Not impressed at all

[simmerhead 885]

A single version would be best, but too many people have sliderfobia. I don't want a dumbed down FS with no room for growth. I want the full monty that can grow with the development in technology, rather than become obsolete once the next big thing in the world of computers hits the shelves. Cost. I don't care. I'm willing to pay much more for Flight than the current FSX price, as long as it runs more stable and has improved bells and whistles over FSX. Heck, FSX is the cheapest piece of software I own. In terms of value for money it is unbeatable.

[Kilo7 0]

A single version would be best, but too many people have sliderfobia. I don't want a dumbed down FS with no room for growth. I want the full monty that can grow with the development in technology, rather than become obsolete once the next big thing in the world of computers hits the shelves. Cost. I don't care. I'm willing to pay much more for Flight than the current FSX price, as long as it runs more stable and has improved bells and whistles over FSX. Heck, FSX is the cheapest piece of software I own. In terms of value for money it is unbeatable.

I hear ya brother.

[Virtual Reality 0]

A single version would be best, but too many people have sliderfobia. I don't want a dumbed down FS with no room for growth. I want the full monty that can grow with the development in technology, rather than become obsolete once the next big thing in the world of computers hits the shelves. Cost. I don't care. I'm willing to pay much more for Flight than the current FSX price, as long as it runs more stable and has improved bells and whistles over FSX. Heck, FSX is the cheapest piece of software I own. In terms of value for money it is unbeatable.

I do agree there should be some room for growth, but can't that be done through addons instead of the sim itself, like I said before in an earlier post, addon developers are producing addons with stuff I never thought FSX could do. I just think the simulator, should run well, be stable and look good on the techonlogy of the day, and allow addon developers to push the simulator to its is max, giving superb HD scenery, aircraft etc... Use the sim as the base and addons for that extra "wow" people want out of their simulator's.I don't think anyone can complain with that, as it's good for the addon market, good towards people who can't afford the lastest and biggest PC's and allows for Microsoft to target more of the PC newbies to flight sim which in turn helps grow the flight simulator community. (What I mean by the term "newbie" is a person, who doesn't know how to tweak, or how to overclock or things about CPU/GPU/RAM etc...)I could understand that if people didn't like it, they could simply take it back and get a refund, but you can't with PC simulators/games and when someone has put good money towards something, they want the most out of it. I wouldn't complain if FSX looked alright if you had the sliders moved to the left a bit, but when I do that, my FSX looks like spaghetti.Virtual Reality

[alainneedle1 97]

Guys what make you belive Flight will run as smooth as a baby's butt???People want Flight to run on a mid. range PC with all the eyes candy and everything maxed out......HELLO!!....have you ever play Crysis with everything maxed out on high resolution? and that's not an old engine (for proples assuming Flight is a new engine based simulator).Get the best hardware you can put your hands on, Yea! me too, I would like to run my Chrysler 300C like a Ferrari for the price of a Neon.....pffff .

[simmerhead 885]

I could understand that if people didn't like it, they could simply take it back and get a refund, but you can't with PC simulators/games and when someone has put good money towards something, they want the most out of it. I wouldn't complain if FSX looked alright if you had the sliders moved to the left a bit, but when I do that, my FSX looks like spaghetti.

I think you should return your hadrware. As I said earlier, I have an almost six year old computer and it runs FSX just fine, even with ORBX scenery installed. I've got an AMD dual core 4400+ processor, 3 GB of RAM, Nvidia 7900 GTX graphics card, and normal SATA 7200RPM harddrive. A low end computer by todays satandards. I do no tweaking, no overclocking and no fancy defrag software. All stock. Sad to hear about your hardware troubles.

[alainneedle1 97]

I think you should return your hadrware. As I said earlier, I have an almost six year old computer and it runs FSX just fine, even with ORBX scenery installed. I've got an AMD dual core 4400+ processor, 3 GB of RAM, Nvidia 7900 GTX graphics card, and normal SATA 7200RPM harddrive. A low end computer by todays satandards. I do no tweaking, no overclocking and no fancy defrag software. All stock. Sad to hear about your hardware troubles.

??? hardware problems?? Where did you read that??I run FSX with everything maxed out without any problems what so ever, the only thing I changed in the fsx.CFG is load radius at 6.5, Texture max load 4096 and TBM at 120 that's it and this is not a tweak this put more stress on the hardware.....If you think for one sec. I belive you are running Orbx (everything ticked in their control panel also) with REX and HRD at max settings on your rig. without any stutterings.....you need new meds.They only way to make sure of what you'r saying about your rig. is to show us a vid. of what you can do with it using Orbx, REX and HDR....you don't...well I rest my case.Here is two shorts 30 sec. clip when I was testing my rig. right after I put everything together.......it's even better today.Was done with fraps with no editing..

