Simviation Forums

Well, not literally, but i wouldnt run properly from day one.

In FS9, i was able to start my computer in the morning, get into Flight Simulator and be flying 3 minutes later. Then when i had to go, I still had gotten in about ten minutes of flying.

In FSX, it takes more that ten minutes just to get into the cockpit. The term "Quick Flight" for me was eliminated. There were so many times when i had to quit while it was still loading and then.. becuz it was loading, i could close out. I had to wait.

I may be the only one in the world, but i miss the freedom to fly without having to conculate how much time i will need to do so.

Im switching to FS9 and getting FS2K as a Christmas gift.
Im not looking for a great game inside of FS2K, its just a change and also has the concorde.

I have a 70Gb Computer, 40Gb was occupied when i installed it. The rest of my computer still ran fine, it was just that the game didnt. I highly doubt that it was a software problem.

I cant wait to get some awesome download planes in FS9 and FS2K.



A Mad customer of Microsoft who only waited March-October for FSX, just to see that it was crap!

I Appluad You Microsoft,

Heatnyc918

Am I the only one whos Computer got blown up by FS

Yep.

I highly doubt that it was a software problem.

You're exactly right, it's a hardware problem.





Open the flood gates! [smiley=vrolijk_1.gif]

I know this is just a rant, but I feel like I should reply

Dont worry... Microsoft has launched the most aggressive customer satisfaction and QC program ever seen


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-c0YSsF_O0


It appears the programmer who did the UK scenery for FSX has undergone the latest innovation in the new MCSA (Microsoft Customer Satisfaction and Assurance) 'program' (MCSA) for correcting and preventing future errors... he's at the end of the video



When that ERROR box pops up and wants to close the program.. TAKE REVENGE AND MAKE SURE YOU SEND IT!!

"In FSX, it takes more that ten minutes just to get into the cockpit."
Roger that, I've gone back to FS9 after wasting too much time in FSX over the first six-weeks I tried it.
It appears Microsoft is on the right track with Microsoft Customer Satisfaction and Assurance  

P.S. I see no need to upgrade (read that: throw more money at) my computer when I'm perfectly satisfied with FS9 (and its installed $200-$300 in addons)

My fsX loads as fast as fs9? I have 2gb of RAM, sooo...? Does that speed it up tons?

Probably so because more files can be cached at the same time.

yo that sucks so much. what year was the computer? :-?

FSX needs current hardware, otherwise it will run unsatisfactorily. I think this pretty much sums it up.

FSX needs current hardware, otherwise it will run unsatisfactorily. I think this pretty much sums it up.

Hi Friday... ...!

I have got an idea that FSX needs FUTURE hardware....
...far into the future...VERY FAR into the future... ... ...!

Paul...I can't see that far into the future.....life is much too short... ...!

...LOL... ...!

The hardware is here, today, right now. It's just incredibly expensive. This computer would run FSX just fine.. and with another $500 in RAM.. be ready for Vista and DX10..

X6800 CPU  $960

2X8800GTX VC   $1300

2GB Fast DDR RAM  $500

M/B, Case, P/S, Drives  $600

$3,360.00 USD

[quote]The hardware is here, today, right now. It's just incredibly expensive. This computer would run FSX just fine.. and with another $500 in RAM.. be ready for Vista and DX10..

X6800 CPU

The hardware is here, today, right now. It's just incredibly expensive. This computer would run FSX just fine.. and with another $500 in RAM.. be ready for Vista and DX10..

X6800 CPU  $960

2X8800GTX VC   $1300

2GB Fast DDR RAM  $500

M/B, Case, P/S, Drives  $600

$3,360.00 USD

WOWZERS, Brett...

Post me your credit card details and I can put my FS9 back in it's box and run my FSX as beautifully as my FS9... ...!

$3,360...(

LOL, Fozz..  There's NO way I'd spend that much money on a computer..

I'm getting along just fine on my 3700, 7800GT, 1GB RAM machine. Which by the way runs FSX well enough that FS9 is no longer fun..  (and could be built today for about $800 USD)

The hardware for FSX isn't a future fantasy.. That's all I'm saying.

And.. I f I remember correctly.. if you adjust for inflation.. a computer that would have run FS9 at max, when it first came out, would have cost MORE than $3,000.00 USD.

I second Brett.
Atlon 3000+. His 9800 iceq (128mb), 1gb ram and my fsx is 1,5 min longer than fs9 to boot up. Fps on medium in fsx is 30-40 under my fs9's 70-100 in high settings.
You cant get the hole world on your sceen, but you can get some very good flights.