Simviation Forums

I see now what you mean. As far as FSX goes it can be frustrating. I read most of the posts in the FSX and FS9 boards and both seem to have a fair share of problems posted.

Ah, but what kind of problems are we talking about here, huh? :-?

FS9 is a VERY old program, almost 8 years ever since it got out, problems into adapting it to work with newer drivers, newer OS's, even newer hardware... those are to be expected.

FSX? It's six, almost, years old, but ever since day one to this very day, the problems discussed are always the same: lack of performances, in spite of six years of hardware advancements, and poor reliability, in the face of the two patches bombastically renamed service packs (Problems, these, that are about to be joined by the same afflictions of FS9, like adaptation with newer OS's, drivers and hardware, since FSX is pretty old itself too).

There is a small, not quite insignificant difference, you'll admit.


[quote]I can't imagine the work that goes into a flight simulator program, I simply don't know, but I would think paying attention to and reviewing every single byte programed is impossible. So, I look at FS9 and FSX as important stepping stones. I have often tried to imagine a way to make a sim that makes everyone happy and I keep coming up blank. I don't think it can be done.

Again.
Some people want the world (in a Hi res digital interactive format) with out bugs (even though the real world has those too), and they want it for practically nothing.

There is an "occupy" protest somewhere looking for you.

Some people want the world (in a Hi res digital interactive format) with out bugs (even though the real world has those too), and they want it for practically nothing.

And others only want to be paid for their time passed playing golf.

Some people want the world (in a Hi res digital interactive format) with out bugs (even though the real world has those too), and they want it for practically nothing.

And others only want to be paid for their time passed playing golf.

And if they are good enough, they are paid.

The good or popular product will do that.

You know, with FSX there was a ton of hype. I remember salivating for at least a year over the pictures and features lists about FSX before its debut, I bought the Deluxe edition as soon as it was out and I was one that was shocked at how brutal it was on my system. That said, my current laptop can run it fairly well. But 2 months ago I threw FS2004 back on and shortly there after uninstalled FSX. FS2004 just runs so smooth on my system even though FSX can look better, flying is much more enjoyable in a smooth sim. That said, with Flight, I think I have learned my lesson and will wait another year after its release and after a system upgrade before buying it...unless I see evidence that it will work well on 1-2yr old systems.

And if they are good enough, they are paid.

...by golf enthusiasts, indeed.

Not software buyers.

The good or popular product will do that.

And which products are those?

And if they are good enough, they are paid.

...by golf enthusiasts, indeed.

Not software buyers.

The good or popular product will do that.

And which products are those?

If software company employees play golf outside of the office, that is between them and their employers. It is not our place to tell them they may not. Their hobbies, sports, and their compensation is none of our affair.

Microsoft, for whom you seem have a dislike, has many popular and successful products. I do not need to post stats on market share. People here seem to know how to use Google (or even BING if you prefer).

Golf? You would never have much fun with just a #1 wood and a putter. Flight sims to date require equipment too. There is no reason to expect Flight to be much different. Even if the coding was changed, I tend to doubt that older hardware is MS first consideration. I hope this post will swing things back on topic..

back on topic.. after a wicked slice off the fairway...


And that's about all the golf terminology I know.