Is anyone else content with Flight Simulator 2004?

[G7USL 117]

After LDS and PMDG have issued their respective upgrades for FS-10, that's the time I will buy FSX and not until then.Why haven't we seen any cockpit shots of FSX? Is it because they will be as C.R.A.P.P.Y as the FS9 default?Now, let's see what wer'e not getting in FSX.No relief for the ATC instructions to zig-zag before we reach our destination?No relief of the "Maintain flight level 330" even though you have ten miles or less to run before you reach your destination?No relief from, being given permission to land even though some one else has just been granted permission to take-off on the same runway! ..................Shall I go on?If It is as "real as it get's" (Boast by M.S.) and they know that it's not, why have they not addressed these issues in FSX?After all, you can't see 'eye candy' at FL330.................can you?

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>>You're skipping the part where your hardware doesn't>support>>DX10 so it defaults back to DX9.>>No, I didn't skip that. You said that DX10 hasn't been>released yet, I can assure you that it has.>>I did double check before I made my post and saw that dxdiag was indeed reporting version 10 on my Vista 2 beta. So you certainly was correct about that, much to the surprise of my friend and I. I have no problem with admitting that.However, the original post on this topic did seem to suggest that you were getting some sort of result from running DX10 with FS9, when I'm pretty sure that without hardware support and without the game being written to use the new API, it just defaults back down to DX9.I could be wrong. I was wrong about DX10 being in Vista Beta 2.

[GHD 21]

No problem, I was also surprised to see DX10 in Vista.After further tests I can say that I can run the Vista Aero Glass theme, however, if I run FS9 in this mode I cannot change view from cockpit view. If I reduce to the Vista Basic theme, FS9 works perfectly. This is not a problem to me as I prefer to use the Windows Classic theme.My only problem is taking screen shots, the Vista Snipping tool takes about 10 seconds to capture the screen and during this time, the FS9 frame rate drops from 100+ to single figures. Neither FSScreen nor MultiGrab work at all, the 64 bit WindowClippings works but it also takes about 10 seconds for a screen capture.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>No problem, I was also surprised to see DX10 in Vista.>>After further tests I can say that I can run the Vista Aero>Glass theme, however, if I run FS9 in this mode I cannot>change view from cockpit view. If I reduce to the Vista Basic>theme, FS9 works perfectly. This is not a problem to me as I>prefer to use the Windows Classic theme.>>My only problem is taking screen shots, the Vista Snipping>tool takes about 10 seconds to capture the screen and during>this time, the FS9 frame rate drops from 100+ to single>figures. Neither FSScreen nor MultiGrab work at all, the 64>bit WindowClippings works but it also takes about 10 seconds>for a screen capture.>>That's very interesting. I've been playing with it in Vista as well, and I have had some performance issues. I haven't tried turning off Aero yet. Of course, it is a 3D DX9 program running alongside. It's like running an older FS at the same time as FS9.

[FlyingsCool 3]

Where have you been? I've seen lots of very nice cockpit shots from FSX.As far as ATC goes, yes, it is sad they didn't have the resources to improve it much. But, there's always Radar Contact/Vox ATC, and you can't get much more real than VATSIM/ICAO, or the multiple groups which I am sure will form to exploit the new "shared skies" stuff.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

[Guest jgreth123]

>After LDS and PMDG have issued their respective upgrades for>FS-10, that's the time I will buy FSX and not until then.>>Why haven't we seen any cockpit shots of FSX? Is it because>they will be as C.R.A.P.P.Y as the FS9 default?>>Now, let's see what wer'e not getting in FSX.>>No relief for the ATC instructions to zig-zag before we reach>our destination?>>No relief of the "Maintain flight level 330" even though you>have ten miles or less to run before you reach your>destination?>>No relief from, being given permission to land even though>some one else has just been granted permission to take-off on>the same runway! ..................Shall I go on?>>If It is as "real as it get's" (Boast by M.S.) and they know>that it's not, why have they not addressed these issues in>FSX?>>After all, you can't see 'eye candy' at>FL330.................can you?>ATC improvements are moot. Radar Contact will take care of that if you don't like flying on multiplayer. With VATSIM it's a non-issue. FSX is boasting about their new shared skies; improving upon multiplayer... looks to me like that's what they want. ATC is single-player only.The "Maintain FL330" stuff relates back to my first point.The Landing permissions relates back to my first point.It's all about priorities. ATC, apparently, was a very low priority. Improved 'eye candy' (as you call it) is a HUGE improvement. Most of the targetted audience wants it. I'm one of them. I fly mostly VFR. I can tell you right now that VFR in FS9 is very limited and more often than not dull; it looks nothing like the real thing. I'd say overall that most of the target audience doesn't fly long haul flights at high altitudes. Personally speaking, I can't wait for FSX. Like a few others in this thread I'm bored with FS9. I mean, it's okay. I love to fly but I enjoy low-and-slow more. In FS9 low-and-slow means garbage textures. Anyhow, sorry if my post seems aggressive. We all have our own expectations of what we want out of the sim. I was just trying to show that the majority of the target audience is going to want FSX ( speculation but well-founded I think ).

