FS9 dead? I don't think so!

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

(the human eye can only detect up to 24, so its more than enough)

not trying to burst yr bubble or anything, but this is a common but quite incorrect misconception...as far as FS9 being dead, it sure isn't for me. I've been toying with the idea of getting FSX since the price has dropped some for the gold edition, but I doubt I'd be satisfied with the performance and I'm truly enjoying FS9 with the ridiculous wealth of wonderful add-ons I've accumulated and all running in highres at a buttery smooth 60fps. For my needs, this is just fine:

[Guest DAH4062]

not trying to burst yr bubble or anything, but this is a common but quite incorrect misconception...

How so? Every biological book says so, and on the rare occasion that I get 60fps my head spins. If you could explain further I would be most interested.Also, madtun, If you can show me how FS9 can be better it would be nice, as all evidence from the techies suggests that the FS9 graphics engine while good, cannot support proper reflections or 3D water, or better lighting etc. I still use FS9 more, but to completely dismiss FSX is not something I intend to do, nor do many others. However, if you can show me a screenie that would convince me to go ack to FS9 I would be eternally grateful.PS. I know these little things (water and effects) aren't important but I got into FS to be able to not only understand the procedures and techniques of flying a real plane, but the feeling of what it is like. Thats where FSX does it for me.

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

How so? Every biological book says so, and on the rare occasion that I get 60fps my head spins. If you could explain further I would be most interested.Also, madtun, If you can show me how FS9 can be better it would be nice, as all evidence from the techies suggests that the FS9 graphics engine while good, cannot support proper reflections or 3D water, or better lighting etc. I still use FS9 more, but to completely dismiss FSX is not something I intend to do, nor do many others. However, if you can show me a screenie that would convince me to go ack to FS9 I would be eternally grateful.PS. I know these little things (water and effects) aren't important but I got into FS to be able to not only understand the procedures and techniques of flying a real plane, but the feeling of what it is like. Thats where FSX does it for me.

I've never seen a biological book that says anything of the sort. Why would your head spin at 60fps? The animation is simply flowing more smoothly. Its not like anything is artificially sped up or something. Maybe yr head spins becuase you are seeing a more accurate representation of percieved motion...The 24fps stuff basically arises out of the fact that movies and video are often filmed at 24fps so people assume that number was arrived at for a specific biological reason. In fact, it was arrived at becuase film costs money and studios found that 24fps was about the lowest film rate they could get away with and still have the appearance of smooth motion. Of course, film and computer games are two completely different mediums and there are significant differences between the way they "move." An individual frame of film of a moving object looks very different from any individual frame of a computer game. And the difference is amplified when you add the fact that we have to try and control the action real-time in a game as opposed to simply sitting and passively watching a movie...