FSX Reviews are flowing in…

As you have probably read already, the ACES team at Microsoft had a successful press day.

One of the early reviews that I liked was Robert Whitwell’s from AVSIM.   He captures well what you should expect in the new release.

  73 Replies to “FSX Reviews are flowing in…”

  1. Pierre Matthews
    October 4, 2006 at 11:26 am

    It would be nice if you could implement different english accents for the radio controler when flying over different parts of the world. With FS2004 the controller’s accent is the same north american accent no matter where you are flying.

  2. W.Becket
    October 15, 2006 at 6:31 am

    It seems to me that FSX is little more than a confidence trick. No attempt has been made to incorporate serious simulation matter (SIDS,STARS, etc)and apart from some enhanced scenery (which could be acquired much more cheaply via an add-on) where at least two large towns (Bangor and Caernarvon) appear to have been obliterated. Not even the GPS has been updated and you still have to freeze the programnme to get ILS and VOR frequencies.
    Is FSX de lux really a great advance on FS2004? No and I shall be getting my money back tomorrow.

  3. Del Lamb
    October 18, 2006 at 11:15 am

    Not even close and for sure no cigar!! I have been using FS 9 for several years and with few problems but FSX was trouble right out of the box. My system is a 2.6 gig pent 4, 1 Gig RAM,
    300 Gig HD, ATI 1900 video so not a slug.
    What Problems? no buildings! aircraft are NOT painted for several seconds, CH yoke adjustments not effective, out of focus text and I only spent a few hours trying to make tweaks. Hope tonight goes better, Great hype but no POP yet.

  4. October 18, 2006 at 11:54 am

    I am letting these comments on as I am one for free speech. I know that MS are listening to the feedback.

    Unlike FS9, I am certain that FSX will be an ongoing investment for them. (No more “here is a build, see you in two years”)

  5. J Comella
    October 22, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    I bought FSX last week and still not used to all the problems!!! FS2004 was a lot better. FSX requires the best top of the line system to run. I have played for hours with the settings with no luck. I can’t see buildings, planes are white or take forever to color in, no lights on taxiways and no taxiway/runway signs. I have no use progressive taxi to get to the runway. VERY, VERY UNHAPPY!!!! I may return to store.

  6. October 22, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    Hi There…

    read through this blog, and others linked here and you may find the help you need.

    If you do not, then email me via the contact form and I will personally see if I can help you!

    I installed on a very old and under specced machine and played with the settings and have it running to the same quality as FS2004 without issue.

  7. R Savoie
    October 22, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    All The Hipe!

    I Can’t that I’m happy with what I got. Installation problems at the beginning were only a hint of things to come.

    I’m using a Pentium 4, 3.0 on a hyperthreading board with 1 gig of DDR memory and an ATI 9800 Pro AGP video card. With that kind of hardware I’m used to running FS2004 with the sliders maxed out and still getting 20-25 frames per sec in the most demanding of locations.

    Not anymore! I’ve played for hours trying to adjust the options in FSX to get an acceptable frame rate. At approximately 15 frames per sec, what I would deem barely acceptable, I’ve got the video settings turned back so much, I don’t have half the eye candy as I did with FS2004.

    What a disappointment. In my opinion this is a major step backwards. Think I just wasted $79.95 Canadian on this poorly conceived product. I don’t think MS did anything to improve the game engine. The version is a dog.

  8. P Beardmore
    October 25, 2006 at 3:36 am

    Its nothing more than a MS rip off,
    I upgraded my comp in order to be ready for what MS said would be the best flight sim yet, Spent over £1000
    Now unless I reduce everything to minimums I have been getting down as low as 4fps,
    What have they added to FSX against FS9 just a scenery tweak, ATC still has you sitting for ages and vectors you all over the place, the planes were available as addons in FS9 and better quality there, who wants ships that move, little boxes that are cars going along.
    Sorry MS you got it really wrong this time,
    FS9 will be running a long time here.

  9. October 25, 2006 at 3:42 am

    I removed a couple of simply unprofessional and nasty – non productive comments today.
    Please keep it productive and clean.

  10. MK
    October 26, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    MS seems to have focused on the eye candy and not what many asked for. IFR ATC is still not usable and there are a couple of tweaks required just to get the sim to be usable on anything less than stellar PC’s. The tweaks below made the sim much more usable but still disappointed in the lack of attention to the ATC.

    http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92583

  11. Steve
    October 26, 2006 at 7:50 pm

    As a life-long fan of aviation, skydiver and currently a student pilot with about 50 hrs. logged so far, I’ve been a consumer of MS Flight Simulator programs since the late 90s. There always seemed to be the controversy whether the FLT SIM was indeed a game or not, even though it’s been marketed as a game. Apparently, since the release of FS9 a new element of challenge has been added. No, it’s not about getting through a lesson or a checkride or even accomplishing a mission. The challenge is to make the program work in all its glory as touted by MS! While this game retains the trappings of aviation, it is in fact a technical puzzle requiring the knowledge, patience and competence of a computer guru, not to mention acess to or posession of the latest and greatest state of the art hardware. If you think you can just run down to the store, buy a copy of FSX, load it into your computer and be immersed in a super deluxe world of digital aviation, you’re in for a very rude awakening. Remember, it’s not about flying any more, it’s a game to see if you can make the program work in as close a fashion as MS and the design team glowingly describe it to be able to do.

  12. FLYIT172
    October 26, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    A heartfelt suggestion:

    If you’re really interested in aviation, use Flight Simulator 2002 for its “no nonsense” stable operation.

    Learn and practice everything you can on it and enjoy it without any headaches.

    Take the money you are about to spend on FSX and the computer equipment and additional software you’ll need (if you are to have any chance of making FSX work the way it should) and go get real flying lessons. The cost of getting a pilot’s license is just a tiny bit more than you’ll have to spend for computer equipment just to play a game.

    Getting and Airman certificate (pilot license) from the FAA is “As Real As It Gets”!

  13. October 27, 2006 at 7:27 am

    Paul just posted:

    http://blogs.technet.com/p-12c_pilot/archive/2006/10/27/issues-issues-issues.aspx

    I just want to still reiterate that the ACES team ARE listening to constructive comments.

  14. Steve
    October 28, 2006 at 7:22 am

    “I just want to still reiterate that the ACES team ARE listening to constructive comments.” Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do when Beta testers are looking for faults in the program BEFORE it’s put out for sale?

    I wish the whole ACES team would get aboard a brand new airliner that was as thoughtfully conceived as FSX and go for a flight. I’d love to hear the “constructive comments” THEY’D make in that situation!

  15. babs
    October 28, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    “Unlike FS9, I am certain that FSX will be an ongoing investment for them. (No more “here is a build, see you in two years”)

    NickWhittome”

    Is this a roundabout way of saying that consumers should no longer expect a complete, finished, tested and useable product when they put out their cash for a Microsoft Flight Simulator program?

    Until the next issue of Flight Simulator, will the whole time have to be spent keeping in contact with tech support trying to make the program do what was promised?

