FS-X, my observations

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I've been running FS-X a few weeks now, since the holidays. I feel overall I am quite impressed. I just installed Carenado's 172 and found I enjoy using it more than any other title I've installed for VFR flight. Some highlights for FS-X for me have been:Autogen -- much richer than the previous versions of MSFS. I normally fly without autogen in the flight levels, but for VFR flight, FS-X's autogen simply astounds. Mesh-- Europe has long been neglected in the sim, but now it's quite impressive. I flew out of Sion in the Trike one evening, and could not bring myself to close the sim. I was "hooked" for hours.Tileproxy - I've had great success using it with FS-9 and FS-X. What else can make a sim more realistic in the VFR realm?Water - I run with 2x low, and I did not realize how visually impressive it was until I flew a seaplane off of a lake and saw a beautiful aircraft reflection in thw water.I did find that I am happiest when running with only SP-1. Although others say they can't duplicate it, on two different systems with two different NVidia cards, and two different driver sets, when Autogen is off or disabled (such as when Tileproxy runs), default buildings will sometimes disappear. This happens when one pans the view, or nears certain buildings. A great example of my experience has been Lake Tahoe, as one approaches the casino row, with SP 2 and autogen off the buildings vanish and reappear, seemingly related to their distance and angle from the viewpoint. In one instance all of the airport buildings at Tahoe's airport vanished. SP 1 doesn't show this behavior. So I am sticking with SP 1--fortunately, Carenado's new 172 works with SP 1 as well.I'd love it if someone can duplicate this issue, so I know I am not going insane :) Even more, if someone has found this issue and come up with a solution for it, I'd love to hear it so I can reconsider SP 2.I am lucky with SP-1, full autogen and placement at a moderate airport such as Reno, I am still able to stay at my locked 30 fps. I think off the shelf systems (mine is a Gateway 6810) have finally come to the point where they run the sim well. I did not have to spend a week of tweaking to get my experience acceptable--I read most of Phil Taylor's blogs and made the cfg entries which made the most sense.Overall, I am very pleased. I wish I could have contributed to the beta of FS-X, but my lowly system did not come close to the requirements then. So I went out and paid for FS-X like everyone else. And for the entertainment dollar, I feel it was money well spent.Regards,John

[JRMurray 214]

I've been running FS-X a few weeks now, since the holidays. I feel overall I am quite impressed.

I agree. I rushed out to buy FSX in October, 2006, as soon as it was released, and was disappointed greatly. I installed FSX, but after the slideshow that it was on my computer at that time, I put the box on my shelf and went back to FS2004.Until a few weeks ago, that is. Like JohnCi, during the holidays, I rediscovered FSX after updating it to SP2. Even with the same system as before--albeit with a much better video card (8800 GT) by that time--it ran pretty smoothly at reasonable frame rates.A few weeks ago, though, thanks to a semester of hard work and the resulting financial remuneration from my university, I replaced my computer with an HP Pavilion Elite (Q9300, 8 Gb RAM, Vista 64-bit, 9800 GT, 22-inch widescreen monitor), and ... HOLY @#$%! FSX is smooth, even with most of the sliders almost to their maximum settings, and it looks fabulous. Of course, I must thank NickN for his excellent nHancer recommendations in part, but even so, FSX is great now. Highlights for me:

• Autogen. Much better done in FSX than in FS2004. The trees in FSX are different from those of FS2004 and really add depth to scenery, especially when flying at VFR levels.

• VC views. I never thought that I would like VCs, but for GA aircraft especially, I now prefer them. I like, too, that the VC has the "ActiveCamera" effect built-in. Great for immersion!

• Clouds and weather. Even unenhanced with 3rd party add-ons, clouds look real in comparison with those of FS2004

• Missions. I thought that these were just a gimmick when I first heard about them, but I'm surprised at myself in that I find them a lot of fun, some quite challenging, but all engrossing.

I've now gone out and bought Acceleration, and I'm in the process of updating or replacing some of my old FS2004 favourites such as Aerosoft's BeaverX (just updated it yesterday ... beautiful!), Maddog 2008 (runs and looks great!), FSPassengersX (haven't bought it yet), and many, many others.I, too, am impressed. Even with a minimum number of enhancements such as GEX or UTX, I find FSX to be a much better-looking sim. I can only imagine what it looks like enhanced.I would have never thought that I'd be saying this, but I am now having a hard time going back to FS2004.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I would have never thought that I'd be saying this, but I am now having a hard time going back to FS2004.

It's funny, I still struggle to divide time between both sims. I enjoy flying FS2004 with "max AI" now that I have the system to handle it. Also, anything in the flight levels I tend to prefer FS2004 more. But for VFR, "hands on" flying there's so much in FS-X. I was quite pleased to see even the freeware community has tapped the VFR qualities of FS-X, for instance, the Minimax UL just released is a lot of fun to buzz around in. Regards,John