the deminishing fs9 products

[CanadaOne 36]

Maybe (probably) this isn't the right place to ask, but is there any way of getting the visual runway padlock in FS9 that you can in FSX?Kind of like a free little TrackIR. (Kind of...)

[Dillon 2,197]

L.Adamson I never compared FS98 to FS2000. That's like comparing night and day. Your dodging here. The comparison was with FS2000 and FSX and your performance comments knowing full well your flying around without any autogen. Everything you said about the pluses of FS2000 is correct. FS98 was like an arcade simulation compared to FS2000 but flying FSX with comparable graphics to FS2000 is another thing altogether. Speaking of Pro Pilot, I really wish we had that kind of competition today. Things would be a whole lot different concerning FSX. Pro Pilot in many respects is what gave us FS2000 and FS2k2. Aces had to improve on the product or loose sales. I really believe if it weren't for sims like Flight Unlimited and Pro Pilot, FS2000 would have never happened in the incarnation we had. Since then each release has been incremental. FS2k2 was the best performer in the history of the franchise. FS2k4 was a close second on release and unless Aces pulls a maricle with that DX10/Vista patch, FSX will be the worst performing sim upon release in the history of the series.L.Adamson if we had Pro Pilot and sims of the like today, FSX would hands down be awesome to behold. No excuses would have been given for ATC because it would have been addressed and updated. To keep up with the competition FSX would have been optimized right out the box to perform great on the average machine. Aces wouldn't have had the headroom to make glaring oversight mistakes like not factoring in Dual and Quad Core machines in the future. FSX is a glaring example of what you get when there's no real competition in a given market.

[Dillon 2,197]

"I'll use FS9 for it's improved frame rates in heavy airport traffic. It's easy to do, as FS9 is still on the new HD, and isn't going anywhere!"Wow it took 3 months to get you to say anything good about FS9 compared to FSX. :-eek

[LAdamson 240]

>"I'll use FS9 for it's improved frame rates in heavy airport>traffic. It's easy to do, as FS9 is still on the new HD, and>isn't going anywhere!">>Wow it took 3 months to get you to say anything good about FS9>compared to FSX. :-eek I've said good things about FS9 here, on the FSX forum, and even X-Plane forums, many times! Where have you been! :-hmmm In fact, I loaded up the new FSX, X-Plane 8.50 with global scenery, and FS9 onto the new CPU within hours of each other. I've often mentioned that these three sims suit different purposes, and that one won't do it all.Yet, not being an everyday flight sim fanatic (believe it or not), I'd probably take FSX if there was only one. It's running with the Lear Jet on auto-pilot, crossing the snow covered FSGenesis Rockies at this very moment..........on the other CPU. Real weather updates every 15 mins, and a smooth 25 fps. Sure looks good! Much better than FS2000! :-hah L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>FSX is a glaring example of what you get when there's no real>competition in a given market. I can't agree. While a simulated visit to New York will work best in FS9, my simulated flight from KSLC towards Phoenix, Arizona with real weather is a phenominal experience! The moving airmass with thermals along the mountain ridges, and turbulence is very well done! It's so very much like real flight, and quite a step up from FS9. And besides, this particular type of flight looks better in FSX too!And FWIW, the beta of Pro-Pilot 2000 went downhill rather sharply from it's previous version. L.Adamson

[kerosene31 349]

Also, who needs a ton of new products? There is tons of add-ons out there that I haven't even tried yet. I downloaded a bunch of freeware sceneries yesterday from the library. Who needs new? They are all new to me :)

[Guest PARADISE]

