MSFS X impressions

I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
underwhelmed.
First, I would recommend having it installed. I wasted almost an entire
day installing it. The installation is very, very difficult. First,
there are 2 DVDs. I put both into the computer. After about an hour I
noticed it had stopped. It was looking for the 2nd DVD. Apprently both
DVDs must be in the same drive (you must switch) it will not look for
the 2nd DVD.
Then it tries to activate but MS's activiation server does not yet
work. They first had be do a complete uninstall and reinstall. That
look about 3 hours. When that didn't work they had me do a bunch of
stuff to the registry. This is all on a newish higher end Dell computer
with DSL.
Finally MS bounced me around to 6 people on one call until they got me
to someone who said I must do the activation at the same time she
authroizes it. Apparently you can't activate the software w/o being on
the phone.

So after all that I finally brought it up. First, it takes forever to
start. My system is almost twice what MS recommends but it still
requires more than a bathroom break to start. Once its up, I can't see
much difference vs. MS FS 2000. Nothing really seems any different.
I took the Mooney up to spin it. It took awhile but it finally seemed
to enter what appeared to be a spin. However, the airspeed indicator
was bouncing around a lot, as high as 100 mph, not what I'd expect in a
spin. Since no one has ever spun a Mooney more than the one turn the
FAA did I'm not sure what proper behavior is but I'd not expect to gain
airspeed.

So, I probably wouldn't buy it again, but if I did, I'd pay the $50 to
have the Geek guys at BestBuy do the installation professionally. I
easily spent many times that in my time.

-Robert

All that work just to *install* the damn thing? So onerous that you're
seriously considering PAYING someone just to install it?

Good lord, why do people put up with Microsoft's BS?

I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
underwhelmed.

You're not alone. Check out alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim to see many
opinions on FSX -- most of them not good.

FSX does run on our new "uber-Computer" (for our Kiwi flight sim), but
suffice it to say that I'm sticking with FS 2004 (AKA: FS9) for now, at
least until Microsoft releases a patch or some configuration
work-arounds.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jay Honeck wrote:
I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
underwhelmed.

You're not alone. Check out alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim to see many
opinions on FSX -- most of them not good.

FSX does run on our new "uber-Computer" (for our Kiwi flight sim), but
suffice it to say that I'm sticking with FS 2004 (AKA: FS9) for now, at
least until Microsoft releases a patch or some configuration
work-arounds.

FWIW, the SDK was just recently released, as well as an
'update' of sorts. The DirectX 10 patch for it will not be made
available until Q2 2007, because of lack of hardware and various other
reasons. That has been documented on many forums and developer blogs.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFmf2MyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhbMAKDesVZCVHQTWsABFhdHmT z9PiryxgCfQuBj
WmwXuDZkCCw2k41s5MTmR9Q=
=x3Y5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I, too, spent the money for MSFS X (fortunately, slightly cheaper
at Costco). Spent far too much time doing the install -- but then
what do you expect with a Microsoft product? Didn't like the
poor performance. Removed it. Found a copy of MSFS 2004 for $9
at one of the Big Box Computer Stores.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been
sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very
underwhelmed.
First, I would recommend having it installed. I wasted almost an entire
day installing it. The installation is very, very difficult. First,
there are 2 DVDs. I put both into the computer. After about an hour I
noticed it had stopped. It was looking for the 2nd DVD. Apprently both
DVDs must be in the same drive (you must switch) it will not look for
the 2nd DVD.
Then it tries to activate but MS's activiation server does not yet
work.

*Yes it does.

They first had be do a complete uninstall and reinstall. That
look about 3 hours. When that didn't work they had me do a bunch of
stuff to the registry. This is all on a newish higher end Dell computer
with DSL.
Finally MS bounced me around to 6 people on one call until they got me
to someone who said I must do the activation at the same time she
authroizes it. Apparently you can't activate the software w/o being on
the phone.


