (beside the water that IS great, I admit freely), is chock full loaded of textures WHICH ONLY DUTY IS TO SLOW DOWN NORMAL PC'S (tell me please to what end are needed all those different kind of trees, just to highlight one). So the poor common user with no experience in modding his sim will say "time to give my dearly worked money to the Princes of Hardware, so I'll have my pc ready for Vista too".

That's another thing I will not buy. A thing actually that I won't install even if Bill himself comes to my house and gives me a free copy with hardware to match (if, for absurd, he would do such a thing, I'd throw away the DVD with Vista and use the given HW with Xp anyway).

Wasteful consumerism at every cost promoted by domesticated would-be coders is making its way in the field of PC's too. I refuse to become a sheep to be herded by other's choices. I am a wolf, not a walking slab of meat.

This is how I think, with my brain.

I have a brain, I will use it. I steadfastly refuse to delegate others the pleasure to think for me.

Quote:


An acceptable FS9 with a Ti4400 ? Are you joking ?
When FS9 went out, I realized that my poor MX400 video card would not be enough, so I had to spend a lot of money to buy a Ti4400, which was expensive at that time.

And did I get ? Crappy performance ! I still had to install the reduced autogen textures to be able to fly over cities, I had to install reduced clouds textures to fly with some serious meteo, and of course I had to choose a reflecting water texture with "not too small" waves, else flying above the ocean would have been a didsaster as well.

You are trying to flame FSX performance but you are also forgetting that FS9 was giving exactely the same problems.

Quote:

I upgraded as well, bought a Gb of fast RAM, and a GeForce 6800 GT with 256 MB of memory, and I can finally push FS9 close to the max...but close only.

Quote:

FSX = FS9 => does not run too fast on current medium end machines, runs nicely on current expensive top-hardware, and will run and look een better on future hardware, just like FS9 did.

Quote:

All the people that do not want to see the same trees everywhere in the world, for example not the same trees in Italy than in Australia, or Amazonia etc... but of course, better scenery detail is only good for gamers, real simmers only need a good 2D cockpit... 

Well my two cents.

First off I think that MS has once again made a fine piece of software. Sure there are some bugs and that is expected, it is obvious MS can not have thier product tested on every possible combination of hardware and every possible users environment

Here is a thought, reformat your hard drive, reinstall XP and properly setup your system then install FSX all alone and see what it does, you may be surprised at how well it does run. People don't seem to realize a hard drive full of stuff, improperly defragged, littered with trash etc.. itself will harm performance.

I just installed FSX on a Dell Dimension 4500 with some P3 and a FX5200 and 1gig RAM , obviously I can't get all the highest setting graphics etc but it runs great considering the computer.

Sure most take the minimum requirements the wrong way, no fault of MS at all. But it is what it says the minimum requirements and if you want to get legal about it that means it is all you need to launch the program, says nothing about actually using it

And yes there will be a patch, now this is what kills me, all those that complain about MS releasing uncompleted software. Tell me how many other PC games have you bought that haven't had to be patched to the hilt?

99% of the games I have needed multiple patches anywhere from 8mb to 300+mb. Every time I check online there is another patch ready. You know what bothers me is when a patch is released the same day as or a few days after the title went on sale.

IL2 (best combat sim ) has needed major mega patches what is it 7 of them? , LOMAC as well and you say that MS ships incomplete games??  FS9 needed 1 patch! And lets not forget many other software companies sell their patches calling them "expansion packs" charging you for their incomplete software.

I'm sorry but when MS may need one patch while other games by other companies require many I don't think MS is the ones shipping incomplete products.

I guess the bottom line is if you want a game that installs "perfect" stick to the consoles, becasue PC gaming is not for you and at least then you know you will meet the system requirements becasue the game was tested on the same rig you own

Quote:


So let me refresh your memory: with a Ti4400, you get blurry textures, you cannot flight full settings over the cities (in fact for that, even a 6800 GT 256 is not enough), and it's even difficult to get acceptable results over the forest areas.

With FSX, it's just the same. With medium low hardware, you get low graphics. I don't see any point of complaining about that.  ???

Quote:


I have the sneaking suspicion that you never used a TI4400 on FS9 and are talking only out of suppositions.

With the TI4400 (that I stupidly sold) I had even better graphics that I received with the supposedly more powerful Fx5700le (I should have never bought this videocard, not that it worked badly, but its performances were far from the ones expected)

A real step forward in FS9 I had only with the current 6600GT.

I'm not fancying an attempt of using FSX on a TI4400, seen that the 6600GT is not good enough for the bratty new son of M€$ so-called coders.


Quote:


Seen that you spoke about it, let me suggest you to read again my critique on the choice of putting an UNNECESSARY and REDUNDANT quantity of textures for the trees. How many people really look at what kind of trees are under their plane?

FSX is only the point of the iceberg. To keep people constantly buying new hardware, new HEAVY functions no one will ever need are added to software which could work way better without them (the aeroglass interface of vista, for one, is an example of unnecessary and heavy function to prod people to buy more powerful hardware fundamentally for no real reason).

In the end this is becoming tiring, repetitive, boring and fruitless. I stated already that I'm not preaching. Feel free to throw away your money. I hope you'll do me the same favor and let me feel free not to throw away mine.

See you in another thread.

Sayonara.

Quote:

Yes, you definitely seem to have a lot of sneaking ideas  

I had a Ti4400 for two years, upgraded from a GeForce 2 MX400 because FS9 was just horrible with that card. After two years, I changed the Ti4400 for the 6800 GT. My brother could still use that card for some months,  then it burned (with the proc and the motherboard) because of a power supply problem.

Quote:

You never look at benchmarks ?

Quote:

Don't speak about coding when you don't even know what it is.

Quote:

I'll tell you: everybody but you.
The guys making VOZ are good examples, as well as all the guys complaining about the incorrect trees depending on the region in FSX, because of bad default landclass.

Quote:

But you can disable this function if I am not mistaken, right ? Do you think people will stick to that functionnality if it's really crappy or unecessary ?


Quote:

Yep, Sayonara as you said. I you get bored about the whole history of video games, why do you still play them ?