Simviation Forums

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...

To early.. I think ...But I begining to think is not the diference as where fs2002 and fs9, I love the G effect in the VC and the cars ,I would said is like an fs9 MORE complex ,..anyway It needs one more month, because I think its too early..

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 went for the "has potential" option i have it running at a steady 15 fps right now and slowelly turning some sliders back up again. With a bit of work the sim will look very good, i had a online flight with 2 other flexwings flying trough the Sion area in switzerland and i was amazed at how good the area looks like.

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....?

Great sim so far, love discovering all of the favorite places again from 2004, everything looks like it has had quite a good makeover compared with 2004.

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.

That's a good point. MS used to have the loyalty system too where you got money "back" when upgrading from on version to the next...

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)

To early to say
I am not suppose to say how mines running, but
Flight Simulator 2004 Update v9.1,  although it's just bridges and the like,  perhaps there will be some different downloads  for FSX,   IMO...
I am sure they are gettig some feed on all this.

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

No software ever, no matter how much you pay for it, will run straight out of the box. Most people whom regularly buy software know minimum specifications say nothing about how the program runs. And as stated before, it is designed with future systems in mind, same as FS9 when it first came out.

And, most of all, nobody forced people to buy FSX, it wasnt like mister gates stood there with a .357 aimed at ones head.

[quote]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. ... for

1,2,3,4,5, and 6!!!!!!!!
Vololiberista

Danny,

Where is the option "Happy With FS9"