    What would be the incentive to buy the next release of Flight Simulator?…the sheer disbelief that anyone could produce anything as bad again as the previous issue???

  16. October 28, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    I just removed, again… more completely silly and unproductive posts.

    The team are very aware of performance issues, you can see by Paul’s blog post that they are working on this very issue. They know that there are a lot of annoyed users and they are working on how to improve things for those same users.

    Personally, I say to those users… stick with FS9 if you want.

    This release is good, but the problem is that it is too good for current hardware IMHO. I can run it with low and mid sliders “out of the box”, but I agree… the low slider defaults should have been lower… if you get what I mean 🙂

    Anyway… the point is… they are listening, and working on trying to improve things. They are also trying to communicate this to the community.

  17. October 29, 2006 at 10:10 am

    FSX is a huge disappointment. Nice scenery, great missions, but otherwise full of glitches. Things that worked in FS9, don’t work in FSX. Under load, the sound burbles and gurgles, the control motion is herky-jerky. During daylight hours, all taxiway and runway signs appear as white holes. At night, the virtual cockpit lacks panel lighting. How will Microsoft resolve the problems? I feel I’ve wasted $70!

    (By the way, I’m a private pilot with 2500 hours, running FSX on a 3.0GHZ, Pentium IV with a gig of ram, a high end graphics card with 512K, a fast SATA 200 gig hard drive, a CH Sim Pro flight yoke and CH rudder pedals.)

  18. Steve
    October 29, 2006 at 10:16 am

    Aallll-righty then. Having reloaded FSX on my computer, for some inexplicable reason this thing started to behave in a much more normal fashion. It’s been a while since I did any tweaking in a sim program, but once I began to feel my way around, I got results that were not too disappointing.

    My computer is running a P4 Extreme Edition, Radeon 9800 PRO and 2 gigs of RAM.

    I must admit that my initial grimace is almost turning into a grin although it’s mostly for the fact that I actually got something to work. The overall performance I’ve managed to get so far does not quite equal FS9, but if you enjoy tinkering with computer stuff, this aspect of it could almost be considered fun. On the other hand, if you’re in it just for the aviation, you could reasonably expect your blood pressure to go up a few notches.

    So far I don’t regret purchasing FSX, but this is primarily because I regard it as a novelty item rather than something that will serve a useful purpose for me (at least in the forseeable future).

    If I make any earth-shaking discoveries in the program I’ll make every attempt to keep you posted.

  19. Steve
    October 29, 2006 at 10:33 am

    My conspiracy theory is that if you have a sluggish computer hardware market, create a popular program that will render the current crop of computers obsolete. 😉

  20. Steve
    October 30, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    As I sit here now, I’ve accumulated 11.8 hours and 48 landings in FSX. I’ve tried a bunch of missions and I’ll admit that the awards are cute.

    I’ve long since resigned myself to the fact that the best image quality I can come up with is pathetic at best. The paint on the Cessna 172 looks like it’s been weathered for about 60 years or so!:(

    The terrain detail is so weak and sketchy that I’ve given up all hope of ever finding Spadaro Airport (1N2) once I’ve taken off from there. Incidentally, when you slect Spadaro Airport, it reads “Lufker” (which is incorrect) in the “Current Location” box, although the program does take you to the correct airport and runway, not Lufker which is a grass field next door. At least the Whitestone and the Throgs Neck Bridge are where they should be this time around in the program.

    With the poor quality of graphics, flying VFR isn’t so easy as you frantically search for a shred of detail to give you a clue where you are. I just think of it as flying on an extremely hazy summer day when everything on the ground looks like a brownish blur.

    One thing about all FS programs I find annoying is that panned moving images give you the impression they are on a spring. Nothing ever seems to just come to smooth stop without a bobbing or a springing-back effect. The same effect happens when the plane is bounced around in the air by wind or when one makes abrupt control inputs. The image of the outside world wags a bit as if it was mounted on a spring. I hadn’t paid much attention to this detail in the past, but after a lengthy session on the sim, I noticed that everything I looked at around me acquired that creepy wig-wag, an effect akin to getting sea legs I suppose. In any event, I never saw that kind of an effect in a real aircraft unless there was one of those dogs with the bobbing head on the dashboard.

  21. Steve
    October 30, 2006 at 7:35 pm

    Doesn’t everyone love backseat drivers? How about a backseat driver while you’re taking a lesson?? To achieve the “joy” of being told to do two different and opposite things at once, I went to Private Pilot Lesson 3: VOR Navigation.

    As the lesson starts out, you are in a plane that’s already flying. Rod Machado is explaining the routine and the control becomes yours to chase the VOR needle (course deviation indicator). The pressure is really on now trying to juggle everything that has to be kept under control. The needle begins deflecting to the left and Rod promptly speaks up, “You are too far right, turn left”. At the same time, toward the upper left hand corner of the screen, a box with text appears saying “You are too far left”.

    In this high stress situation, my solution was to hit the escape button because smashing the computer would tend to get expensive.

  22. Ed Berlage
    October 31, 2006 at 6:19 am

    In one word…..AWFUL.

    Aircraft not worth looking at. Scenery unbelievably bad. Don’t blame the computer I am getting 40 F/Sec.no worries. Don’t need cars, animals and birds to fly. Give me FS9 anytime. What a waste of my money. Microsoft ia am sorry, I am bitterly dissappointed. I cannot say “You’ve done it again!” This is as bad as it gets!

  23. Vadim Rapp
    October 31, 2006 at 7:39 am

    > I am letting these comments on as I am one for free speech.

    It looks like everybody got so much used to the idea that anything said in public must carry commercial payload, that simply not censoring is already being taken as heroism. On avsim forum, someone says “We should be grateful to Avsim for allowing us to be negative”. I wonder, do you think that being an MVP automatically obligates you to filter out whatever might hurt Microsoft profits?

  24. October 31, 2006 at 8:12 am

    Of course not… that is why I am letting comments that are constructive on this blog.

    As a MVP, it is my job to both feed information from Microsoft to the community and visa versa. The trick is to feed only productive information, not “blah blah blah, I hate Micro$oft and they suck” type posts 🙂

    So, keep the feedback coming, and keep it productive.

    btw. I am no hero.

  25. Ed Berlage
    October 31, 2006 at 7:15 pm

    Further to my comments. As a devoted flightsimmer I was disappointed that’s true. FSX is back in the “game” category, as such it
    is of course very nice. I have been taking flight simming seriously over the years. Now MS have reminded me that it is really only a game.There will no doubt be many happy game buyers who will like it. I am staying with FS9 which, I think, suits the serious simmer better.

    Ed Berlage

  26. Steve
    November 1, 2006 at 12:54 am

    Among all the disappointments and frustrations I’ve had with FSX, there was one moment that was absolutely heartwarming to me. As I was on a short final to RWY4 at LaGuardia after dark, for the first time ever in a sim, I saw before me moving traffic on Grand Central Parkway!!! The quality of the image was quite poor, but the coloration was exactly right depicting the reflections of the amber street lights along the highway and cars (headlights and taillights) were zooming back and forth beneath my approach path just as I’ve always known the scene in real life. In this instance, the small element of highway traffic made all the difference in the world to me and for at least a brief moment I felt like I was really there!

