SurClaro Flight Simulator Resources

mel wilson · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: Bad reports for FSX

I am reading some bad reports about FSX, anybody else here something similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Reviews
Big Mistake
I don't normally write reviews for products, but I thought I would help spread the warning about this product. It took 2 hours to install...30 minutes to get the first flight running, and then it took 2 hours to uninstall! What a waste of $60. I strong recommend staying with FS2004. You'll be much better off.

Will not install, support hold time is outrageous
Tried about 10 different installations after jumping through various hoops, called Microsoft Support, and they actually started speaking to me after the 110th minute of hold. They were able to tell me within 1 minute that they were aware of the problem ("Error 1722. There is a problem with this Windows Installer package. A program run as part of the setup did not finish as expected. Contact your support personnel or package vendor." near the end of the install, followed by a rollback of the install and a fatal error -1603, if you're wondering) and unfortunately do not have a solution.

If they are aware of the problem, they really could have saved me some time by at least posting the error on the knowledge base and saying they are working on it. Instead I had to wait an hour and a half on hold to be told I had to wait a few more days (weeks?) for them to call me back with a solution. I would have used email support, so I didn't have to wait on hold, but unfortunately in order to use email support you have to have a product ID, and in order to have a product ID you have to have installed the product. Ye olde catch-22.

I wish I could be writing a bad review on the performance of the actual product, but I am instead forced to write a bad review on my first expeience with the packaged product - the installer. I promise, however, if I do actually get the product to install, I will write another review detailing my dissappointment with the performance. Unless I'm pleasently surprised.

Good now, better with Vista
I have been playing with it for about a week now and I have to admit that it is a computer hog. I have a 1.86 ghz core duo, 1meg Ram, and a GeForce Go 7900 GS.0 video card, laptop. I can play the game with most of the sliders set at 3/4 as long as I do not fly into any large cities and get a healty 20 fps. I think the plane models are much better and fly more realistic in this version of flight simulator. While the graphics are not great they are better than Fs9. I think any reasonable person would know that it will take Vista and DirectX 10.0 to get the most out of Flight Simulator X. I am going to wait about a year and purchase a new computer and I know this simulator will look great running on Vista and DirectX 10. I am sure that is exactly what Microsoft intended. I had to purchase a new system to run Fs9. I have to agree, the software is way ahead of the hardware at this point, but I think we knew this already. Who hasn't bought software before from Microsoft and found out that the minumum requirements were not even close to being adequate? I knew this when I bought Flight X. Remember, Vista is going to be a 64 bit operating system which will blow the doors off of anything available today. People should of known this was going to happen before they bought Flight Simulator X.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mel.

Ice · Joined: 27 May 2006 Posts: 179 Location: England

Well rather than re-writing what i said in a previous post, il just give you the link. http://forums.surclaro.com/ftopic8313.html

End of the line story is, look around and see both sides of the story. Who love it and who hate it. Wrk out the reasons why. And work it out for yourself.

My opinion, at the moment its equal to fs2004, but in a few years would be 20x better as better hardware becomes cheaper. Have a look and descide for yourself.

viche12345 · Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Posts: 835 Location: San Diego, CA, USA

I agree with Ice. It takes a long time for hardware to catch up with modern games' potential. That's why I chose to wait before purchasing my copy of FSX.

just my opinion

rd · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject:

I am cool with mine. Had to do some tweaking here and there on the sliders and the cfg.

But all in all, the graphics, scenery detail, and water, is better than the stuff I paid for, for FS9.

So for now, I am happy with it as it is. Will be better when I get Vista and the other stuff needed for my Super Rig.

