SimHQ FSX review...

[Dillon 2,197]

I must say after reading the SimHQ review I was impressed at the depth and scope of it. Things like dusk lighting wasn't mentioned as problems but most everything else was covered. A trend I've been seeing when comparing FS9 to FSX is people tend to take screenshots of FS9 with lower than normal resolution and sparse autogen to name a few. Yes I have to agree FSX default looks better than FS9 default without add-ons but come on, be fare in the comparisons. What I saw in SimHQ's review was flat out ridicules. If this guy can run FSX he surely can do better with his FS9 settings. Not only did he take comparison shots of FS9 with low settings but I'm finding traces of Flight1's 'USA Roads' scattered around with sparse autogen. You can't compare FSX to that... An unbiased representation would have FSX pint up to FS9 with full detail (minus any add-ons). When FS9 was release a top of the line computer at the time could run it with all options maxed out. Show a maxed out FS9 up against FSX not a toned down version to subtly build on the fact FSX looks so much better..That's the only problem I had with that review. FS9 default maxed out still looks good and in no way would it take anything away from the superior looking FSX version. The logic behind doing otherwise escapes me. Put both sims equally head to head, don't handicap one to build up the other...

[Guest cwojackson]

I had a "top of the line" computer and graphics card when FS9 was released and I couldn't run it with all sliders maxed out. It took a lot of time, tweaking, compromise and even a future hardware upgrade to get close to maxing out all the sliders.

[LAdamson 240]

>I had a "top of the line" computer and graphics card when FS9>was released and I couldn't run it with all sliders maxed out.>It took a lot of time, tweaking, compromise and even a future>hardware upgrade to get close to maxing out all the sliders.Exactly! Just how many had a computer capable of maxxing out FS9 two years ago? The way I figure it, a totally maxxed out FSX running with reasonable frame rates, would make FS9 look like an ancient relic. But, as with FS9 at it's release, we just can't get those perfect frame rates with maxxed out sliders.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>Show a maxed out FS9 up against FSX not a toned down version>to subtly build on the fact FSX looks so much better..>To be blunt, in too many instances, my maxxed out FS9 still doesn't hold up to the look I'm getting with FSX and a few sliders on the lower end. If it did, I wouldn't bother with FSX. FS9 just isn't capable of displaying the finer resolution textures of FSX, and it shows!edit: I also run FSX with settings that provide a near constant 25 fps for fluid, stutterless, smoothness. The effect is very much like real flight. Too many times, when firing up FS9 for comparisons, I now feel like I'm trading down, instead of the opposite.L.Adamson

[Guest SoarPics]

When FS9 was release a top of the line computer at the time could run it with all options maxed out.Not the way I remember it. When FS9 was released it could bring any hardware to it's knees. It still can (depending upon add-ons, of course).The difference between then and now is that with FS9 we could foresee hardware coming down the pike to enhance the sim. Now all we have to look forward to is dual core and quad core and SLI, etc., none of which FSX can take advantage of. The burning question is will ACES be able to release a patch that will.Greg

[BeachAV8R 9]

Dillon - Thanks for the comments. I wrote the review (except Part IV) and I can assure you that my FS9 comparative screenshots were taken at the exact same resolution and anti-aliasing settings (1280 x 1024 & 4xFSAA) with all of the FS9 sliders to the right and ALL features turned on (on which I'm able to get blazing fast FPS of course). Autogen was on maximum. Prior to doing the review I had USA Roads installed, but unchecked that in the add-on scenery tab to make sure it didn't load..so it shouldn't. I will go back and double-check that and assure that the scenery is the same..but I can assure you that I tried to put "stock" FS9 at maximum scenery detail for the comparison. I definitely wanted to compare both products out-of-the box to each other and there was no bias at all. I'll go back right now and check out my setting and have some screens posted here within a half-hour. :) I'm all about integrity and don't want there to be any doubt that I wasn't "crippling" FS9..Regards..Chris "BeachAV8R" Frishmuth