>I totally agree... and after many happy hours of simming in>FS9, with UT, GEPro, ASV, FSG mesh, and RC4, I'd have to say>that there are only two things missing that would quite>literally complete the simulation for me:>> - Accurate turbulence> - True overcast>>The problem seems to be mainly an issue with the weather>engine in FS9 itself, as ASV have tried their darndest to>recreate both of those weather phenomena. But it just won't>happen for whatever reason. I just completed a flight from EGLL to KIAD in a AB 340-500. I encountered moderate turbulence through climb out all the way to FL370. Ireland was under a full overcast layer....never saw the surface until about 200nm from the coast. As I went to do my chores around the house, I all of suddenly heard the " Windshear, windshear " blaring from my PC. Severe turbulence encountered about 500nm from Nova Scotia. Had to climb to FL390 to get out of it. Again encountered a solid overcast from Maine to New York, then some nice scattered clouds to Washington.As I approached KIAD there was a nice steady chop all the way down to 10000' as the winds around a high pressure were realy winding up over the East Coast. This was done using only FE and " Real Time Weather " from FS9. ASV was completely uninstalled for the flight. Had Cloud Coverage set to 100%, Turbulence engaged and Cloud draw distance set to maximum. I just wanted to see what FE looked like by itself,( with a few freeware visibilty smoothing ad-ons ) and only FS Global Terrain installed. Best turbulence and overcast I've had in a while. Now I don't know if I want to reinstall ASV.I've got roughly 1800 real time hours and nothing can compare to the real thing when it comes to flying in turbulence, unless you can get your chair to pull +/- G's. The FS9 weather engine may not be perfect, but it's realy never let me down too much. If only someone could come up with a program that would smooth the visibilty transitions. " Even if you win the RACE.....you're still a RAT "John M

[Noel 4,507]

> Why else would we be hearing about>SP1 with improved multi-core support?Is this confirmed--the bit about improved multi-core support?

[Guest PARADISE]

I agree with that. All those freeware add-ons out there are enough to have to add another GB. The best part is that if you don't like one, delete it and go on with life. As long as Avsim keeps the add-ons for FS9 on file the sim will go on for a long time. Just like a Harley Davidson motorcycle, love'm or hate'm, sometimes keeping the old style works best.John M

[Guest guyjr]

Thanks for that report John... I think I'm going to give FS9's real-time weather a shot later today. I've got a decent set of clouds installed from ASV, so I'll just leave them installed but not run ASV and see what happens. Also want to see how well FSUIPC handles vis smoothing on its own (I think I saw an option for that in there somewhere)--Guy

[Guest glaspere]

>i woul like to se reasons what fsx offers that fs9 doesn't. Fly by >wire? PMDG seems to simulate that very well already. Scenery? Nope.>If you think so, I guees you need to see my FS9 running.>Smoothness? lol. i bet FS9 has at LEAST a year and a half left>of life.For me FSX offers fantastic water. Large bodies of water look *MUCH* better in FSX than in FS9. So I use FSX when I feel the desire to sim near the oceans but FS9 for everything else. EG

[StamPilot 4]

>I think slowly you're going to see some developers move back (>or at least release products that are compatible with both>versions ) to FS9 for awhileI think the same as you, Jeff. Guess we will have addons compatible with both FS9 and FSX, at least for some period of time.

[Manny 1,293]

I don't know about they developing any more...But I certainly would like a big sale of the European airport sceneries. Kind of like garage sale...I'd buy them all...in one big swoop.:)Manny

[Guest SilverCircle]

>For me FSX offers fantastic water. Large bodies of water look>*MUCH* better in FSX than in FS9. So I use FSX when I feel>the desire to sim near the oceans but FS9 for everything else.It also offers *much* better terrain rendering - no "simplified" world model with all its side effects (the visible boundary between the landclass and simplified rendering for example), no "jumping" hills on the horizon, less noticeable "jumping" mesh (a result of LOD transitions in FS9) and more.VFR flying is a better experience in FSX (if the hardware can deal with it). For anything else, FS9 is the way to go. I doubt that FSX leaves enough room for complex add-ons, performance wise. We are aware, how high the performance impact of a complex add-on can be in FS9. That's ok, because on a good PC, FS9 alone leaves enough free resources, but FSX doesn't - it can fully load even the most powerful systems.

[Guest nick46]

Having read all these posts so far down the page, one thing has become clear to me:FSX is still full of bugs, inherent, or because of the inability of present systems to deal with it, or both. One gets the impression that MS made FSX on the basis of some distant-future software that has not even reached the drawing board yet.FS9 is still a potent and rich sim, but those who have dipped their finger into FSX seem to be hoping for improvement in the new sim, which may be late in coming.Those who have not bothered with FSX and continue with FS9 seem to be very happy and content, and even blissful with FS9.The first and second group should check their blood pressure often, as they are in danger.I myself installed FSX but uninstalled it a month later after seeing my life and nerves deteriorating fast. Admittedly, my system was not made for FSX, so why bang my head against a brick wall that won't give an inch? Needless torture I can do without.And, I am sure the commercial companies are in for a rude drop in their sales if they stick only to FSX. Bankruptcy is just around the corner in this case.