[simmerhead 885]

If you think for one sec. I belive you are running Orbx (everything ticked in their control panel also) with REX and HRD at max settings on your rig. without any stutterings.....you need new meds.They only way to make sure of what you'r saying about your rig. is to show us a vid. of what you can do with it using Orbx, REX and HDR....you don't...well I rest my case.

I don't run everything on maximum... I've never claimed to do so, nor have I a need to do so. I don't use REX either. I use Active Sky 6.5 and am OK with using just the defualt sky and cloud textures. The "REX-look" is a bit too oversaturated and contrasty for my taste.

[alainneedle1 97]

I don't run everything on maximum... I've never claimed to do so, nor have I a need to do so. I don't use REX either. I use Active Sky 6.5 and am OK with using just the defualt sky and cloud textures. The "REX-look" is a bit too oversaturated and contrasty for my taste.

Hasaaa! now I understand, when I was a kid my parents had a black and white TV and we were fine with it till the day my father came back from shopping with a color set......we never looked back....now I have a 63" HD TV ......I think it's time for you to try something new....you may like it and may not look back again.....just saying.My earlier point was this, Flight will not run at max settings with Orbx REX HDR unless you have a high end computer and I was comparing Crysis running on a high end computer, Crysis is a new game by today's standard (engine wise) and still a very demanding game on a high end computer including SLI so who ever think Flight will run smooth as silk with all the eyes candy is sadly mistaking, will Flight run better compare to FSX ...probably...but I don't think it will be that much better since Flight is FSX reworked.

[dtrjones 356]

From what I'm seeing, this thread is quite pointless. OHN, you gave your opinion/rant based on 10 screenshots and one video taken in a flight simulator in early development. What is the point of that? Complain to Microsoft if you are unhappy. Complaining here is useless.In a way, FSX was not so great. In other ways, it's the best PC flight simulator we can afford.

Hi Brandon, I agree. Microsoft are reaching out to us as early as they 'ever have in the course of a Flight Simulation based development but for some of us to complain about a product which isn't even in beta yet, it's a bit unfair.I think what Microsoft have shown us so far has been a wonderful progression and if you read between the lines from the various press releases you can see a platform developing which will provide genuine excitement and features to cover all levels of flying experiance for a wide range of hardware. You simply can't reach out to a wider audiance without making the simulation competant enough to run on todays and tomorrows hardware solutions. So all is looking good I believe.Cheers,Dave.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

...... I have an almost six year old computer and it runs FSX just fine, even with ORBX scenery installed. I've got an AMD dual core 4400+ processor, 3 GB of RAM, Nvidia 7900 GTX graphics card, and normal SATA 7200RPM harddrive. A low end computer by todays satandards. I do no tweaking, no overclocking and no fancy defrag software. All stock. Sad to hear about your hardware troubles.

I'm almost in the same boat as you except my hardware is a little newer, but I can run FSX at pretty high levels at pretty much any addon airport in my sig and have no issues at all.In fact, I just watched these two videos that Alain posted below, and believe it or not flying the RealAirSF260 or a similar type a/c in areas like that (ORBX PNW), gives me about the same or better performance that what those 2 videos showed, alhough mine looks a little smoother in person that what his video looked like, but that could just be Youtube or Fraps causing that. The point being you dont need to spend a lot like Alain did to get good performance, a lot can be had from good OS setup and FSX tweaks and using the right types of textures.

The "REX-look" is a bit too oversaturated and contrasty for my taste.

I think that's the ENB bloom plug in that is causing that, not REX. You can dial those bloom setting down in the .ini file to make it look less saturated.

[simmerhead 885]

My earlier point was this, Flight will not run at max settings with Orbx REX HDR unless you have a high end computer and I was comparing Crysis running on a high end computer, Crysis is a new game by today's standard (engine wise) and still a very demanding game on a high end computer including SLI so who ever think Flight will run smooth as silk with all the eyes candy is sadly mistaking, will Flight run better compare to FSX ...probably...but I don't think it will be that much better since Flight is FSX reworked.

Tell me more mr. Science... I know it won't run on max, and I don't care. As for other games, I don't care either. I don't play them. My point was that I am perfectly satisfied with how FSX runs on my computer. I'll buy a new computer when my current setup fails to boot. Until then I'll continue to enjoy FSX as I've done for thousands of hours since installing it in 2006. People may read books on their iPAD, but I am perfectly happy reading books made of paper...

