A Total Joke

[RollerBall]

pepper_airborne

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Show us some pics. You are becoming very tedious. We all want to know how you and your friends have achieved such success and you apparently with such a modest system too.

Until then you get no respect from me but I'll be the first to apologise when you demonstrate your obviously considerable IT prowess to us all.

Shall I start holding my breath?

PS

And why on earth should you possibly think that my last comment was directed at you? I didn't name any names......

[Hagar]

Yes, you're right Doug and thanks for pointing that out. But as we've moved on to FR and performance I don't mind.

I share your disappointment but can't say I'm surprised. What does surprise me is the number of people who couldn't wait to hand over their cash & be first to get their grubby little hands on an untried & untested piece of software when they must have known full well or at least suspected that they would have problems running it any sense on their current systems.* The ones I feel sorry for are the poor unsuspecting souls who see it on the shelf in their local software store & hand over their hard-earned without any idea of the problems they will have.

*PS. I'm not referring to you.

[pepper_airborne]

i'll withdraw from this discussion since mister rollerball is friendly enough to shout at me. I was just about to go trough all the hassle of uploading a screenshot, but since you care that much il drop it.

[Hagar]

If you have a screenshot please post it. It's no hassle at all.

[RollerBall]

*PS. I'm not referring to you.

Yeah I'm one of them. The main reason I got it though was for the SDK. I got into FS2004 scenery design very late really and to be honest, I was and still am fascinated by the idea of creating all kinds of different AI traffic.

I'm thinking more about the small airfields. Gary Summers's Gatwick and Heathrow are way above the airports in FSX for both scenery and moving objects IMO and it's largely down to the quality of the moving objects. We all know how difficult it has been up to now to make moving objects and I was hoping the FSX SDK would give us a few insights for the future.

Then if you add internal and external traffic to the small airfields (places like Sherburn, Southend, Biggin and such) you begin to get a very interesting sim indeed.

Moving objects are fine in and around the big airports but they would do wonders and add very greatly to the small ones like the ones I've mentioned. I think so anyway.

[Bindoe]

Thank you for the many kind comments in this thread  

I thought we had a rule here on the forum about not being personal if you disagree with someone's point of view. Looks as though some of these conventions are rapidly going out of the window with newer members joining and from some older members who shouild know a whole lot better.

+

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Ummmmmm. Wtf?

[RollerBall]

i'll withdraw from this discussion since mister rollerball is friendly enough to shout at me. I was just about to go trough all the hassle of uploading a screenshot, but since you care that much il drop it.

Dear Mr pepper_airborne

You have contributed nothing to this discussion so far except for a lot of hot air.

If you ever had 'a' screen shot (how many did I post? Was it 14?) you would have done so. Do us all a favour....

[C]

Well thank you for showing respect.

Maybe Rollerball is showing the same respect for you that you have shown for him during this thread...

[Bindoe]

And was it running smoothly? I've actually managed to max out FS9 (finally) and I've got to to run pretty much how I'd like it to, with the right visual appearance. However, I have no idea what my average FPS is, because frankly, I don't care. It runs how I'd like it to. You could be getting 30 FPS and still get major stutters all over the place, when it's trying to load the scenery.

Well, he said it was smooth.

How come all the long standing forum members who've been simming for years are having problems with this software while the only ones who are sailing through with no problems (and no pics mind) are newbies who've only been on the forum for five minutes?

Uh. Although I'm not that other guy I may be new to this forum but I aint new to FlightSimming or MSFS for that matter.

Sure it would, but with poor graphics, not with the top-graphics screenshots seen so far. And that's normal.

True, but low graphics dosn't always mean bad graphics.

[Hagar]

???

Yeah I'm one of them. The main reason I got it though was for the SDK. I got into FS2004 scenery design very late really and to be honest, I was and still am fascinated by the idea of creating all kinds of different AI traffic.

I realise that & would no doubt do the same if I still had my old enthusiasm for the hobby. It's almost time I hung up my hat.

[freedomhays]

Please delete this thread

[RollerBall]

Bindoe, you can see that for whatever reasons, the vast majority of people on this forum, and on other forums and probably around the whole world, are having problems running FSX. It's been widely documented and even the official bloggers like tdragger are saying that Aces are concerned and are a bit flummoxed by it.

So it does no good at all for people to come onto SimV saying or quoting hearsay that they or their friends have got it up and running amazingly well but do not substantiate or back up what they are seeing in any way shape or form.

We've all been around the block a bit too many times.

[Hagar]

Maybe Rollerball is showing the same respect for you that you have shown for him during this thread...

This is an international forum & comments are easily misunderstood. This leads to people getting the wrong idea. I could be wrong but to be fair to pepper_airborne I think his remark about respect was genuine - aimed at someone else & not intended as sarcasm.

[Craig.]

RE: Doug and the why people put up with it part.
I put it in my original post buried somewhere waaaay back. But the simple fact is, MS have gotten away with it for so long, they have basically brainwashed people into accepting a less than acceptable product. They use lines like, "great for scenery developers". Or "well the planet is huge we cant be expected to get it all right" And then a few weeks or months down the line you hear people spouting those same lines, because they actually believe them. The reality is, its pure lazyness on the part of MS. They've gotten away with it for so long and will keep getting away with it because people like some of those in this thread are happy to accept an unfinished product. I for one am not.
I'll say it again, and reitterate Rollers point. You would never go into a store and buy a product that is less than 100% working and complete. You'd never buy a toaster that toasts only 1 side, or a vacuum cleaner that doesn't pick up right. You'd never buy a racing game where the tracks are supposed to be realistic but the corners arn't there. Or how about would anyone here buy a new car with worn tyres? No.
So why should MS get away with basically the same thing? its because some idiots lets them and are happy to settle for less than acceptable. You are paying for an expnsive piece of software, a computer game (yes I said it, a game) A Game that is retailing for what?

[goodfella]

Come on Rollerball, Im an Englishman and yes I fly in and around the main UK hub airports but having a go at people who cant solve this problem for you isnt guna sort the mess that Microsoft has created.

People are only trying to help.