    While I consider myself to be pretty much a sim purist (one who uses this program as a training aid), I don’t mind if it’s a game or becoming more of a game as long as the elements within are as correct as possible. Whether we realize it or not, there is no difference between learning and playing a game except that when we are playing a game learning is much more fun. I’m sure we’ve all had experiences where a teacher (of any subject) turned a lesson into a game to get a point across. I’m also sure that everyone has seen animals playing, but guess what… in the process of playing they’re actually learning things they need to know! 😉

  27. Dennis C
    November 1, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    This is the worse reiteration of Flight Sim I’ve seen since FS2. We’ve had previous versions that needed the latest hardware to work but that was in the days when speeds doubled every few months.
    Now with a good video card pots of memory and last year’s fast processor , the performance is awful.

    By applying all the tweaks and replacing texture files it now flies like a poor FS9. I’ve been robbed of almost £60 plus the cost of upgrading. I won’t forget that in hurry.

    The first thing MS should do is to provide faster smaller textures ASAP.

  28. Ed Berlage
    November 2, 2006 at 3:10 am

    My final comments:

    Having re-installed FSX and tweaked it here and there I must admit that I have been much too hasty with the comments which I posted on Oct.13st and Nov.1st Generally it’s working fine now. There are some small problems but nothing major.Still do not like the virtual cockpits all that much.Anyway,it looks like I have to “eat my words” which I do hereby.

  29. Steve
    November 3, 2006 at 12:35 am

    This evening I decided to take FS9 for a spin again for the sake of comparison and I was dismayed by the fact that it produced results that were FAR better than FSX, and my version of FS9 is straight out of the box without any updates of fixes.

    I looked on the box that my FSX Deluxe Edition came in to see what it said (if anything) warning consumers about expecting poor performance on current systems and found nothing. It did say that “Inctreased performance will be noticed on more powerful systems”, but who would be surprised by that fact???

    When a later version of ANY product comes to the marketplace, with all things being equal, it would be a reasonable expectation of the product to show better results. If the product promises potential, then at the VERY LEAST, it should perform at the same level as the previous version. Lesser performance without any real warning is unacceptable and reeks of deception on the part of the manufacturer.

    The only way I can think of this product as being “on target” is if Microsoft is trying to shoot itself in the foot.

  30. BenT
    November 3, 2006 at 11:13 pm

    After looking through almost every sim site on the web, this is about the only place where the descriptions I read more or less match my own experience with FSX. I’m beginning to think that my copy of FSX will be destined for a special spot in my software drawer, right next to Windows Millennium Edition.

  31. November 4, 2006 at 2:23 am

    Hey Ben,

    Unlike Windows Millennium, or as my mate Mark Minasi calls it “Wintendo”, Flight simulator X is not a “stopgap”.

    I cannot say much more than I already have… but I am sure that even if it does go in the drawer for a little while, it will not stay there for long.

  32. maddoc
    November 4, 2006 at 11:16 am

    I was the first at my local store to pick up a copy of FSX. From the lesson Microsoft has taught me, Vista has been scratched off my to do list and isn’t going to happen at least until I see how it performs for my friends and family whenever they get around to taking the plunge.

  33. BenT
    November 4, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    Hey Nick,

    Some more web research yielded estimates from learned types that go anywhere from $5,000 to $7,000 for equipment that would be necessary to run FSX to its potential. You have a different figure? Roll it out! Maybe Microsoft would care to chime in with an estimate of what the equipment would cost, I’d love to hear.

    In any event, I’m not about to plunk down that kind of cash just to play a video game that may or may not work the way it should even with the super fancy equipment.

    You may be right about one thing however, FSX may not stay in my drawer for very long because the more I think about it, the more likely I am to take it out of the drawer and return it to the store or to Microsoft for a refund.

  34. Nick Whittome
    November 4, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    Ben,

    You have missed my point.

    First, FSX runs pretty ok (granted, with tweaking mentioned in various places over the web) on my Pentium 4 3Ghz machines, with an X850 Video Card.

    Second, I have made the point before… and will once again… Microsoft KNOW that they need to get users like yourself happy with the product again, and are working on ways to do that.

    I can say no more… but take from the links below what you will:

    http://blogs.technet.com/p-12c_pilot/archive/2006/11/03/patches-or-no-patches.aspx

    http://blogs.technet.com/p-12c_pilot/archive/2006/11/04/post-on-avsim-from-phil-taylor.aspx

  35. BenT
    November 4, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    Thank you for your patience Nick! I hope you understand that with all the steam coming out of my ears, it’s not my intent to launch a personal attack on you.

    Giving some of us not-so-tecchie consumers a forum to be heard is commendable of you.

  36. Steve
    November 4, 2006 at 7:25 pm

    Speaking of tweaking, a thought just came to me.

    In the real world of aviation there are pilots and there are mechanics. Occasionally a pilot is also a mechanic, but usually aside from a basic understanding of the systems in an aircraft, a pilot will not be expected (or for that fact be legally permitted) to get under the hood (cowl) and start making adjustments or changes to make the plane fly better. By the same token an aircraft mechanic isn’t expected to be able to fly a plane either.

    When (lets say) Cessna sells a new plane to a pilot, is he expected to roll up his sleeves and start tweaking the plane just so it’ll be able to fly in some sort of a reasonable fashion? The answer is obvious, so why is someone who only wants to do some simulation flying expected to roll up his or her sleeves and start poking around in the workings of a program when the product should (barring some basic settings) be ready to use from the factory? Ok, you don’t have to start reciting to me the fallacy of my comparison, but I’ll bet anything that when and if Rod Machado, John and Martha King or Patty Wagstaff ever got their hands on the flight sim, they never had go and start tweaking the thing to get barely acceptable results.

  37. November 5, 2006 at 5:44 am

    Hey Ben, no problem. I understand the frustration of many places on the web where people simply rant and make non productive posts (see my rant on that on a post from last week) 🙂

    Steve, you are correct… but I never liked the analogy of Microsoft Windows vs Cars for instance 🙂

    You see, a REAL cessna is not the same as REAL software. Hehe….

    But, again… your point is taken.

  38. Steve
    November 5, 2006 at 1:06 pm

    A slight deviation from pounding away at the faults of FSX. Instead, an observation or two.

