FSX Preliminary Opinon Poll

[Clipper]

Danny,

Where is the option "Happy With FS9"

Dave, that would be the number two option "Problematic, where's my FS9".... maybe it should read: "Who cares?, i've got my FS9"  ;)

[Gunny04]

I put Pleased with it.... I love FSX but I really havent done a full out flight yet, sure, With my settings balanced as best I can, it lags, so what.... if I can fly where I like which is usually over an ocean or somewhere in nowhere land. I might run medium-low like settings, but hey, I'm happy  ;D

Max FPS 15, Lowest, around 6

Cheers, Gunny

[vololiberista]

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.

That's a load of **** !!!!!!!
If I walk into a shop wanting to buy a game and see that my PC specs are well above the printed minimum, I expect it to work well! If it doesn't then it's money back time

I still insist FSX is a downgrade!!!  I am a pilot of many years standing and I don't just use the sim for what is known as "eye candy" M(qualcosa)s have not paid attention to other areas of the sim that are probably more important than just the view. And, as has been said in other threads the "view" leaves much to be desired!!!"
I'm not prepared to spend a lot of money on a PC upgrade
just to be able to run FS9.3.
Vololiberista

[freedomhays]

2002 is still avalible,
Thats what they used in my ppl ground school...

[Daube]

[quote]


That's a load of **** !!!!!!!
If I walk into a shop wanting to buy a game and see that my PC specs are well above the printed minimum, I expect it to work well! If it doesn't then it's money back time

I still insist FSX is a downgrade!!!

[vololiberista]

That's a load of **** !!!!!!!
You're still purposely ignoring all of the FSX improvements over FS9, and I am NOT talking about the eye candy.

Which are????

[Daube]

I already listed them several times. Some of the most important are:
- improved meteo
- vastly improved helicopter flight models
- fly-by-wire system for liners
- vastly improved virtual cockpits, matching payware quality
- improved GA aircrafts physics
- improved Extra 300 flight model (meaning, better behaviour in extreme manoeuvers)
- improved airports with interactive vehicules and gates
- vastly improved gliders experience
- G1000 GPS system
- some bug corrections in ATC (note that I did not write "improvement", since it's just some corrections, but still positive stuff)
- finally some serious mutiplayer, with shared cockpit, controler feature, smooth movements for formation flying, etc...
- and some other thing I forgot.

And still, I didn't mention anything about "eye-candy", and restricted the list to the realism and flight feeling improvements. If you don't care about anything in this list, then you could still stay with FS2002. But please stop saying that FSX is a "downgrade" just because of the graphics.

[Arnimon]

I have also checked the 4th button.
I was also a little bit of .
It

[Joe_D]

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.

Good point.

M$ wants to go mainstream with FSX and is

[Rocket_Bird]

One of the things I remembered one of the game designers of FSX stated in one of his blogs was that most games out there don't really have much of a shelf life, and the point of making FSX break present day average computers (and even high end) to their knees is that they want to maintain that shelf-life where other games cant and so people would enjoy it longer.

Although I accept this theory, by all means its good for business from a theoreotical point of view, I saw a lot of holes that they might have just totally skipped up on.

[KDSM]

the worst.

well the frame rate and the gross errors in the mesh.

The thing(s) I like the best

The airport traffic and the automatically updated logbook

[gijake]

Different if there was a warning on the packaging, or a money-back guarantee from the manufacturer.

 
What would this warning lable say, exactly? "Warning!  Not for bad computers!  Exetremely bad Scenery in London Makes Impossible to fly!  Slow framrates".  That would be an exelent, and, from what I have heard, accurate warning lable.

[JBaymore]

What would this warning lable say, exactly?

[i][b][size=16]WARNING:

[Daube]

They should just have written something like that, it would have been ok:
Minimum requirements:
Pentium 3 GHz or equivalent
1 Gb RAM
DirectX9 video card with at least 256 Mb of Memory

Now that I think about it, instead of using such imprecise description, they should just use a benchmark, and write the minimum rating needed to run the sim at minimum settings with 25 FPS.

[JBaymore]

Now that I think about it, instead of using such imprecise description, they should just use a benchmark, and write the minimum rating needed to run the sim at minimum settings with 25 FPS.

Now THAT is a great idea!

Maybe even specify the benchmark needed to get 25 fps (or whatever standard) at the various levels of settings in the sim.  

That would allow someone to evaluate a purchase accurately.

Good thought.

best,

........john