Sign in to follow this  
Guest teeloo

PMDG did better then MSFS!

Recommended Posts

I was scanning through the 2D-C pictures of the upcoming PMDG-744.I really like the night look of the cockpit.Anyway, what really keeps me wondering everytime I see a "At-the-gate-full-cockpit-to-outside-views" is why the building, close to the cockpit, is so increadably unsharp!!FS-4 used to have lines and clours. Not precise but extreemly sharp!!So really this is off-topic? Yes!I prefere to see a cartoon-gate (Disney world "all-is-perfect" colours and lines) (imagen how much more frame rates you'd get) then a blur of colours and lines that only look good from miles away.The point is: I was looking at the wonderful cockpit interior of the PMDG-744 and couldn't help commenting on the bad look of the building outside...Maybe I should post this at the MSFS scenery forum ?! ;-)Oh, and I know there are some awsome addon sceneries out there that sharpen a bit more, but eat more frame rates then give you joy!regardsTeeloops: bottom line: PMDG makes awsome planes that make MSFS look bad all day!! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

What you need is to buy some super-sharp add-on airports with really nice 3D structures that will probably satisfy your hunger for sharp building textures. FlyTampa, Online Simulation Solutions or FlightScenery make the best airports in this regard. As you probably noticed if you want something 'top' you have to shell out a few bucks ;)Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> As you probably noticed if you want something>'top' you have to shell out a few bucks ;)>And then a few more bucks to buy the 4-processor, 4.0 GHz overclocked to 5.0 GHz with 4GB RAM and two graphics cards with 512 MB each on them. Oh and did I forget to mention RAID-0? :-bang :-)I will stay with the default airports, thanks. :-) :-)- NeerajPS: Just kidding, SimFlyer's and FlyTampa are great but do keep in mind these will need a very good system to run with acceptable frame rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is difficult to get the best of both worlds... do you want fantsy airplanes with fully functioning systems and a detailed VC? That alone will take up most of FS9's graphics power, then add on 100% traffic, detailed scenery, and you have an almost slide show unless you can spend lots of money to get a fast system... hopefully FS10 will change that all, but until then, I can't wait for the queen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies! ;-)I'd like to see a Graphics setting: FS4 for buildings etc. or something like that...Sharp and low frame costs.Anyway, I stick to the default and prefere 100% onboard simulation of the systems. However, sometimes I wonder why so much is done on the outside, and it still looks no good after all those years (I am talking none addon of course).regardsTeeloo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I will stay with the default airports, thanks. :-) :-)Just for your info in case you are .. underinformed, SOME of the addon airports are actually better in performance then their default/equivalnet counterparts because they have been done in GMAX. Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this