    As entertaining as I always found the flight sims to be, my hope was that it would also serve a useful purpose of edcating me about real life flying. It did that for me and reasonably well. I must add however, that no matter how much time one spends simming, getting into a real aircraft and now feeling feedback from the controls initially tends to throw a monkey wrench into the knowledge acquired through simming. As many “perfect” landings as I made in the sim didn’t amount to a hill of beans when it came time to land the real thing (at least at the tiny airport I usually fly out of). It took dozens of attempts to finally get the idea squared away in my mind, in fact, I suspect that the sim actually allowed me to develop some bad habits that I learned to get away with on the computer. Real life landings just felt like a whole different animal to me from what I had gotten used to. I must say that the first time I landed without any intervention on the controls from the instructor, my knees and ankles were shaking as I rolled out on the runway. At the same time, it was absolutely the greatest feeling in the world!!!

    My point I guess is that the lack of feedback on the controls could be considered a significant omission in the sim experience.

    Oddly enough, having learned to handle a real plane, I now find that I can control aircraft in the sim much better than I was ever able to before. I always thought it was supposed to work the other way around 😉

  39. RobertVdb
    November 7, 2006 at 11:53 am

    Why don’t we have two versions of FSX? One as a game with missions for playing and one which would be the basic program for real ATC flying giving the hundreds (or thousands) of people like us taking flying seriously. Again no SIDs and STARs, crap ATC, etc… For us there is no improvement at all. Back to FS9 then.

  40. Steve
    November 7, 2006 at 7:41 pm

    My experience with glass cockpits in real life is very limited, but enough to have gone through most of the jaw-dropping features in flight. Since it takes a considerable amount of time just to absorb what a glass cockpit can do, I was glad to see that FSX included this in the program. One of the reasons I rushed out to buy what promised to be a cranky program was the opportunity to better familiarize myself with the new technology of flying general aviation. What I found in FSX however, was totally disappointing. The glass panel is in effect little more than instruments rearranged into a screen format. To say that the functionality of the panel is limited would be a gross understatement. Aside from the appearence (which could be helpful in adapting to the new look of instrumentation), this thing is primitive and practically useless compared to the real thing. I guess Microsoft is counting on gamers not to know the difference. A BIG thumbs-down on this one!

  41. Steve
    November 9, 2006 at 12:46 am

    Reflecting on the range of reactions I’ve had to the latest issue of Microsoft Flight Simulator, I’ve come to the conclusion that perhaps I’ve taken it too seriously. In reality it is but a toy. No, I don’t mean it to be a harsh criticism, but rather a statement of fact.

    Microsoft is in the business of creating and selling software, not in the business of aviation. The program has always been marketed as a GAME. The simulator has never received any official accreditation from the FAA other than being recognized as a “training aid” (but a stick figure of an airplane is recognized as a training aid too).

    Although the game tries to maintain an aura of real aviation by its association with some prominent names in the field, advances in the program have been geared to entertaining the masses rather than providing anything substantive to those who actually fly.

    Real pilots represent a small number among the general population and an even smaller number among potential game buyers. For this reason it wouldn’t make any sense for Microsoft to cater to this limited audience if it wants to make a profit. The focus is instead on the game enthusiasts, computer enthusisats and others who fancy seeing themselves as a pilot in their imaginings.

    It’s a bit of a letdown to realize that FSX is definitely not “As Real As It Gets” (as supported by the fact that I can no longer find that slogan used anywhere in advertising or in the program), but then again, it’s just a game.

  42. November 11, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    Steve, ‘ol bean 🙂

    You need to limit the amount of comments on one post 🙂

  43. Alex
    November 30, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    As an avid simer and real world pilot I’ve been a follower of the MS flight sim products for some time and have generally been inpressed by what the MS team have come up with. I think though that this release of FSX has come too early from Q and A phase. To be fair and honest, its been a struggle since I’ve gotten it out of the box. I don’t want to harp on and repeat everything thats been said so I’ll just summarise what I’ve experienced myself and found out from having searched other forums for solutions.
    The processing is very cycle hungry, I have a fairly descent system and I still get poor frame rates etc even with the sliders moved around. This needs to be improved as I run other programs which look better and have much, much more happening on the screen than this and run immeasurably smoother.
    One feature I was looking forward to was the multiplayer option, ATC shared etc.
    This has also proved to be a problem in that you can hear the ATC chatter but only for a few seconds (in the lobby) then nothing after the game begins. This is also interspersed with loud static noises from the engine noise and moving the flaps etc so all in all very frustrating. I’ve been trying to make this work for a few nights now (searching forums etc) and have given up as its just not worth it, I guessed if it had passed testing and QA you would assume these problems had already been addressed.
    I think if MS had looked at FS9 and also considered the third party add ons that have been developed (pheonix simulations b777, 747, Leve D simulations etc) They may have looked at FSX again and seen that it only comes to about 50% of the quality you can attain with existing cheaper fs9 add ons. It is also dissapointing that they didn’t consider compatibility with these add ons with FSX. Its a real shame and limiting that you can’t for instance install the B777 from Pheonix for FS9 on FSX, why not? If they think this sim is mostly for game player only, then the marketing dept is missing their audience by a fair mark. I know many people who have this software and have never owned a “video game”
    I would beg borrow and steal for MS to sit down and produce a flight simulator that …well .. simulated flight? They are capable no doubt, stick an FMC in there, Stars, Sids and have a mode called kick A*se and one called arcade? Watch the money roll in!!!
    On a plus note though, I do think there is huge potential for this version. I am slightly dissapointed that these issues have come to light after the release ( I would have been happy to wait for another 6 months of testing etc) but I think that when the third party developers and MS themselves get to work on improvements, FS9 will be left behind.
    For future releases etc, can we try and build on the plus points of the last release rather than re-inventing the wheel? (wheres the default b777?) I do think there will come a time when FSX will be as good if not better than FS9, but this I think is a good year away.

  44. December 5, 2006 at 5:00 pm

    Well, whatever the problems (I haven’t read thru all the reviews), Microsoft is still run by humans, and they struggle to make money, no? And they also try to make best OS, and games, and stuff… I mean, a flight simulator on a PC? It sounds like a nightmare actually… Only MS could pull it off, and anyway it turns out, you still gotta give ’em credit… It’s your fault for getting hooked!

  45. flyguy
    December 5, 2006 at 10:30 pm

    I want Microsoft to specify system requirements that would run FSX at optimum performance levels and give examples of systems with such capability.

    It’s a simple enough request, but one that I’m sure would be answered with nothing but obfuscation and excuses.

  46. Pemalu
    December 11, 2006 at 9:54 am

    I must admit, I just cant justify switching at the moment, all of these reviews have totally put me off the new FSX. With all the eye candy I have spent on FS9, and free downloads it has made it a remarkeably enjoyable experience. Microsoft certainly know how to market, and I really have been toying with the idea of switching…. but I really dont think so. MS pictures are quality, the website is quality, the hype is quality. I tried the demo – its awful – time to load up, not great pictures. And when you look at graphics from youtube.com it still doesnt show much of an enhancement. Microsoft you lost my vote on this one, I wont be getting a new version until FS9 is really obsolete.

