October 20, 200619 yr Commercial Member "Flight simulators are designed with longevity in mind.... If you could max out settings right away with the fastest hardware out there and still get 25 FPS, things would get pretty boring quickly!"I wouldn't call that boring. I'd call that fun, and a triumph in breaking the performance cycle! Avsim would call that lighter forum server load. Aces would call it "Whew, they aren't mad at us!". ;)Other than that, I agree with ya. :) Mike Johnson - Lotus Simulations
October 20, 200619 yr >The new engine is all jacked upIt's not a new engine.>t just seems to be a repeat of FS9It isn't a repeat of FS9, it's an upgrade, and a rather frickin' significant one at that.>like hey lets just forget the bridges too.Bridges? Missing bridges? Sure there are places without them, but there are tons of bridges.>And now we have a whole new set of hardware issuesWhat hardware issues?>Its a continuous cycle and it seems that its done on purpose.Of course it's done on purpose. How about this argument: Awesome vehicle! A steam locomotive, huh? We can move people and freight across the continent without having to rely on horses and wooden wagons! And it's much faster! Oh wait, we need rails? Why can't we use existing roads. That's STUPID!!It's called technology, and it advances. In the case of computers, it advances extremely fast. There are always naysayers who hang back from the edge of it, and that's fine, but I'm not telling you that only smart people are liking FSX, or the only people that don't like it are idiots. You can hate it, more than anything in the whole world, for all I care, but please know your facts before slamming it, because half of your post simply isn't true.Good grief.-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifCurrent system:Pentium 4 Cedar Mill 641 (3.40GHz), Abit AW8D, Gigabyte GeForce 7900GTX (512MB DDR3 PCI-Express x16),Corsair XMS2 Pro 2GB PC2 6400 (DDR2 800), 2 SeaGate Barracuda 250GB hard drives, Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumKlipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 speakers, NEC 20" CRT, Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2Please note: System specs are for reference in tech forums only and are not to be taken as meaning anything else.Doing so will result in eye-rolling, possible teeth grinding and perhaps mild internal chuckling.Happy Flying!
October 20, 200619 yr There are three groups in this forum:1) People who like FSX, and have good performance with it. These people have no affiliation and are not stakeholders.2) Critics who are unimpressed with FSX. These people may have invested a lot of time and money in FS9, and see FSX as a step backwards.3) Stakeholders who have a vested interest in FSX's success. Third-party developers can fall into this category, but not always. Their opinion can be irrational and blind.Nobody here would benefit from poor sales of FSX, unless there is a competitor on the horizon .... Quote from MS Flight Team Lead: "We’ve made some guesses"
October 20, 200619 yr >There are three groups in this forum:>>1) People who like FSX, and have good performance with it. >These people have no affiliation and are not stakeholders.Mmm... close, but no.>2) Critics who are unimpressed with FSX. These people may>have invested a lot of time and money in FS9, and see FSX as a>step backwards.Nope.>3) Stakeholders who have a vested interest in FSX's success. >Third-party developers can fall into this category, but not>always. Their opinion can be irrational and blind.Not me.####, I guess I'm the guy who keeps falling through the cracks :/ Sure I'd like FSX to do well but I have no "vested interest" in FSX's success. I'm not unimpressed by it - in fact, it achieves plenty of impressive feats over FS9. Unfortunately performance is not one of them, but I can live with that.So I guess there's either a fourth group or then we're going to have an awful lot of people like me who will feel left out:4) Regular end users with no connections to the developers aside from their hard-earned cash, who can't get a steady 50 FPS out of the engine with all of the touted graphical goodies turned on and possibly have issues with certain portions of the simulator, but who feel that overall the product shows promise and has more positive traits than negative ones.
October 23, 200619 yr >4) Regular end users with no connections to the developers>aside from their hard-earned cash, who can't get a steady 50>FPS out of the engine with all of the touted graphical goodies>turned on and possibly have issues with certain portions of>the simulator, but who feel that overall the product shows>promise and has more positive traits than negative ones.Nicely said Janne!!
October 23, 200619 yr Janne,"So I guess there's either a fourth group or then we're going to have an awful lot of people like me who will feel left out"You are a minority of FSX users. I've never seen so many complaints about a version of FS in my life, and I go back to the days of FS98.Paul, once again ... I don't care :) Quote from MS Flight Team Lead: "We’ve made some guesses"
October 23, 200619 yr You must have skipped fs2000 then...and also these 3 other sims from 1999 where history repeats again and again.http://www.avsim.com/pages/1099/guest/guest.shtmlhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg Geofa WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE-the best Flight Sim!
