Sign in to follow this  
tf51d

FS2004 vs FS2002

Recommended Posts

Hehe, was searching for something totally unrelated and found this thread, please read through the responses (if your interested), sounds familiar doesn't it? I think you'll see, there's nothing extraordinarily different now with FSX having been released, like some of the old timers here have said, it was the same thing when FS9 was released. One things for sure, it's been interesting.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Ya it was refreshing to read that thread.But if there is/was a point to be made about all of this, is that FS has been plagued my spagetti code over the years.The program should be written to on mid to higher end PCs TODAY, not 3 years from now. By the time we all have systems that will run FSX decently, there will be the next version out that runs like crap and the whole cycle starts over again.It all comes down to the fact that it isn't that the computers today aren't fast enough to run it, it is that the programmers are just that bad and can't write optimized code. When there are actually good programmers working on it, then I am sure it will be fantastic.The whole thing about not putting multi core support in the game was just horrible, and I hope whoever made that kind of decision was fired since they obviously have no forsight. But see, even the programmers said dual core support would require a rewrite of the code, so even if we were all running quad cores right now the game would still be crappy since it will be only using one core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff I'm an old timer and FSX is a very different release than the versions before it. Yes you can find various threads were few had a problem but the overall shortcomings of FSX rival FS2000 if not more so. The advancement of underlying features is far less with FSX than it was with other releases. FS2000 brought a whole new world compared to FS98, FS2002 brought ATC and better weather, FS2k4 brought interactive VC's and more realistic weather, FSX brings nothing of real value outside of updated graphics (that do little more than bring the latest PC's to their knees). The community has become nothing but glorified beta testers trying to get the most out of FSX. Some of you are fine with tweaking instead of flying, the same can't be said for the rest of the community. Like the point made before this one, with each release people are getting sick of these glaring performance problems. FSX did nothing to improve this workload on simmers and in many cases made things worse. Simmers are like 'Screw It', "After 10 years of this mess we'll stick with the old and call it a day". FS9 ironically is a very satisfying version unlike FS98 was to FS2000. FSX is not worth the headache when there's a version like FS2k4 that precedes it.Jeff all FSX is remotely good for at this point is GA flying in the most remote areas (class G airspace). Every other version before FSX one could fly both airliners and GA aircraft. In FSX you can barely fly the default 737 into KLGA or KLAX without a slide show (furthermore FS9 looks better in places like NY versus how FSX depicts it). In versions before FSX you didn't have to turn off resident features that's been in previous versions in the series. In FSX autogen in most cases needs to get turned off plan and simple. Previous versions always had a problem concerning future hardware. FS2k4 for example took no advantage from HT Technology but just the same a fast PC ment there was hope. FSX on the other hand has run it's course before it's even been on the market three months. FSX only uses one processor. All new machines will be dual core. What this means is if a 2.6gig processor can't do it for FSX alone then anything in the future is #### out of luck. Computers will be running Dual or Quad 2.6gig processors while FSX will only be able to use one of them. All other versions were written and released along side new OS's (FSW95/Windows 95, FS98/Windows 98, FS2000/Windows ME/2000, FS2k2/FS2k4/Windows ME/XP, FSX/yet to be released Windows Vista/DX10). The funny thing now is Vista is rumored for slated release without DX10, the major piece that's promised to turn things around for FSX.Jeff no matter how much some of you try FSX is very different from all other releases of Flight Simulator. FSX now has FS2000 beat as far as the worst version of Flight Simulator released in the history of the franchise. The only hope here is to see what the proposed patch does before the final verdict is out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> FSX is not worth the headache when there's a>version like FS2k4 that precedes it.>>Jeff no matter how much some of you try FSX is very different>from all other releases of Flight Simulator. FSX now has>FS2000 beat as far as the worst versions of Flight Simulator>released in the history of the franchise. Opinions, opinions! :-hah This old timer thinks quite a bit of FSX! I'd even say it's the best yet,in numerous ways.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L.Adamson 'NO' dual core support in FSX is not an 'Opinion' it's a 'Truism'. Now if you can prove me wrong about Dual Core support and FSX I'm all ears. Show me how FSX fully utilizes Dual core hardware and I'll shut up. It's amazing how you have a talent for scouting out all FSX critical threads. I mean your in every forum spreading the gospel of FSX far and wide. How do you have the time to fly FSX to support your own argument??? Surely if you enjoyed FSX as much as you claim you couldn't possibly have the time to catch all these threads for rebuttals (From Simflight to Flightsim.com your like 'Old Faithful at Yellowstone'), you'd be too busy toying around in FSX. :-hmmm I hardly post because I'm too busy beta testing, developing, and enjoying FS9...