  47. Vaughn Z.
    December 21, 2006 at 1:06 pm

    Iam very dissapointed in FSX. I have had all the flight sims since microsoft started. I even bought a new dual core computer with ATI 1900 crossfire and still got bad frame rates. I did twick it down and still was not like FS9. FS9 runs good with my new computer and mega scenery really works good. I think you are better off to invest in the mega scenery to FS9 and have a better program than FSX. Waste of money for me and spent alot of time trying to do all the twicks that I researched. FSX is in my drawer.

  48. Roger
    December 21, 2006 at 11:10 pm

    What can I say that already has been said but to agree with most of the comments made by so many for whom so few and real serious pilots will really benefit?
    Being an ex pilot and scenery designer now since FS98 in OZ, I was not surprised that we have again been given the job of testing FSX for free, should be that we get paid for the many hours to find fixes and ways to overcome what is now the worst nightmare since its introduction. I say that in good faith for like you if you pay for something you expect it to function correctly. I would not like to fly some of these aircraft in real life for the worry of certain instrument failures and nav probs an airport MSL. I do not give up to easily but I am afraid I have returned my copy through sheer frustration. Scenery add ons and Panels seem to be some of the major issues with designers I guess we will learn within two years when and if we get a Patch or a new sim then to start up the engines for another test instead of flying and enjoying, is that not what we paid for. Some of the scenery is great and the effects are really good, especially the little box cars running around and the US scenery I guess if it were designed in OZ the OZ scenery would be good too. If you live in the UK check out the Thames. There are many missing airports in OZ again, guess we will have to use Float planes and land on water providing it rains. It’s a bit like superman where you have floating sheets of matter from time to time may be from Krypton. All in all the effects are great the scenery has potential and if you wish to spend all your time trying to figure out what and how and who go for it you have my sympathy. I am sure in time all will be fixed. Check the many sights who offer some fixes and Tweaks and suggestions I will Endeavour to persist with modifications for OZ scenery when a suitable program has been modified to suit FSX now back to FS9 and to relax. Merry Xmas & Happy New Year

  49. Matt Brown
    December 29, 2006 at 4:35 am

    Strongly recommend do not purchase. This version of Flight Simulator exceptionally disappointing and is a major flop.

    If you want a game where you fly hokey and pointless missions to earn points like an arcade game then FS X is the game for you. However, serious flight simmers and those that use Flight Simulator to fly for virtual airlines will despise this version. Microsoft completely missed the point that the vast majority of serious flight simmers, and those that fly for virtual airlines, fly Boeing aircraft from the 727 up to the 777 for their virtual airlines. Instead of supplying the Boeing family of aircraft from the 727 up to the 777 that the vast majority of flight simmers fly, MS only gives you the 737 and 747 and one Airbus mid-range airliner.

    If the poor selection of aircraft isn’t enough to convince a veteran flight simmer not to buy this version of Flight Simulator there is an endless list of technical problems that come with this version. What is advertised on the box as minimal systems requirements is nothing but a flat lie. I have a serious gaming rig that is running MS Windows XP SP2, 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 500 GB Seagate Barracuda Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM w/16MB Buffer hard drive, Direct X 9.0c, two eVGA e-GeForce 7950 512 MB GDDR3 Video Cards w/DVI-I & HDTV, 2GB RAM and Plexor PX-755SA 16X DVD R/RW CD/DVD drive. With all of this gaming power FS X only runs at 4 to 8 frames/second. If my system performance issues are not enough to convince you not to purchase this product then read any review. 99% of reviews describe similar problems including countless reports about installation problems, poor frame rates that create jerky control movement and chugging, inoperative aircraft lights and poor aircraft graphics including semi-transparent AI aircraft or poor AI aircraft displays.

    The only way to get FS X to run smooth is to reduce all of the detail and graphics options to the very minimum. By doing that you get increased frame rate but then you trade off everything that FS X brings as an upgrade. Additionally, by trading off details for performance in FS X you still will not get the same frame rate performance provided by the fully maxed out previous version of Flight Simulator, Flight Simulator 2004, A Century of Flight (FS9). By trading off details for performance in FS X, you might as well keep flying FS9.

    Microsoft needs to pull this off the shelf and go back to the basics. With regard to aircraft Microsoft needs to rethink their aircraft selection. They need to provide beginners with the requisite training aircraft starting with the C-182, Baron 58, and then the Learjet. Also, they need to add two to three aircraft for bush pilots. Finally, they really need to provide the entire line of Boeing commercial jets from the B727 through the 787 Dreamliner. This will keep the serious veteran flight simmers satisfied and yet keep the simulation easy for beginners. Microsoft can always provide Airbus, Concord and military aircraft as additional add-ons to be purchased separately. Additionally, Microsoft needs to dump the pointless missions. Serious flight simmers won’t waste their time. Most serious flight simmers are trying to keep their hours up with their virtual airlines and aren’t going to waste time flying for not credit to their corporate log book. Furthermore, most of the missions are beyond a beginner’s capability anyway. Beginners will want to learn how to fly using the supplied flight school to earn the appropriate ratings before they try to fly heavy metal. As a real instrument rated pilot the flight school is very informative and I recommend it to anyone wanting to learn how to fly in flight simulator. The supplied flight school CAN provide basic concepts to real world flight dynamics if you ever want to think about earning a real private pilot ticket.

    Finally, Microsoft must fix the system requirements gluttony. FS X is a memory pig. The most memory demanding games out on the market can’t hold a light to what FS X really requires to provide consumers with what is advertised on the box. Microsoft brought PCs to the world and 90% of the software that runs on them throughout the world. They can certainly fix their own memory appetite. And if they can’t, they should go ask Activision, Sierra or Relic for technical help.

    With 700 virtual airline hours and 1,500 simulator hours I do not rate Flight Simulator X even one star on a scale of one to ten. DO NOT BUY.

  50. December 30, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    Hi Matt,

    You are aware that this kind of feedback is being listened to right? Just wanted you to know that (and others reading).

    The ACES team have already announced that there will be a performance patch released (before the DX10 update). This, I am reliably informed, will address a lot of performance issues and should please at least some users.

  51. Digi
    January 8, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    AM2 4800+ 2GB DDR 800 Dual Channel
    SLI 2 7800 GT OCs (true sli)
    SB 24-bit

    I have to admit the simulator takes some tweaking, but with a high end system, the simulator is nice. FSX asks for too much of a computer to run it like people would expect. I enjoy the game and it IS a step up from FS9. MS has always pushed technology down people’s throats with their software, mainly OS’s. Look at XP and what was required and now look at vista. All of these people will go out a buy new pc’s or upgrade their own to run vista. Same with this simulator.

    PC’s are not some appliance you go and pickup at a Best Buy.

  52. Derek Jones
    January 28, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    Hey there…First I admire your continued “we are striving to fix and are listening…” stance..but I will say after MUCH searching ,I found this forum which seems to be the ONLY one acknowledging FSX needs to be fixed.

    It was a Xmas rush to market BETA. Period.

    Heck, the phone registration system wasn”t even up and running when I bought mine. I have houses in water, blank airplanes etc like everyone else…out of disappointment I also have put mine in the drawer since stores cannot accept returns..and await the day when a SP arrives.