[BeachAV8R 9]

Alright..went back into FS9 and I'm getting the same thing as is reported in my review. I'll go ahead and ask for some help on this though to make sure I'm reporting the correct facts..could someone else please take some screenshots of their default FS9 installation scenery, at maximum settings, at these 3 locations: Courchevel - France, Aspen - Colorado, and Ambri - Switzerland...I'm curious to see if your default FS9 scenery shows the same as mine (?)... Here are the shots I took a few minutes ago:FS9 Courchevel, France - http://www.mudspike.com/images/FS901.jpgFS9 Aspen (!), Colorado - http://www.mudspike.com/images/FS902.jpgFS9 Ambri, Switzerland - http://www.mudspike.com/images/FS903.jpgI'm trying to compare stock FS9 to stock FSX though..no terrain, scenery or meshes. If my comparison shots in Part V of my review are incorrect, I will correct them...but I need some verification.. Heck...I dunno how to make those pics into URLs..I didn't want to post full images here...Regards..Chris "BeachAV8R" Frishmuth

[Guest SoarPics]

Heck...I dunno how to make those pics into URLs..I didn't want to post full images here...It's alright, Chris, I'm sure the mods will let it stay while you verify the shots.Wish I could help but my FS9 terrain ain't stock. Also, please verify whether you want Sedona or Vail (you requested Sedona, but the label on the second pic indicates Vail).Cheers,Greg

[BeachAV8R 9]

Sorry..Aspen (!)..sorry..mixed up Vail and Aspen..the shots are from Aspen, CO... :) Still trying to figure out this darn code here..doesn't seem to dig HTML or UBB or anything else...gonna be switching to "wingding" code here in a second.. ;)Regards..Chris

[Dillon 2,197]

Thanks Chris for getting back. It seems most of the posters here would rather dissect pieces of my statement versus getting the whole point.I too wish I could help here but my FS9 installation is far from stock. In some of your comparison shots in the review 'USA Roads' was diffidently active. Autogen was far from max because of it (the pics looked more like FS2000 versus FS2004). Here's an example:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161728.jpgLooking at your pics above I'm seeing FS9 with zero haze. FS9 default (or otherwise) looks terrible with no haze. Add some haze to both sims, fix the autogen, and then compare the two. You need to do something to get the correct amount of autogen to show up. We all can get some Microsoft promotional shots of FS9 in the city to compare as those shots looked just as good as the actual sim did on my system when I first bought it.Here's a default pic of FS2k2, it's almost identical to your supposedly default pics of FS9 (minus the sky texture which could be easily edited). It's amazing how FS9 looks so much like FS2k2 in your examples above (don't get me wrong I'm not alluding to deception here just pointing out how with enough effort anyone could make FS9 look terrible. Same goes for FSX, I've seen some terrible shots in these forums):http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161739.jpg

[BeachAV8R 9]

>I too wish I could help here but my FS9 installation is far>from stock. In some of your comparison shots in the review>'USA Roads' was diffidently active. Autogen was far from max>because of it (the pics looked more like FS2000 versus>FS2004). You are perfectly correct on that Dillon! Good catch. I think what I did was I unchecked all of the add-on scenery databases that I had installed in FS9 but FORGOT that you have to exit then re-start to re-index the scenery! BUT..the good news is..I went back and re-examined all the shot comparisons and only 1 needs to be changed..the one you pointed out (the Atlanta screen). On the other comparative shots the autogen scenery still isn't generated because they are rural areas (Aspen & Sedona) and the other ones lie outside of the USA Roads database (I also checked those to make sure they hadn't changed as well though just in case!). So I'll ship this new image to the editor and have it replace the other FS9 Atlanta shot.http://www.mudspike.com/images/ATLFIX.jpgThe other screen though..I can assure your..aren't dumbed down to make FSX look better than FS9. Really the only thing I was pointing out there is that the terrain mesh and resolution of the terrain is much tighter (finer?) in FSX than default FS9. The best examples are the Ambri and Courchevel shots where you can see the data points for the scenery elevations are vastly improved over FS9. No doubt that FS9 + add-on scenery meshes and packages can meet or even exceed FSX..but for an apples-to-apples comparison I was trying to compare stock to stock (except for my botched inclusion of USA Roads in those couple pics...)...Thanks for pointing that out and I truly do appreciate constructive criticism...it helps get things right and I'm all for that. Regards...Chris "BeachAV8R" Frishmuth