*No, that's not correct. Installation was smooth for me and the activation
occurred automatically on line, with no phone needed.


So after all that I finally brought it up. First, it takes forever to
start. My system is almost twice what MS recommends but it still
requires more than a bathroom break to start. Once its up, I can't see
much difference vs. MS FS 2000. Nothing really seems any different.
I took the Mooney up to spin it. It took awhile but it finally seemed
to enter what appeared to be a spin. However, the airspeed indicator
was bouncing around a lot, as high as 100 mph, not what I'd expect in a
spin. Since no one has ever spun a Mooney more than the one turn the
FAA did I'm not sure what proper behavior is but I'd not expect to gain
airspeed.

*It needs an extremely fast PC, probably faster than what's been yet made.

So, I probably wouldn't buy it again, but if I did, I'd pay the $50 to
have the Geek guys at BestBuy do the installation professionally. I
easily spent many times that in my time.

*All the people I know have not had a problem with installation. The first
two installations are activated on line. Subsequent installations need a
phone up. like XP. Not sure why you had such a problem.

But I agree. For now the previous version, FS2004, is better.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com

First, I would recommend having it installed. I wasted almost an
entire day installing it. The installation is very, very difficult.

This statement should be modified with something like "...very difficult
[for me]." I've heard of few installation problems (other than taking a
while to load the many GB's of data onto the local hard drive). Installation
and activation went very smoothly for me.


FWIW, my specs a
CPU - Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 @ 2.66GHz
RAM - 2 GB
HDD - SATA @ 7200 RPM
Video - nVidia GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB

So after all that I finally brought it up. First, it takes forever to
start. My system is almost twice what MS recommends but it still
requires more than a bathroom break to start.

Yes, it does take longer than FS9 to launch, but not enough for me to get
frustrated. It might be good to set up a default flight to use real-world
weather from your home field, then surf over to your favorite briefing site
to review the weather while FSX loads.

Once its up, I can't see much difference vs. MS FS 2000. Nothing
really seems any different.

Can't argue that point. The only differences I have seen between FS9 and FSX
are little things like slightly more accurate landscapes, traffic running on
the highways (OK, maybe the roads are a bit more accurate), and ATC that is
more "human".

It was many reports like yours that gave me significant pause in purchasing
FSX, but it turns out my trepidation was unwarranted. I've turned all
display settings to High with a target frame rate of 20 and the worse
volatility I've noticed was a very momentary drop to 16 fps (press "shift-Z"
a few times to display your fps). That's not enough for me to have noticed
any "stutter".

So far, I'm not disappointed to have bought the game (especially since I
couldn't locate my FS9 discs recently), but I also don't see a compelling
reason to upgrade from FS9.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

It was many reports like yours that gave me significant pause in purchasing
FSX, but it turns out my trepidation was unwarranted. I've turned all
display settings to High with a target frame rate of 20 and the worse
volatility I've noticed was a very momentary drop to 16 fps (press "shift-Z"
a few times to display your fps). That's not enough for me to have noticed
any "stutter".

On the Kiwi, with its 104" screen, 20 FPS is absolutely awful. Sadly,
I've seen FSX drop below that for a moment or two, so it's really not
usable in every flight regime.

I've found that 30 FPS is the minimum for realistic landings, and 50
FPS is the minimum for realistic formation flying. In FS9 I've got
the Kiwi "locked" at 55 FPS, which results in an absolutely perfect
rendition of flight, with instantaneous control input/reaction.

If I set the realism a bit lower in FSX, it is acceptable. This allows
us to fly the cool new aircraft and "missions", which are quite fun.
However, for realism, we'll be sticking to FS9 until Microsoft figures
out a way to make FSX run faster.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
However, for realism, we'll be sticking to FS9 until Microsoft figures
out a way to make FSX run faster.

Sounds like they're getting better with the aviation simulation.

Wanna go faster? Just add cash!

Jay you have to add this to the Kiwi.

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/