    So, the big question..why the heck does Microsoft NOT cheerfully say “updates and patches coming” on their website so we don”t all feel like we”ve been shafted ?

  53. timjack
    February 11, 2007 at 7:20 am

    As a long term flight simulator user I must thank MS for providing us with the previous versions. FS2004 was a trouble free application from day one.

    FSX is a dud yes it looks great but you never get you use it as you have to run it on the low settings. As for the dude at MS who decided to change the file structure for the aircraft must have had a vindictive streak. I for the life of me can not see one good reason for this change.

    I think fs2004 will have a extended life cycle for the true grit simmers. The eye candy heroes will carry on with FSX even if it breaks the bank to buy the latest hardware just to get it to work. Eye candy heroes normally have company backing such as the likes of Microsoft.

    FSX has completely miss judged its own market or loyal flight simmers such as myself. If this was any other product other than a computer program it would have to be withdrawn from the market. The minimum running specs on the box is a downright lie.

    my hardware

    3200 AMD duel core

    2 gig ram 400 kingston

    G-force 256 7300 LE 512 memory PCIE

    ASUS A8N-VN motherboard

    OK not the fastest machine around but weel in advance of the minimum requirements set on the box.

    Time for those bozo’s in the MS marketing department to own up and have a good look at themselves, hype more hype for one year and they release a costly dud.

    Sort it out guys..

    its like realeasing a new car, hype it up, and then the new owners find out after delivery that they haven’t built the roads for it yet!

    Timjack

    timjackelton@hotmail.com

  54. Javier Hidalgo
    February 14, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    Who can fly at about 4 fps?
    Who want to fly sorrounded by blurries?

    Was the software tested in a wide range of actual hardware.
    What were the results?

    Why not thinking MS lied deliberately to the global market regarding FSX “normal” hardware requirements?
    Isn’t this lie as REAL as the answer to the first two qestions?

    Are the users who paid an intensively marketed product (that doesn’t match the medium hardware available in the market) responsible of provide ideas for solutions?

  55. Chris Pratsch
    February 17, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    After having read the many comments on FSX(almost all negative)I decided to stick with FS2004 a while longer and rather buy some more new planes and scenery additions. May be in late 2007,when DX10 arrives and related video cards, I will go to grandmother and ask for a Christmas gift in 2008-a FSX. Why did Microsoft screw up here so badly?

  56. Alex
    February 20, 2007 at 12:00 am

    Hi all,

    I’ve now spent around two months or so with the unmentionable since my last post and I have managed to get most of the issues I had in the beginning sorted out, without selling my house to pay for new hardware. I think we all agree the product was taken a little too early to market and from reading the last posts, it seems MS have heard and will hopefully be addressing the issues. Although I now tend to split my time between FS2004 and X, I do have a positive to report and that is with the mutliplayer options in X. Admittedly I had to install another sound card to get the radios working properly but my brother will never miss it, at least until he turns his pc on.
    I am currently going through the CPL and IR (in real life) and recently found myself flying (in the sim) the 737 around Bristol under ATC rules etc. I have to say that this was one of the most realistic experiences I have come across on the PC (aside from the full motion stuff) with respect to the radio chatter and feel of the environment. The skies were busy (lots of players) and you got a real feel of the eb and flow of a busy hub. Of course the visuals etc remain as they did before but this is not too important while flying around under IR, you get the feel of being in a larger arena. To be fair the vitual controller knew what he was doing but this feature allows to you not only to practice flying but also to practice your radio calls and conduct under IR. If you get a well run atc, it is not so different from the real deal. You can request complicated clearances, shoot the ILS, NDB and in general make the controllers life as hard as possible (just like real life).
    The issues we have all discussed previously are still evident but I look forward to the SP which will hopefully address most of them.

    Oh and I speak purely from a pilots point of view not from a Microsoft one. If you want bad langauge, just ask me about vista.!!

  57. timjack
    March 4, 2007 at 10:24 am

    I also go back to the Bruce Artwick days, before MS brought the company. I hate to think how much I have spent on this hobby, but up until FSX it was all worth it.
    FSX is a disaster for me, and I say this as I have owned the product for 3 months. I have reloaded it, downloaded the update for the graphic engine tweeked and re tweeked it so many times now that last week I just gave up.

    My machine, AMD 3.2 duel core 2.2 gig 400 kingston ram
    Gforce 256 PCIEX 7300 LE video card 512 mem on a ASUS 2006 board.
    OK not the fastest machine around but well in advance of the specs on the box.
    For me, as a big jet lover, I was so disapointed with MS for doing very little with the panels, the 744 (no change at all) 737 no better than freeware already available.
    MS did so well with the marketing hype, but as a consumer I feel cheated this time. It is like buying a car then discovering after delivery you can not use it as they haven’t built the roads for it yet!
    As a great supporter of the many MS flightsim versions, I feel this time MS owe us this time, From what I have read elseware on the net there are many seasoned customers extremely unhappy.

  58. April 2, 2007 at 1:51 am

    Found this forum because I’m having the exact same “conflicting info” issue as Steve above in Private Pilot Lesson 3: VOR Navigation…

    FSX has been a big disappointment for me in terms of performance (choppy video, slow response times), content (lack of planes, detailed cities), and stability (rendering problems, lesson errors, strange AI ATC behavior).

    Until there’s a patch I’m going to have to pass, unfortunately.

  59. Janis Vasilevskis
    April 27, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    Alright, I’ve ordered a Factory Sealed Flight Simulator X For 24 dollars. I Saved alot of money. I am just curious, I want some advise from you guys. DO I have good enough specs to run it on ultra high for everything?

    Specs:
    250 Gb ATA Hardrive
    Video card: Radeon Sapphire 256mb DDr2
    Proccesor: Intel(R) Pentium(R)D CPU 2.80GHz 2.8Ghz
    Ram: 2.0Gb
    Operating System: 32-bit Windows Vista(R) Home Premium

    Please Reply ASAP telling me if I’m Ok with these specs or if I should Upgrade and to what.

  60. Eric
    May 5, 2007 at 7:16 am

    Janis, it’s doubtful. I recently, after saving up for months, purchased a top of the line PC (Quad Core CPU totalling 5.2Ghz, 8800 GTX 768mb, 4GB hispec RAM etc etc…) and even I have severe frame rate issues with FSX. On the highest graphics, I get about 15 FPS in low-populated areas, and 4-10 in cities — and that’s not to mention the numerous bugs.

    Not acceptable for a PC as incredibly powerful as mine. As it stands, I have to have the graphics on medium, resolution at 1024×768, and it doesn’t look much better than FS9. Hell, FS9, at the very least, is bug free.

    But at the $24 you paid for it, you can’t go wrong, just don’t expect a cohesive experience until Microsoft releases a patch.

  61. Paul
    July 13, 2007 at 1:56 pm

    One to avoid then.

    Seems MS recognised they had a large portion (the only portion since Fly etc. died) of the die hard realist sim fan market.

