YES ALREADY!PLEASE.......

YEShttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

>>Now, go check out Xplane 8.5 -- if you have a Mac Pro with 4GB>or more memory with X1900XT and a 30" LCD you'll be amazed ->jaw dropping compared to FSX and very nice frame rates!!>I've run X-Plane for years, and am now using X-Plane 8.50 with the global scenery. My main interest in flight simming, are areas with mountain topography.While X-Plane looks great in some areas of the globe, FSX can certainly look incredible too. I have dropped no jaws in comparison to FSX. The scenic portions of FSX that I'm referring too, run at a nice stableized and smooth 25 fps, which does the job nicely.All around, I still prefer FSX over X-Plane, even though X-Plane has some good topography mesh for the areas that the global scenery covers. BTW, global scenery does not change seasons, nor cover upper areas of the globe such as Alaska.L.Adamson

YES...(Times ten to the exponent of ninety-nine);-)

>Unfortunately FSX would run at 1-2 fps at that resolution>(even with everything turned down) so it's just not possible>to make FSX look that good. X-Plane 8.50 has a very flyable>fps at those resolutions.>>I would ask that you don't mis-quote me. Please show where I>said "switch to X-Plane"? I didn't -- in fact I wouldn't want>everyone to switch as that would eliminate competition. What>I said, is "try X-Plane". Is there harm in trying? The demo>is free, not a functional as the real thing, but still free.>>Just as nVidia/ATI competition has produced some of the most>impressive graphics hardware, so does competition in the>flight sim market.>>I also didn't realize that we're limited to posting only once>about any particular "content". A quick search on a specific>topic and I can see many folks posting multiple times -- so>why are you singling out my post? Because I have one other>Xplane related post that contained more specific details on>why Xplane is worth a trying.>>Your FSX bias is showing, tuck it in.>>Rob.I'm not going to engage in any debate on this issue, but I want to clarify my point for you. The two posts, made one right after the other, were pretty much the same. The first one went into more detail, but they both read very much as advertisements for X-Plane.Now, this thread is supposed to be about voting on whether or not ACES should work on a new graphics engine for FSX or FS11. Although it has sunk into debate about DX10 and autogen, it still pertains to the performance of FSX, in the FSX subforum of the Microsoft Flight Simulator section. A comparison to the performance of X-Plane, and how the engines compare would be one thing, and you do make some of those points in the first post, but unsolicited purchasing advice on Mac Pro upgrades and links to scenery converters doesn't really fit into the theme of the thread. Anyways, all of that is besides the point. You wanted to tell people that if they are fed up with FSX, then they should try X-Plane. That's fine. If it's one post then, you know, who cares about what I said up there. But the second post was just pure advertisement. That's what I commented on. After the first post, the second one was unnecessary, and I just pointed it out.I'm sorry you think that I am biased. If it makes you feel better, I thought the six minutes I spent with the X-Plane demo were fantastic.

I agree. As much as FSX performance annoys me at the moment, Rob's X-plane bait and switch was quite obvious, and obviously not on topic.Gary

Gary/Brian,Two posts on X-plane hardly makes it a "bait and switch" nor an advertising campaign. Most people have no clue what X-Plane is or that it even exists, providing them with an alternative hardly constitutes off topic, especially when the topic is to essentially VOTE FSX off the Island in favor of a new "do it right this time" FS11.It seems pretty clear most are NOT terribly happy with FSX peformance based on the response to this thread. Your FSX bias is obvious because you consider two x-plane post an advertisment -- I can guarantee you that two posts in AVSIM is not an effective ad (100 posts wouldn't be). If that were my goal, I can think of much more effective methods.My goal is not to eliminate FSX nor X-Plane, it is to show folks that their is an alternative which is free for everyone to explore as it is going to be a long wait before we see and FSX DX10 and even longer for FS11 (if we do at all).Rob.

YES, if they're able to do something for the physics engine in the same time.NO, if it means that all we're gonna get in the next version is better graphics but still things like basic hammerhead turn or forward slipping don't work.I think the physics "engine" is the area with the most problems in MSFS. You know, the "flight simulation" part... not the "scenery viewer" part.Tero

>Gary/Brian,>>Two posts on X-plane hardly makes it a "bait and switch" nor>an advertising campaign. Most people have no clue what>X-Plane is or that it even exists, providing them with an>alternative hardly constitutes off topic, especially when the>topic is to essentially VOTE FSX off the Island in favor of a>new "do it right this time" FS11.>>It seems pretty clear most are NOT terribly happy with FSX>peformance based on the response to this thread. >>Your FSX bias is obvious because you consider two x-plane post>an advertisment -- I can guarantee you that two posts in AVSIM>is not an effective ad (100 posts wouldn't be). If that were>my goal, I can think of much more effective methods.>>My goal is not to eliminate FSX nor X-Plane, it is to show>folks that their is an alternative which is free for everyone>to explore as it is going to be a long wait before we see and>FSX DX10 and even longer for FS11 (if we do at all).>>Rob.>Just shut up about x-plane already. We are all simmers, we all know about x-plane, and there's a reason there are different forums for each piece of software... Spew your x-plane advertisements elsewhere please.