[Guest neilb]

I have almost zero interest in moving to FSX.Why?My FS9 is about as good as I can get it right now. I have good scenery that works at a lot of airports I like, I have add-ons that work and I enjoy using, I have a massive AI collection, my frame rates are acceptable.Switching to FSX immediately would probably lose me all of the above in some way. The things I am interested in the most are AI and ATC and neither have been improved in FSX. I fly at FL300+ and as such ground textures mean very little to me.The only thing at the moment that makes me want to upgrade to FSX is the news about PMDG's A320.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

I've contended before, not unrealistically, that MS and ACES has targeted general aviation in the core product, so you can take off and fly around and do whatever right out of the box and have an enjoyable experience that looks great, while leaving the advanced techniques, such as ATC, to the add on developers, allowing the admittedly smaller portion of enthusiasts who seek this functionality out if they want it.I think that's the perfect solution, and not one that should be looked down on.

[G7USL 117]

Hi Jeff,You really have surprised me now. You have said for a long time in your post's that you preferred the 'heavies' and have heaped praise over the LDS 767.I can't believe that you have gone over to the other side? *Grin*Must be all that fresh air at 'Tongass' maybe eh? LOL

[Guest jgreth123]

I haven't done any long flights in a few months. Just enough to stay in my VA ( one a month, but doing short ones ). I go in waves but mostly I fly smaller aircraft. Concerning Tongass, yeah I love Tongass/Misty Fjords and Holger's other freeware work because it adds so much more... but it still uses the textures that I dislike. ;) I really have come to dislike the FS9 water too. The pulsing movement turns me off. I hope FSX has independant movement to the water. I definately love the reflections of FSX though.We'll see! :)

[FlyingsCool 3]

Have you tried BEV? They've released their summer textures for free. I've got the whole set and really love them, and I've redone the landclass for quite a bit of eastern Massachusetts (you can download the latest rev at my site below).The combination of the textures, landclass, and mesh really totally improved FS9 for me immensely.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

[Guest jgreth123]

>Have you tried BEV? They've released their summer textures>for free. I've got the whole set and really love them, and>I've redone the landclass for quite a bit of eastern>Massachusetts (you can download the latest rev at my site>below).>>The combination of the textures, landclass, and mesh really>totally improved FS9 for me immensely.>>Thomas>>[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com]>http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]>>I like using VC's :-)Thomas, I have seen it but I don't own BEV no. It's sorta random textures and autogen is inaccurate ( notice the autogen in FSX, properly grouped trees, bushes etc ). Roads / rivers in FSX don't seem (yet) to be running up hills / cliffs. BEV also covers a small portion I believe no? Does it accurately reflect the landclass in Australia ( leaving VOZ out of this, was just using some far-away land as an example :( )?

[Guest MattNW]

When FS2004 first came out I got it as soon as it appeared on the store shevles. I installed it and then spent hours testing add ons, tweaking settings and moving sliders around. I also spent hours on the flight sim forums posting results and frame rates, reading what others have done and trying all those suggestions. Some worked others didn't. Still others were so downright wierd I didn't even try.I don't think that in the first month I had FS2004 that I managed to complete a single flight. I did a lot of flying but mostly it was spot work to check settings or see if an add on worked or not. All takeoff to landing flying I did on my old trusty FS2002 with all my favorite add ons.Now I have a great sim. Everything works as well as it can and I've had no random crashes. My frame rates are OK. Not stellar but OK. I have loads of aircraft I can fly and a lot of non-aircraft to play with. I just finished a crossing of the Atlantic in the Queen Mary.Considering that FSX is designed to work best on Vista with hardware that isn't even out yet and considering I'm about all tapped out right now so I can't build a new computer I think I'll leave the pioneering work to others. I did my part now it's time for others to step forward. Me I'll be flying back to FL from Nigeria. That long ocean voyage was too much idle time for me. :):(

[Guest cloudrider]

FS9 has been like working on my house..... Changing the floors(terrain), painting the ceilings (sky), buying furniture (aircraft), adding AC (environment) and just when I think I'm done, they come out with a new house. I'm gonna enjoy the house I built for a while, then I'll consider moving! LOL

[Guest dakotafan]

Hi Christian, In order to be totally objective, I downloaded and used the FlightSim X demo last night to see what all the excitement was about.Sorry guys, I just don't see what all the hype is about. I am now very happy with Flightsim 2004. It looks great and does everything that is possible at this point. Concerning Flightsim X:1) Spend additional money for the base program which does basically the same thing as what I now have? NOPE.2) Buy a new motherboard, memory and video card so it will run marginally well? NOPE.3) Spend countless hours setting it up again and again as new upgrades come out? NOPE.4) Spend additional money for upgrades to make it seem more like the real world? NOPE. If I were so concerned with absolute realism in traffic, ATC, clouds, mesh, etc., etc. I would take that money and get my private pilots license. Nobody beats the Good Lord's textures, mesh or sky.I personally just want to spend time flying and enjoying what I have.I have found that when I am busy flying the plane that I don't have time to worry about whether cars are moving down the road with their headlights on or off. I do want to offer a sincere Thanks! to Microsoft and all the addon developers (both payware and freeware) for Flightsim 2004 and addons. I now have the sim I had always hoped for. Thanks, Dave