I enjoyed that vid very much though like the hero, I'm still not sure
I've not even seen the 'real' demo yet so no vote one way or the other from this camp Can't afford a new pc.. don't want a new pc and have reached a point where I really can't be bothered to keep spending just to keep up :huf:
I was quite hesitant to purchase FSX but managed to find a copy going cheap on Amazon Marketplace so thought I'd give it a go. I'm very impressed with the whole sensation of flight; it's much more immersive than in FS9. The airfields themselves are lower detail but I love the addition of cars and boats and even people, and the scenery and mesh are breathtaking. It was great not having to install FS Global for a change.
Admittedly some nice shiny new addons are required but out of the box I get far better performance with far less tweaking than FS9; which I really didn't believe at first. A few lines added and altered in the FSX.cfg, and a few mods for the autogen and away you go. Incidentally I'm playing on a mid-end PC that is getting a bit long in the tooth and am getting incredibly smooth framerates in the mid 40's with no stutters. The only thing that murders my frame rates is autogen; even the dynamic AI doesn't give me much of a hit. And as stated earlier in this post the autogen issues can be sorted by downloading a few tweaks and texture resizes.
The only thing I'm really missing is my UK2000 scenery; other than that I'm actually enjoying playing with fewer higher quality mods, other than having a billion aircraft installed and never knowing what to fly.
I'm not sure the choices on the poll really fit so I didn't vote. It don't think it's a lemon and I don't think it's all it could be (yet). I think that the true ability of FSX will have to be gauged in a month or two when DX10 and Vista are publically released for the home market. Once you start getting people with DX10 (Generation 2) graphics cards and Vista systems, we'll see how good FSX will be. Until then, I think it's a program that is a lot like WindowsME was, except there's a much brighter up-side in that unlike ME, FSX can (and hopefully will) be fixed because the technology will be released to turn FSX into a mature piece of software.
If anyone doesn't remember the whole deal with ME - basically Gates got forced into releasing ME as a "pre-2000" OS because of the Y2K scare. There were a lot of computer manufacturers who were pressing for Windows 2000 to be released before 2000 so that they could put it on their new computers and use advertising to suggest that somehow Windows 98 computers wouldn't survive the "Y2K bug". Gates eventually gave in (remember, OEM installations are his biggest market so he can't just say no) and ME was the result - Windows NT5 Kernel on a Windows 98 desktop. It didn't work well (resource hog, lots of bugs from the immature kernel, severe feature limitations due to incomplete coding, etc), and Gates took the flak for it even though he said from the outset that he was against releasing the program for the exact things he was getting flak for.
FSX is the same thing - the hardcore simmers and M$ were pushing for this program to be released in time for Holiday Season '06 but the ACES Studio guys knew that it would be a problem to release then without the simultaneous release of Vista and DX10, especially since they were pressured by M$ to release FSX as a DX9 program (without any of the DX10 coding) but still have a lot of the DX10 features. The result is a program that requires a lot more of the processor than it would under DX10 since DX10 would allow for further offloading of graphics processing to the GPU. Compound that with a premature DEMO release (again from the pressure of the M$ marketing people), and you get a lot of people unfairly unhappy a program that wasn't ready to go live. However, the up side to this one is that the technology needed to run this thing right is coming and the ACES guys will be able to fix most (if not all) of the problems and get the performance up to "acceptable" levels once they can let us change over to the DX10 graphics engine (which is a separate graphics engine from the one being used by FSX now).
Finally, after I apologize for the long post - sorry for the long post - I think that the lack of addons is for 2 reasons:
1) The Scenery Designers have a lot of changes to make to FSX scenery since FS has gone back to the "Round World". This means that they can't directly port FS9 scenery into FSX because there will be slight but noticable positional errors in the airport.
2) Many designers are waiting for DX10 to not have to make 2 releases of their product. One for FSX-DX9 and one for FSX-DX10.
I think you'll see a large upturn in payware and freeware addons once FSX-DX10 is released. Until then, you have Aerosoft, AlphaSim, IRIS, PMDG, EagleSoft, and several others that have made FSX releases already to choose from.
I love it
& will love it a lot more once i get the tools to buld proper FSX models.
anyone that has FSX and it runs too slow i reccomend they download the Horizon Generation X demo and see what it really runs like without all the BS autogen & photo textures.
Admittedly i got a good framerate from day one but upgraded my PC anyway as i had already planned my upgrade before i got the FSX demo.
AS6.5 is now working fine in FSX as is FSUIPC so no major problems here.
pretty much all the FS9 stuff works fine in FSX (you will be amazed how much FS8 built stuff is labelled as for FS9).
Ah.. and that final comment is the temporary nail in the proverbial for me matey.. I don't leave home without it Same happened with FS9 to be honest. I had it on my system but didn't really start using it until FSNav was updated. Flying without it is like flying blind and I can get into enough trouble without adding more
Can't afford a new pc.. don't want a new pc and have reached a point where I really can't be bothered to keep spending just to keep up :huf: 
