You mean AA for avism addiction? I suspect a lot of us could use it!:-lolhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

My impression is that =everythng= in the graphics has improved. It looks like they use at least double the definition for all objects.>I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post.>>And no, I don't think you should have the right to your own>opinion when it's just basically a load of bollocks. :-) Sometimes people make themselves look rediculous... saying what someone writes is a "=load of bollocks=" just after saying you did not bother reading the rest of the post. IF we dont read it, how can we have any opinion about what is written?All graphics have possibly been upgraded, not just the clouds, etc. instead of using 800x600. That would be a dramatic improvement for anyone who is not using addon scenery graphics. Probably even for those using some. Of course I can do without the birds. Though it might be interesting landing at the Naval Air Station in San Diego with all the seagulls, or in other areas of S. CA. that warn about the birds. But, there is undoubtedly a =lot= moe in FSX, than what others have discovered. There is even a =lot= more in FS9, than many have discovered. Like one of my favorites is going to Yellowstone in Bill Lyons WACO, and landing near "Old Faithful" to watch it spray water and steam into the air. We might now find Buffalo in Yellowstone, etc, water going over the waterfalls, like it does over Niagra, and much more. We may find some very surprising easter eggs. The Demo has not been out long enough, for those using it to cover even a tiny percentage of what may be available.

Everyones opinion is valid.We each prefer various features of the FS, and like past versions some will like it more, for the very things other like it less. Just as from FS2000 to FS2002, when I kept both versions on my system, so it would be easy for me to use either, for my reasons.Personally, I =like= highly saturated scenery. As an artist, I paint scenes with more color in them, than what actually may exist. If taking photos of the Grand Canyon, on an overcast day at noon, those colors are never used. When I paint this scene, it is painted as if it were at 10am or 3pm and many times with a blazing sunset or much warmer colors. So, I also enjoy flying with very saturated colors, and set my time to takeoff or land during early morning or late afternoon hours.Just for kicks, takeof from Vegas, and fly to GCN after 3pm, maybe using a C182, flying through the canyon from Lake Mead and see what you can enjoy! Especially if you have FSGenesis Grand Canyon Mesh....I've flown in a Heleo from Vegas into the Grand Canyon, at this time of day. We flew low enough, so the trip in the FS does represent what you see, if FSX makes it even closer, it will maximize my pleasure. The trip with my wife cost $678, but we both feel it was worth every penny. Worth much more in memories than round trips from CA to Boston, which cost less. We can now relive it in the FS9 but I bet we enjoy it much more in FSX... For about $60, we can relive that trip over, and over, and over, its even more fun than reliving watching the video that Maverick Heleocopters made of the flight. Though I do watch that about once a month.

Great post Geofa!I've been thinking along similar lines that FSX costs about the same as two quality FS9 eye candy addons, yet will give many more times the features that two such addons introduce. Also, FSX will be the new baseline for addon development, so it will continue to develop as opposed to FS9 which is realistically coming to the end of it's run.If you like to fly a mix of aircraft like I do, there is nothing stopping you keeping on running FS9 for your heavy iron work, and using FSX in its early days as your VFR rig. Once the addons and hardware catch up to FSX, you can then transition over to it fully. Gary

>Hi,>>Once more a comment by the "simmer running Windows 98, on>obsolete architecture, who obviouly doesn't know how to get>the best out of his setup, using an old version of Flight>Sim".Just by switching to XP alone, you would get =much= more out of your existing setup.>Well, it is not that I am stupid or something because I still>use W98SE and FS8. So what is meant by not knowing how to get>the best out of his setup?Probably because you stick with a version of Windows, two generations old. That is like going back to a 286 or 386 and saying you dont see much difference between FS2000 and FS2004. W98SE does not have the capacity to show you all the differences in later software or graphics. Again, showing a jpg of FSX, on that setup, also does not show you the difference in graphics, which would look much different. Just the changes in your graphic card alone, even if using a builtin in card, would make them dramatically different.It could be considered similar to comparing Fresh Orange Juice, and Tang, or Twinkies and a good Home Made Cake. There is no way to make a valid comparison.>Let me make myself clear. I am going to purchase FSX and I am>going to buy myself a new high end computer. I am even more>than pleased that FSX needs the newest hard and software. That>way at least, you hope you can expect something completely>different from what you have now.I'd been using a very good Dell computer, but it was two years old, and had only the built in graphics card. I bought a Motorhome, and a Toshiba Laptop, with a 17" screen, with an addon NVidia card. The difference blew me away with the =same= version of FS9, when I saw the difference. Even the Dell had a 19" screen, I stopped using the FS on it, due to the difference. Comparing systems, and software on =different= setups actually makes no sense. Because each one is so different, what I say about how FS9 looks and works on my system, means nothing to you. >Unfortunately, from what I have seen so far, and that is why I>put the screenshot on the forum, FSX does not look so>different at all.Your system does not have the capacity to make it look as different as it looks on mine. The look is limited by your system, trying to explain how it looks on my system, is like a blind man describing an elephant to a deaf man. We are just not speaking the same language, unless we have the same system.

-retractedJames

>You mean AA for avism addiction? I suspect a lot of us could>use it!>:-lol>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg I can't fathom how some like you G find the time to make so many posts ;-)Best,Randy J. Smith

Wow. I really appreciate all these responses here, from all sides and angles. It's been quite the interesting read.But this comment absolutely takes the cake for a blatant untruth. "95% of his wealth" - lol... roflmao... HAHAHAHAHAHAHASK

Greggerm, just the same as I thought, Bravo!

>"The same goes for those who call MS FS series just a>game-that's a bunch of hogwash too.">>I don't agree. MSFS IS a game - but with a high educational>value.>>WalterHowever, even if you dont agree, You might check this definition of Game Theory, you will find that the FS does -not- fit the definition. http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/game.htmIt is educational program, originally sold as a means of learning how to fly. After 9/11 MS changed the way they promoted the program, and began promoting it as a game. Why, because there was discussion in Congress about how terrorists could learn to fly well enough to use aircraft as weapons, without taking any flight training.The FS worked well enough, after using it for a few years, an instructor told me that I could solo with about an hour of instruction.... and then I did.