13 minutes ago, jpe828 said:

I wish they would make a modern Combat Flight Sim. That was fun. IL2 is pretty good as well, although I haven't spent anytime there with the release of MSFS.

I bought the Desert Wings addon for IL2 Cliffs of Dover and they did a nice job of the tropicalised variants of the various planes

But to be honest flying over the Tunisian desert is not all that exciting even when you are being shot at.

Edited November 3, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

2 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

And still 8 years later we're struggling to get decent performance out of this sim.

Are we? I was not aware of this. Evidently my computer did not get the memo either because it runs really well on that thing and it's not even an especially flashy PC either.

Edited November 3, 20205 yr by Chock

8 years later, the graphics look better, what a surprise. The video does not show though, that FSX 8 years ago was a sim, in which the stuff that was in and available at least worked as it should. 8 years later, people are happy with a beta product that looks fabolous but in which almost everything is bugged or limited working. Is that what we were looking for? At least not for me...

3 minutes ago, AnkH said:

The video does not show though, that FSX 8 years ago was a sim, in which the stuff that was in and available at least worked as it should. 8 years later, people are happy with a beta product that looks fabolous but in which almost everything is bugged or limited working. Is that what we were looking for? At least not for me...

By this criteria, since FSX has been available for 14 years, you'd have to similarly allow six years for MSFS to catch up in terms of available add-ons and patches in order to make this an equitable comparison.

Please guys, not another MSFS bashing forum! There are hundreds, if not thousands of posts knocking MSFS, Yes, we know,... ENOUGH already!!

The great advantage of Microsoft is that they have the resources to use Bing imagery. No other sim developer has that, so, it's no wonder sim technology has changed for the eye-candy better.

FSX, P3D & others are using what they can, probably the best at the time. 

22 minutes ago, Chock said:

Are we? I was not aware of this. Evidently my computer did not get the memo either because it runs really well on that thing and it's not even an especially flashy PC either.

people who are happy with the oh so smooth 30FPS probably aren't complaining. 😄

4 minutes ago, Chock said:

By this criteria, since FSX has been available for 14 years, you'd have to similarly allow six years for MSFS to catch up in terms of available add-ons and patches in order to make this an equitable comparison.

Why people insist on this wrong fact? FSX had its bugs at release, sure. But what was included, worked mostly. MSFS includes 10x more, but what for, if most of it is not working properly or is just included in a ultra basic variant? Same for this ridiculous 10y support and development rubbish: if 2-3y are basically wasted to get the current beta sim right, is it really an achievement? Not for me...

23 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Why people insist on this wrong fact? FSX had its bugs at release, sure. But what was included, worked mostly.

True, but this is not what I, nor this post is referring to. It quotes an eight-year difference; this places the copy of FSX in 2012, so that's not FSX upon release, which was six years prior to that, it's FSX after six years of third-party add-on availability, plus the inclusion of an expansion pack which added some capabilities, plus three major service patches to it, plus a complete reworking and recompilation from Dovetail to make it more stable, remove some bugs and the need for some tweaks and add some capability and compatibility with modern hardware.

Not forgetting that the SDK, and the familiarity with it for developers, was not so difficult since preceding versions of Flight Simulator used similar-enough architecture to means that add-ons from preceding versions either worked, or if not, could be made to work with some tweaking, not to mention this enabling TPDs to be familiar with the process over many preceding years, as opposed to this essentially being a completely new structure in the new MS sim, with perhaps not all, but certainly a good deal of previous TPD knowledge being redundant.

all of this is what you have to both consider, and compare, if you are talking about an eight-year difference in things, not FSX upon release. Thus if MSFS is still problematic in six years' time, then it will at that point be a valid argument in comparison to this particular copy of FSX.

Edited November 3, 20205 yr by Chock

23 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Why people insist on this wrong fact?

"but what for, if most of it is not working properly or is just included in a ultra basic variant"

Now, thats the wrong fact. But obviously, nothing is gonna change your mind so whats the point...

 

I suggest you come back here in 2-3 years and see where this "beta sim" is then. In the meantime....

43 minutes ago, AnkH said:

8 years later, the graphics look better, what a surprise. The video does not show though, that FSX 8 years ago was a sim, in which the stuff that was in and available at least worked as it should. 8 years later, people are happy with a beta product that looks fabolous but in which almost everything is bugged or limited working. Is that what we were looking for? At least not for me...

And whats your point? The videos are not comparing bugs from the 2 sims. Nor is it comparing what was available at launch.

 

FSX in 2012 I was flying my Level D 767, various Just Flight jetliners (and Traffic), CalClassics, plus numerous other aircraft cadged from various VA's that I hung around for a month or two. The *flight* simulation experience was first class. Scenery enhanced with FS Global and FScene looked pretty darn good for the purposes of getting from GL to FL320.

FS20 in 2020, well yes no one can fault the scenery oh aside from the nerfing that has gone on through the patches to date and the Tron like appearance at night, but it still can't offer the actual simulation of flight that FSX could in 2012 either in terms of variety of aircraft or technical excellence. I don't recall any A320 in FSX getting to altitude and suddenly start waggling its wings like crazy, from side to side.

2 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

flying over the Tunisian desert is not all that exciting

I guess that's deserts for you, especially if it's featureless miles of sand..

4 hours ago, ThomseN_inc said:

And still 8 years later we're struggling to get decent performance out of this sim. Some things never change...

nonsense, this runs surprisingly good, better than fsx or xplane.

1 hour ago, Elvensmith said:

but it still can't offer the actual simulation of flight that FSX could in 2012 

Beg you pardon ? 😄 Since when FSX ever delivered on "the actual simulation of flight". Everyone knows that FSX and P3D is basically like train sim, in the air. Planes are on rails, doesnt feel like flying at all. XPlane was (is?) the best for that aspect. 

1 hour ago, wim123 said:

nonsense, this runs surprisingly good, better than fsx or xplane.

The forums tell a different story if you look closer....