RD

Brabes · Joined: 18 Aug 2005 Posts: 50 Location: London, England

I'm....quite happy. sometimes i get huge frames(see post in missed approach) and sometime i get 1-2 frames. To get these sometimes good frames, the game looks ugly, flat, blurred ground and the occasional autogen.
Its ok, money well spent to think of it.

irelandfrisky · Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 78 Location: Hillsboro, OR

im going to wait to get money for a supercomputer and then when its $40 ill buy the deluxe.

capt.PropwashKCHS · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject:

multiplayer vs FSHost : there are 3 ways to fly multiplayer.... 1. through GameSpy's hosted section where persons can host their server, 2. Local Lan ~ 2 computers hooked together through a router, or 3. You have to download FSHostClient (http://www.chocolatesoftware.com) and then go to FREE FLYING in FSX, then connect to the ADDON - FSHOST CLIENT. (this way you can fly on any server that you had been flying on just like in FS9)

would have been nice if someone would have said all that BEFORE.... so here it is for those that need help locating their favorite servers like the 437th Virtual Airlift Commad (see website below for connection information).

as for my review of FSX... on a scale of 1 - 10, 1 being the lowest.... i would give it a 5. Scenerys do look more crisp and better, but all in all, it is nothing more than a hopped up FS9. i know it has to deal with my processor, and video card.. but even with EVERY SLIDER to the minimum, and unlimited framerates on single player, i can not get past the 15FPS mark, and even if i do hit 15fps, it is still jumpy unlike FS9.

Aircraft:: FSX has more Props than it does jets, and NONE of them have multiple variations / paints like FS9 has.

yeah the missions are better, and scenery and A/C look better, and you can see Cars, Animals, and Boats, and AI Craft... but just for all these small things, DO NOT waste $150 like i did for the *GAME* and a new Hard Drive just to run it on. Stay with the FS9 until Spring 2007, or at least Tax Season comes around to get money for the SuperRig, and all the latest software to make this FSX really pop.

pilot_alex_14 · Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:08 am Post subject:

I am Very happy with my FSX installation takes about 20min on mine i run it at high and no problem it tends to f-up in ultra high but no worries i have 0 comlaints BTW 2hr 30min installation menas ur comp is preatty weak i have 2GB DUAL CHANEL RAM

pilot_alex_14 · Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:10 am Post subject:

I am Very happy with my FSX installation takes about 20min on mine i run it at high and no problem it tends to f-up in ultra high but no worries i have 0 comlaints BTW 2hr 30min installation menas ur comp is preatty weak i have 2GB DUAL CHANEL RAM P4 running at 3.65GHZ tis overcloked at Ati radeon 9550 256mb (S--T) and i get 30fps at high if you read the requirements 256mb ram umm welll Microsoft was on drugs :p anywyas i have nothing bad to say about FSX except that its missing my UKBB airport other then that its SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!

viche12345 · Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Posts: 835 Location: San Diego, CA, USA

pilot_alex_14 wrote: its missing my UKBB airport other then that its

That's one complaint...you said you had none at all. LOL just joking around.... 8)

suddste223 · Joined: 03 Sep 2006 Posts: 86 Location: United Kingdom

What?

Ive installed it on my laptop and the install took about 40mins and then I started the FSX menu up took about 2mins and then went to heathrow to load up a flight there and that took about 5mins.

Brabes · Joined: 18 Aug 2005 Posts: 50 Location: London, England

I have another complaint......i get no wingflex on any aircraft, the glider...none...the 747...none, its driving me mad!!!

Brain Licker · Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 129 Location: Dundee (EGPN)

same on mine

it looks stupid because the flaps are the only things that flex. might be a gfx card issue

skipperdan · Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 1193 Location: Florida

Unfortunately, it will take time to search through all of the "Tweaks" to get your configuration and FPS where you want them. 8) 8)

Here are a few links to tweaks that I have found over the past week.

MAKE SURE THAT YOU MAKE BACKUPS BEFORE TRYING ANY OF THESE.

http://www.fsstation.com/articles/flight-simulator-x-performance-tweaks.html

http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41

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

http://support.microsoft.com/ph/11941

http://support.microsoft.com/ph/11941/en-us/?aid=3&GSA_AC_More3

http://blogs.technet.com/torgo3000/pages/FSX-FAQ-_2800_Part-1_2900_.aspx