No.Rob.

>NO, if it means that all we're gonna get in the next version>is better graphics but still things like basic hammerhead turn>or forward slipping don't work.>Forwards slips have worked to a degree in quite a few versions of the default MSFS. Precision forward slips and hammerheads have been taken care of by third parties who specialize in that part of the flight envelope. FSX is requiring some re-programming on the part of 3rd party addons.Point is, it hasn't been "impossible" with the existing physics engine.>I think the physics "engine" is the area with the most>problems in MSFS. You know, the "flight simulation" part...>not the "scenery viewer" part.>IMO, the scenery viewer part, needs to remain at least 50/50 with the "flight" part. Scenery viewing is actually a "big" reason of being in the air, unless one is interested in transportation only.L.Adamson

>>Two posts on X-plane hardly makes it a "bait and switch" nor>an advertising campaign. Most people have no clue what>X-Plane is or that it even exists, providing them with an>alternative hardly constitutes off topic, especially when the>topic is to essentially VOTE FSX off the Island in favor of a>new "do it right this time" FS11.>>It seems pretty clear most are NOT terribly happy with FSX>peformance based on the response to this thread. >>Your FSX bias is obvious because you consider two x-plane post>an advertisment -- I can guarantee you that two posts in AVSIM>is not an effective ad (100 posts wouldn't be). If that were>my goal, I can think of much more effective methods.>>My goal is not to eliminate FSX nor X-Plane, it is to show>folks that their is an alternative which is free for everyone>to explore as it is going to be a long wait before we see and>FSX DX10 and even longer for FS11 (if we do at all).>Being around here all these years, I've seen many jump over to X-Plane, and then back. Lot's of certified pilots too! And I can think of several here who favor FSX.As I've said, I do like X-Plane to a degree, but it does not keep my interest as FSX or FS9 does. It's still very primitive in many ways, mostly due to the lack of third party development, and the ever changing programming from Austin himself.L.Adamson

Hi L. Adamson.I disagree respectfully.I don't think it should be the burden of addon developers to fool the FS flightsim engine in ways that only the developers know, to be able to accomplish the most basic maneuvers with a small airplane. I think these things should work without a hitch in an out-of-the-box install of FSX. But they don't, which is disappointing to say the least. Another 3 years, and they didn't even care to make these right :(.WRT sceneries. I think: finish the physics engine first, and then think about the goodies for the eye. If the physics are not right, then all FS is, is an arcade computer game with true-to-life scenerial layouts.rgds,Tero

>Hi L. Adamson.>>I disagree respectfully.>>I don't think it should be the burden of addon developers to>fool the FS flightsim engine in ways that only the developers>know, to be able to accomplish the most basic maneuvers with a>small airplane. I think these things should work without a>hitch in an out-of-the-box install of FSX. But they don't,>which is disappointing to say the least. Another 3 years, and>they didn't even care to make these right :(.>>WRT sceneries. I think: finish the physics engine first, and>then think about the goodies for the eye. If the physics are>not right, then all FS is, is an arcade computer game with>true-to-life scenerial layouts.>To start with, these third party developers, who have spent years perfecting specific phases of the flight envelope, such as slips & spins, have been invited to participate in the beta process of each new simulation. And they do.The particular "slip & spin" 3rd party designer has succeeded in creating a product that exceeds any other flight sim to date. Much better than X-Plane BTW, which always touts it's physics engine as the best out there. Yet it's been trampled by MSFS addons in many parts of the flight envelope for years.I've been using MSFS for a simulation that's exceeded an arcade game for a long time, in both physics and scenery. I see no reason to compare it to an aracade computer game, as it does rather well out of the box in getting from point A to B. Actually, FSX is even more impressive out of the box, in regards to simulating a moving and changing airmass. As to all of us who want certain flight physics, we usually know where to get them. An out of the box simulator will never fit all occassions, or never be finished. L.Adamson

Hi Tero,Do you think the average Joe Simmer cares about this stuff? That is the target FS market, in the past, present, and future. Goodies for the eye are for everyone, the physics engine is not.Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/