    So they have 99% of that market. A company like MS does only one thing when it has 99% of a market. Goes and looks for another one to assimilate.

    I heard it coming before the first copies of FSX hit the shops, that MS wanted to bring the game back to new comers to the genre, but promised the die hards would have plenty too.

    From all I’ve read and seen it doesn’t look like serious simmers got anything… except many sloping runways if that ever works.

    It’s a gamble I believe on MS’s part. I suspect they believe the odds are in their favour as to how many die hards leave or return FSX against how many new comers will enjoy it. If 20% of the die harders don’t bother with FSX, it will still make commercial sense to MS if a larger portion of new comers buy it.

    Kinda bitter pill as a serious simmer, but except non-plank flat runways I haven’t heard or read anything in FSX that wasn’t in FS2004 for a real simmer.

    My FS2004 currently looks *better* than any of the FSX shots I’ve seen, save a glint or some live stock and runs at 30fps. Okay, so it cost more with FS2004 + about £200 of addons and a whopping 30Gb install…. better than the hardware costs to run the default FSX I’m told.

    Personally… I’d have like to seen things like:

    Proper icing and the results of not dealing with it. You can’t fly a Cessna in freezing fog without having a really bad day!

    Fixing the patchy overcast.

    Good force feedback controls.

    Higher precision mathematics and world space so that VORs radials are actually in the right place 50nm out.

    Do the poles work yet without the ground moving one way and your plane the other, both directions unrelated to your heading.

    So, I suppose, unless there are add-on friendly features to the API that will allow the third party add-on devels the ability to fix it, it seems we have to wait and see what happens in 2010? 2012? when the next one comes out.

    Maybe MS will annoy enough serious simmers that they will put more effort into the ‘simulation’ and less into the ‘game’ on the next one…. maybe not.

    So, I’ll leave FSX for a while, I may try the demo, just to not be ignorant, but I don’t expect to find my next flight sim engine.

  62. Xyn Air
    July 30, 2007 at 5:08 am

    I think the biggest disappointment for me was that I could not and cannot get FSX to run at even near the quality I can run FS9 on the same system, and what features did work were nothing significantly better than what I experienced with FS9 – with or without add-ons. For an installment of the Flight Simulator franchise that promised to be a huge step forward, my experience has been a giant step back.

    I could understand that extra bells and whistles would require more computing power. But, when you cannot even match the performance of a previous release that has been out for three years, it is going to cause some frustration. On the other hand, FS9 continues to work like a charm, and the veritable universe of add-ons mostly run well, too. I do not spend hours tweaking either game or system to enjoy FS9. IT does what it is supposed to time and time again, and my enjoyment is relatively assured. Thus far, FSX has frustrated me greatly by the fact that I spend more time tweaking my system and the game than I do actually playing FSX. If I wanted to be a computer technician or software engineer I would have studied that in university. Rather, I want to be a consumer, and a happy consumer at that. Instead, I am a frustrated, sad, and disappointed consumer, one who has become more wary of anything MS wishes to sell me.

    More specifically, there are two glaring issues when it comes to using FSX.

    First, the struggle to acquire and maintain quality graphics in the game is a big drawback, perhaps the biggest drawback as FSX’s graphics were so heavily touted by MS. The graphics seem to be an all-or-nothing proposition while running FSX. Either you see wonderful beauty rendered outside your virtual cockpit windows, or you see disappointment. The new ways in which FSX renders the environment means that the world is either rendered in exacting detail or not at all. This is most evident with missing buildings. In order to maintain enough FPS to actually play the game, I had to turn the sliders down to some very low settings, so much so that Seattle disappeared! One is left to wonder how FS2004 is able to render a place such as Seattle with dozens of visually correct buildings in the downtown area and do so at very pleasing frame rates, while FSX cannot provide even a single building to represent the same area at anything over several seconds per frame. Yes, you read that correctly: FSX runs at SPF versus FPS when rendering urban areas on systems not exceeding by far the stated specs for the game. I would be willing to possibly settle for less gloriously rendered buildings just to have them there. But, no, FSX wants either detailed buildings or barren wastelands where once stood some of my favorite metropolitan landscapes. Even the sparsely populated region where my parents live in retirement is unrenderable (I think I may have invented a word, or so spell check assures me), as all three of the local bridges are completely absent from the game. Thank goodness the airport, or at least its runway, is still there!

    Secondly, there is not a major improvement in flight dynamics and realism from FS9 to FSX. In fact, some of the old realism effects (such as potential collisions with AI traffic) have been greatly inhibited or even disabled. Now, I am not advocating turning FS into a demolition derby, but if you hit something as significant as another aircraft, there should be a consequence. The whole missions aspect top the game, with its rewards and points do take FS from the direction of being a simulator with some legitimacy more towards a game where you sort of pretend to fly planes. To be fair, you can learn about flying planes from the flight lessons, but this is nothing new and was fully present in FS9. More game-like aspects may attract the casual game buyer, but it will turn off the core flight-sim constituency, which will only hurt in the long run when MS tries to convince to buy their next installment.

    Poor performance and a lack of significant improvement from FS9 aside, there is one aspect of FSX that I do like, and like a great deal. The expansion of the multi-player functions of FSX are a great idea. My father and I both have copies of FSX Deluxe and were extremely please to be able to fly around in the same virtual world together. As with the rest of the game, there was a number of challenges to be navigated in using the multi-player system (just try calling up a map to find out where you are in multi-player . . . hah! Better bring paper charts!), but the pro’s for this one particular feature did happen to outweigh the con’s.

    At the end of the day, FSX held so much promise for so many people, and yet failed to deliver to the masses. If we cannot run FSX well enough to enjoy all the bells and whistles promised to us, it is implied that our lack of technical savvy and our less than supercomputer systems are to blame, not an aggressive advertising campaign that promised all simmers the world, but only delivered to a special few. Perhaps in that way, FSX is more like real aviation; not everyone really gets to be a pilot.

  63. 234567890
    August 14, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    i think that fsx is great but just sometimes the whole thing looks a bit animated

  64. Eddy
    August 18, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    I empathize somewhat with all the complaints, yes I had 5 FPS with FSX using a BFG Geforce 7600GT 256MB PCI-E video card (500 watt Antec powersupply) on an old home-built machine (3 yrs old) AMD 3000+ with 2GB RAM and lots of drive space running WinXP Pro.

    The most I could tweak out of it at 1600×1200 settings was about 10FPS and there really wasn’t any terrain or autogen so by comparison with FS9 – I was disappointed.

    BUT THEN . . . the home-built machine suddenly quit booting (WinXP? . . . ) and I thought – I’ll buy another power supply and this and that and finally said – forget it – go to Best Buy, plunk down $662 for an AMD x2 5000+ HP Pavilion a6130n dual core machine (mid-range system better than e-machine) with Vista preinstalled, 3GB DDR 5300 RAM (added an extra stick), picked up an ANTEC 650 watt powersupply so I could get the 32 AMPs on the 12 volt rails, two 500GB SATA drives and a BFG Geforce 8800GTS 320MB DDR3 video card.