[Dillon 2,197]

It would be nice if you added some haze in those pics for both FS9 and FSX and reposted those shots in the SimHQ review. Then we'll have a more accurate comparison between the two sims when reading through the review. The shot above still looks terrible as no one really flies in an environment like that. Haze is a big part of the FS9 experience that's why Microsoft's promotional pics always included it (heck even the Aces blessed FSX pics have haze). Both sims look terrible without it...

[BeachAV8R 9]

>Looking at your pics above I'm seeing FS9 with zero haze. FS9>default (or otherwise) looks terrible with no haze. Add some>haze to both sims, fix the autogen, and then compare the two. While I appreciate your thoughts on it..the screens are pretty much accurate..I didn't dork around with cloud layers and stuff...and most of the comparative shots are taken with clear skies..so you can compare ugly to ugly if you'd like.>You need to do something to get the correct amount of autogen>to show up. We all can get some Microsoft promotional shots>of FS9 in the city to compare as those shots looked just as>good as the actual sim did on my system when I first bought>it.Knock yourself out..my review isn't the end-all be-all of simulation reviews. I could just have easily (well..it wasn't easy let me assure you) thrown together a review of FSX vs. FS9 w/ Active Sky 6, Active Cam, and a bunch of terrain add-ons. That wasn't my intent.>Here's a default pic of FS2k2, it's almost no different from>your supposedly default pics of FS9 (minus the sky texture>which could be easily edited). It's amazing how FS9 looks so>much like FS2k2 in your examples above (don't get me wrong I'm>not alluding to deception here just pointing out how with>enough effort anyone could make FS9 look terrible. Same goes>for FSX, I've seen some terrible shots in these forums):Well..you started out cool..but using words like "supposedly" and "deception" sure do make it sound like you are pointing a finger. I'd suggest you go back and read the whole review again and if you find areas you disagree with, feel free to write one yourself. I'll be sure to look for the one page of the 50 pages it takes to pick out some details I'm not crazy about.. ;)Meanwhile I guess I need to go back to my review and make sure I edit in the correct FS2000 images in the right places... BeachAV8R

[Guest FxF3]

FS9 looks ok maxed out FSX looks better much better with almost the same settings on meduim high.Me thanks you have lost it Dillion big time. To say somebody like the reviewer who has had his site for more years then I can remember is trying to mislead people with an FSX review.It must be people have not seen a plain old FS9 in so long they really dont even remember what it looks like.

[Dillon 2,197]

"Well..you started out cool..but using words like "supposedly" and "deception"Sorry if what I said came across harsh but some of those shots above do look like something out of FS8 versus FS9. Like I said above no one (even Aces) ever flies the sim like that. My only point was to get you to depict both sims in a way as to what most users would get (or are getting). You actually have to turn settings down to get the kind of visibility on the ground pictured above. "I didn't dork around with cloud layers and stuff"You don't have to, the default settings take care of that for you. It takes little or no effort to add something remotely resembling an atmosphere in the sim (you even have default weather schemes which is one or two clicks away). It's rare in this day and age you get visibility like what your pics show in the review. From users using the sim or real world flying, you'll always have haze to deal with to some degree or shall I say smog depending on the location (ironically Atlanta is a great example). "my review isn't the end-all be-all of simulation reviews"I'm happy to say your review is one of the best around at the moment. I actually don't think anyone will top it per say in all the key areas you covered. :-)