October 23, 200619 yr "The new eye candy is great-but if you have to turn it down to see the new reality..."THIS sums up FSX in a nutshell. Great post!!! "Turn it down to the the new reality"...that is worth repeating!!!Then you say.."You might have to turn down autogen (which for me is pretty cartoonish but I can understand the appeal) and the water which for me is really cartoonish and I never would want tp get good performance-but it can be had."Mmmmkay, you think the autogen and water are both cartoonish so you turn them off? And that makes you happy? Let's recap. Cartoonish water and autogen...turned off so you have none...right? You don't like them, so you turn them off, because you don't like the way they look AND they make the sim unflyable and you're happy???AND you think that what you said, is a positive post? Methinks you may be trying too hard to be positive about what you see before you that the justifications eventually become bazaar in hopes of keeping a positive outlook.Sir, what you said in your posts are absolute NEGATIVES! What you said is the equivolent of me saying...hey my wife's really ugly, but I cover her face with a bag and don't take her out in public, look how beautiful she is now that I've done that!!! ROTFLMAO.Sigmond Freud where are you when we need you!!!!
October 23, 200619 yr Mike-I have posted many shots in the screen shot forum comparing real flight shots I have taken against fsx with autogen on, off and water on and off-and I think they speak for themselves-everyone can of course have an opinion but I am really interested in duplicating my real flying experience the best I can-and little plastic houses and trees on blurry textures like fs9 are not part of it. Take a look at the Teton compare with and without autogen-I see no difference but I do in performance/handling-double digit. Greater terrain mesh resolution so I can recognize real terrain, and textures below that are not blurry however is a part of real flying for me-little toy houses and trees don't really excite me that much.I use the sim to practice for real world flying. It is interesting that the precomplaints about this sim were that it was mostly an "eye candy" gamelike upgrade. It is not-and many of the things that the "serious" simmers asked for like vastly improved flight handling, smoother instruments,ability to give flight instruction to fellow simmers over the internet are there. To experience them in all their glory on present systems-yes some of the huge "eye candy" improvements have to be turned down-and I find the loss of autogen and water a small compromise at this point-especially with the new textures that are not blurry like fs9 and convey more reality at altitude.You also put words in my mouth-when I want to do low flying with atmosphere I crank the autogen all the way up and see for the most part 15-25 fps except in a heavy city environment(not "unflyable" in my opinion at all)-isn't that what the sliders and saved config settings are for? But for "serious" flying that is getting everymore close to reality-yes I turn the autogen and the water off, and except while taxiing on the ground don't miss it one bit-and yes it is significantly more serious that fs9 ever was-and with this config I get much better performance, smoothness, and real airplane feel-which frankly I never got from fs9 which felt and was more of a procedual trainer.Luckily my wife isn't ugly, and I really don't need Freud-but I appreciate your worry about this. I am not posting to be positive or negative-just writing the truth as I see it....and I am enjoying this sim like I haven't since fs4. If that bothers people-well there is always Freud.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg Geofa WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE-the best Flight Sim!
October 23, 200619 yr Look forward to hearing more Phil..thanks for signing up and writing here at Avsim. Eric
October 23, 200619 yr @ Mike T - spot on as always Mike. If FSX had to be run with nothing more than a blue sky and a one color brown texture with nothing else but the plane, they would cry that its the best thing ever released.@ Geofa - problem is Geofa that many here ONLY have this sim to indulge in their fantasy of flying. Many don't have the luxury of piloting their private plane around in the real world like you. So many here do want everything turned on and expect to have everything turned on when they bought FSX so that they could have a great immersion factor. So stop beating your bloody drum of, turn this off and turn that off and this as well and hey what do you know, she flies good. Eric
October 24, 200619 yr Now we have something to agree about. If you have decided that fsx does not fulfill your need-why keep coming to this forum trying to convince others it will not fulfill theirs-some before they even have a look or don't even have it? Let them make up their own minds. My feeling is that many can't get past the eye candy to experience what this sim offers(which to me is ironic since many of these people complained that all this upgrade was was eye candy before it came out)-and if they can't even give the sim a look past that before making up their minds I think is a shame. If they give it a good look and decide it isn't for them that is fine-but to not look at all it has to offer and basing it only on one facet is denying a lot of enjoyment-and hopefully that is why we are here.By the way-i hate to be a stickler-but I am running fsx with active sky real weather downloads over lots of drop dead high res beautiful textures at a consitant 20-40 fps using my method. Does it do flight simmers a service to state that it can only be done over a brown texture with blue sky? Do you own it? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg Geofa WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE-the best Flight Sim!
Create an account or sign in to comment