    WHAM! FSX runs at 1600×1200 32bit at between 18-35FPS with much of the setting maxed – with a few add-ons (FSGENESIS, some MegasceneryX, etc.) the graphics is incredible – though X-Plane 8 has better flight dynamics modeled.

    Bottom-line, if you want FSX to be usable – buy a new machine – adding the total cost together – about $1200 with the extra parts.

    . . . though installing the FSX SP1 service pack is a pain (you can do a command prompt install where you select specific DLLs ) or the recommended route – uninstall all 3rd party add-ons, install FSX SP1 then install 3rd party add-ons.

    Now I’m complaining

  65. Dave flightsimmer
    September 9, 2007 at 12:32 am

    I really can understand the people that are complaining, but FSX isnt as bad as some say it is. I dont have a supercomputer; I have a P4 with a little over 1g memory, about 3 years old. And although I can only have 1 slider maxed at a time, it is still playable even though ther isnt much scenery, and I just have to suck it up until I get a better computer.
    I do not regret buying FSX, and for those that do: put it in a drawer, wait a year or two and when you buy a new system it will run just fine.
    And for me, it is worth the wait, if it will really look like what MS says it will, it will be AMAZING! And one good thing about its high requirements is that it is like an investment, it will last a long time! (Meaning that another simulator probably wont come out for a while, and so you wont have to buy the new simulator and get new addons and another better computer for it).
    When technology becomes better, no one will be complaining and they will be awing the detail of FSX!

  66. Steve
    October 11, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable about a purchaser of a product expecting the product to do what the manufacturer claims it will do at the time of purchase.

    If I walked into a florist shop, cash in hand, expecting to buy a deluxe bouquet of flowers and I ended up walking out with a packet of seeds, there would be no question on anyone’s part that I had been duped.

  67. Mark J
    October 12, 2007 at 12:13 am

    I really wish I had found this page BEFORE my partner bought me FSX Deluxe because if I had, then I would have told her to forget about it.

    I have a new quad core machine with ass hauling specs, (except it needs more than the 1GB RAM that came with it), yet still FSX won’t perform as the good folks at Microsoft led us all to believe it will even with the SP1 patch. Will things improve with the release of DirectX 10? I have my doubts.

    I will admit that flying in the unpopulated areas I do get acceptable FPS, but as soon as I hit a more populated area or a city then the aircraft become unflyable. Particularly if it’s a jet.

    The argument has been put forward that it’s leaning more towards gamers than serious simmers. OK, but they won’t be able to play it either. I can put any game you name in my machine and max everything out and the computer says, “Is that all you got?” But FSX causes the poor thing to have a stroke. What is the point of that?

    Microsoft has alot to answer for with this one. You can’t knowingly decieve consumers like this without some serious backlash. I watched their videos and looked at their screenshots and got really excited only to have the rug pulled out from underneath me. It was all lies.

    It’s akin to buying a really big juicy piece of fruit and then you bite in to find it rotten and full of maggots. Of course a piece of fruit doesn’t cost you $110 AUS.

    If Microsoft had any corporate conscience at all then we should be able to get our money back or at least be given a full rebate on the next installment.

    A word of advice to Microsoft on the next installment: Test it thoroughly on an average machine BEFORE you put it on the shelves and ask people for money for it.

  68. Dave Browne
    December 12, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Not sure if this blog is still active, but here goes:
    Has anyone noticed that during Lesson 3: VOR Navigation that VOR1 stays at the OFF setting no matter where you go? This makes that lesson an automatic fail as far as I can see. Maybe I’m doing something wrong, if so please let me know! Nick, I’d have posted this on the design site but I didn’t think it appropriate. As for reviewing FSX, I love it!! Yes there are some graphics issues at times, but I have a near top of the range system, and it seems to be holding it’s own nicely. AI planes take less than a second to colour in sometimes.

  69. Just an average FS nut
    December 30, 2007 at 3:33 am

    FSX is a huge disapointment, to the vast majority of unfortunate purchases. You just have tom spend some time with 100’s of smaller community groups and see how many owners of FSX don’t actually use it.

    And ask some of thier members how they feel about it, and how many of the long term flight friends have lost interest in FS as a result of FSX.

    FSX has damaged to online community.

    Its a sad reflection that after 12 months and 2 major service packs for a sim that was billed “built for tomorrows” machinery has now been completely dumped by the developer to move onto the next money making version.

  70. David Smith
    February 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    First of, love the game, dumped the girlfriend so I could play it more!

    …but, multiplayer with gamespy is a joke. Takes up to half an hour to log on at times, and then it kicks you off!

  71. February 6, 2008 at 6:35 pm

    David…

    I think that it would be agreed by all that the Gamespy link is a mess… to say the least.

    I would think, strongly, that the ACES team are going to address that for the next version. (Guessing)

  72. Ironwings88
    March 31, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    I just recieved my private pilot lisence with 55 hours and starting my instrument, so I to fell in love with Flight simulation. Not only are they fun but actually very educational (if persuing an aviation career.) I agree with all of you, FSX does take alot of computer to run, but after reading most of these entries I have came down with a solution for all of you. GET MORE RAM!!!!!!! 1 gig is not going to do it. most of you have graphics cards which is a must, but I found out that less than 2 gigs, its going to jerk around a bit. I just bought a 2,500 dollar HP with a quad proccessor, 8 gigs of ram, 1 TB hard drive, and 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card. My FSX runs Great with crystal clear performance!!! you dont need a 6,000 dollar alianware. I actually was going to take FSX back but stuck with it and now it tops them all with my new PC!! The best thing in life is aviation. flight simulators are alot of fun (on rainy days) but flying for real tops the world. So get your faces off your computer screen and head out to your local airport or FBO and get flying!!!!

  73. Steve
    April 6, 2008 at 10:50 am

    I am currently working on getting my private license and almost done. I have a computer that’s about 5 yrs. old, running P4 Extreme Edition with 2 gigs of ram and a Radeon 9800 vid card. This computer has handled everything I could throw at it and to this day I’m very happy with it, that is until FSX came out. When I first installed FSX, it worked only marginally and certainly FAR worse than the results I was getting from FS9. Still, I did manage to log about 25 hours on FSX. My reasoning behind using it that much was to simulate poor visiblity and otherwise to get practice coping with very unfavorable conditions during flight. Eventually I got tired of putting up with this nonsense and just used FS9. After many months of not using FSX, I got it going again just for the hell of it. As soon as I went to the Freeflight option, the cursor froze in its tracks and I had to manually shut down and restart the computer. Further attempts yielded the same results. No changes were made to the computer during the time FSX was not in use. Since my computer still meets and exceeds all my expectations (aside from FSX), I guess I’ll just delete the FSX from my computer, save myself a lot of hassle and expense and consider myself as having learned a lesson.

Leave a Reply to Andrew Stott Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.