[Virtual Reality 0]

Let's not get into an arguement about it. Simmerhead could be right after all and his hardware does run FSX well, for him it may run perfect for him, but to other's badly. Everyone has their own image of what is acceptable/good and what is wrong/bad.I mean I have a decent machine, well I can't call it that... laptop, which actually runs FSX extremely well for me. I own an Alienware M15x with an Intel i7 740QM 1.74Ghz (2.8Ghz in turbo mode) / Nvidia GTX 260M / 4GB of RAM. In terms of what I have on FSX is just Real Environment Extreme and FSPassengers X. And I was never complaining about myself receiving bad frames, as I recieve a good 35FPS (Locked). I was just saying my opinion as to what would benefit 'Flight' performance wise and the direction I wished it would take.As for the person talking about Cryzis, that is well known to nearly everyone that to run it with it's highest settings you need a top of the line computer, many people use Cryzis as their benchmarks. No one was ever told FSX was going to need a computer 5 years later before it would be able to achieve maximum settings. Nor did anyone expect it to be such the lag horse it was, as most people got decent perfomance with FS2004. I mean i've had my ups and downs with FSX, in 2008 I ordered a brand new top of the range computer, if I remember it was the Dell XPS 720, Dell's top of the range machines at that time. I was sure that FSX was going to be able to run on its highest settings, I mean after all the XPS 720 was described as "the ultimate gaming machine." It was such a shock to me when I recieved it, that still after 2 years since FSX was launched, I still couldn't play the game on it's highest settings with a computer which was at the time of launch, was one of the best gaming PC's out there. I felt it was such a rip off that I had spent that money on a machine which still couldn't play FSX on max. I blamed the game for this because all other games I had on my XPS 720 worked beautifully. FSX was simply bad-coded.That is why I find FSX to be unacceptable. A person shouldn't need to wait 5 years after the launch of a game for it to be finally played on max settings (and STILL, a person to achieve that needs a top of the range machine to do so). If your going to make a simulator for now, make it for now, not for 5 years or 6 years later, might as well just save money developing it then, instead of launching a lag filled simulator and having to spend work hours and money on service packs to fix those issues in a simulator not ready for the day.I've learnt my mistakes this time, im going to wait when Flight is launched. See how other people are finding it, and if it turns out to be like FSX another lag-horse of a simulator. I'm going to stick with the finally working FSX and wait five or so years and pick it up in the bargin bin section for 3/4's of its original price. Others will probably disagree with many of my opinions and suggestions and for some FSX is a dream of a simulator and i'm happy it's working for them nicely and they are enjoying it. It's just from my past experience with it and what I think would be beneficial for not just the people with cash to spare but for the average person who isn't willing to spend £1000's, for it to run on maximum. I mean seriously guys, if we had of saved the money instead of buying these gaming machines, we would be well on our way for getting our Private Pilots License in real life.That's what i'm going to do anyways, im not going to be upgrading anymore. Going to save up and do the real thing - as no matter how much you tweak, overclock, upgrade, nothing will ever beat the real thing after all ;)Virtual Reality

[alainneedle1 97]

Tell me more mr. Science... I know it won't run on max, and I don't care. As for other games, I don't care either. I don't play them. My point was that I am perfectly satisfied with how FSX runs on my computer. I'll buy a new computer when my current setup fails to boot. Until then I'll continue to enjoy FSX as I've done for thousands of hours since installing it in 2006. People may read books on their iPAD, but I am perfectly happy reading books made of paper...

Hey! don't get me wrong here, if your happy with what you have that's enough for me.@ cmpbellsjc, the perf. on my machine is outstanding, Fraps + youtube = not the best to show performance I'll give you that but if you think it's a good vid. you should see the original one.....When recording with Fraps I loose about 1/3 of my FPS, I run FSX at unlimited averaging between 35 up to 65 FPS (when I'm not recording) and with the new 266.58 Nvidia driver it's ven better cause there is no stuttering caused by the FPS fluctuation between 65 FPS down to 35 and back up to 65 (this one beats me).... right now my bottleneck is my GPU....

[simmerhead 885]

FRAPS is of course out of the question on my setup. I remember when I first got FSX. I ran a software that measured the load on my GPU, CPU and video memory. Both my CPU ran on 100% for most of the session, while load on the GPU and video memory was around 50-60%. If we want the realistic scenery, the high resolution mesh, the inteeligent ATC and AI aircraft, road and boat traffic, realistic weather and realistic flight model, the amount of data is going to be massive. There is no way around it. And massive amounts of data needs massive processing. Luckily the new Sandy Bride CPUs from Intel looks very promising. They give a boost in performance, can be overclocked and are cheap. Computer power has never been cheaper, and ther is no reason why that development shouldn't continue for the next decade.

[Rebel_Without_a_Clue 0]

Oh look..pretty shiny thingies.So far all I've seen are rendered screen shots. Pretty graphics , true , but are you looking for a game or a flight simulator?Ever seen the graphics used in West Jets 737 simulator? Deplorable by gaming standards but then it's intent is to TRAIN pilots , not dazzle then with overhead views. Nice to have both for sure , but I'd sacrifice pretty pictures for more accurate flight modeling and controls.I learned my lesson quit a few years ago and now adopt a wait and see attitude whenever new games are released.This (considering it's MS well noted for their cash grabs)is probably a pass , especially with X-Plane 10 just over the horizon.