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The advancement of underlying features is far less with FSX than it was with other releasesWith respect I disagree with that I've been hooked since the Sublogic days and this release really made my Jaw drop ( in a nice way:) I Enjoy not only GA flight but a nice EGPF/EGLL shuttle flight in the 737 landing at a packed EGLL with FPS around the 25/30 FPS mark.For IFR flight FSX has the following advantages for me at FL310,much less texture repetition, flying over water we have lost the Square texture problem, the horizon and view distance is a huge improvement so expansive and real looking at altitudeFSX does use the second core a little( wish it was more).The new default Jets are far more advanced( graphic wise) so perhaps the drop in FPS moving onto payware jets may be less than it was in FS9, hope so.This is my honest Opinion of FSX not posting to shout down you or any other flight sim fan, hopefully when The patch is released more FS addicts will enjoy what FSX can Offer.Happy New yearJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. >>It's amazing how you have a talent for scouting out all FSX>critical threads. I mean your in every forum spreading the>gospel of FSX far and wide. >I hardly post because I'm too busy beta testing, developing,>and enjoying FS9...Well, this is the FSX forum, and your name stands out like a sore thumb. As to beta testing, don't forget that I've done all that, including FS9. :)L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff:To say that there is nothing "extraordinarily" different about FSX is to be blind to the reality of the release.1. There is now a FS9 and an FSX forum. This has not been done in the history of this site. This was done because there are so many users who have either decided to stay with FS9 or have reverted back to FS9 that it was necessary to have a seperate place for FS9 posts. This is a first. Whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, the community is split at this time.2. Add-on Developers, for the first time, are supporting and developing products for BOTH FSX and FS9. Every single release of a new version of FS has seen development immediatly cease for the prior version and start for the newest verson, not so with FSX. When FS2004 was released, developers were not still working on FS2002 compatible products and so on and so on.3. Aces (read: Micrsoft) has acknowledged serious performance problems with FSX serious enough to require them to go back and work on a patch. Now, this is not a small ammendum like FS9.1 but full blown performance redevelopment that is necessary for FSX to be enjoyed as intended in the first place. This is a first.4. FSX is released at a time of flux and transition from DX9 and DX10. DX10 titles won't run on Windows XP or on current DX9 GPUs. FSX is moving toward a DX10 shift which REQUIRES an OS change from XP to Vista as well as a new GPU and in many cases a new motherboard and a new PSU. DX10 may well be required to get FSX running the way it was intended, this is a first.5. Multi-core. The CPU paradigm of simply upgrading your CPU to a faster processor to get better FS performance is no longer valid because instead of CPUs getting faster, they are multiplying. At this time, FS does not take advantage of muliple CPU cores nulifying the advantage of having them. Another first requires Aces to redevelop FS to support muli-core processors.6. FSX was touted as the Vista flagship game release from Micrsoft. I HAVE Vista, and I don't recommend that ANYONE run FSX on Vista right now. Could you imagine if FS2004 ran better on WindowsME than WindowsXP? And what will happen when FSX gets patched for DX10 and Vista? Obviously it will run better on Vista than on WindowsXP necessitating an OS change...this too is a first.The final chapter on FSX is still more than a year off and this too is a first. Similar systems run FSX totally differently. There are those will Dualcore systems extolling FSX while users with the same Dualcore system have shelved FSX. The tweaks posted here have worked wonders for some and done nothing for others. This too is a first.No, this release is not the same as all the rest. Right now, NO ONE knows what the magic bullet for FSX will be, not even Aces.If all you read into posts complaining about FSX is negativity then of course, it will seem that this is the same ole broken record. If you look at the big picture and give credence to those who have legitimate problems with FSX and even listen to the words of Aces themselves, you will see that the forest is much larger than one single tree.There are unique hurdles for FSX. Each hurdle is expensive AND time consuming for us as well as for Aces. Edit: Each release of FS has its hurdles, FSX just has many more than the other releases of FS. This is NOT an inditement of Aces or FSX just a statement of the facts that quite frankly can't be disputed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Dillon, I've been doing FS since FS4, I was either 10 or 12, but anyway, I've only been participating in these forums since 2003, so it's neat to see how history repeats itself, I still use both versions, don't worry I see faults in FSX, but like I said in another thread, I flew around with what I felt was a top of the line system when FS9 first came out, and I had the same performance issues as people are having now. Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's amazing how you have a talent for scouting out all FSX critical threads. I mean your in every forum spreading the gospel of FSX far and wide."It's also amazing how you have such a strong opinion about FSX and (correct me if I'm wrong) don't even own it. And you show up in just as many threads just to bash FSX and then call out the same people over and over and over again, sometimes when they haven't even posted in the thread yet. It is starting to get a little old dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Jeff I'm an old timer and FSX is a very different release>than the versions before it. Yes you can find various threads>were few had a problem but the overall shortcomings of FSX>rival FS2000 if not more so. The advancement of underlying>features is far less with FSX than it was with other releases.> FS2000 brought a whole new world compared to FS98, FS2002>brought ATC and better weather, FS2k4 brought interactive VC's>and more realistic weather, FSX brings nothing of real value>outside of updated graphics (that do little more than bring>the latest PC's to their knees). The community has become>nothing but glorified beta testers trying to get the most out>of FSX. Some of you are fine with tweaking instead of flying,>the same can't be said for the rest of the community. Like>the point made before this one, with each release people are>getting sick of these glaring performance problems. FSX did>nothing to improve this workload on simmers and in many cases>made things worse. Simmers are like 'Screw It', "After 10>years of this mess we'll stick with the old and call it a>day". FS9 ironically is a very satisfying version unlike FS98>was to FS2000. FSX is not worth the headache when there's a>version like FS2k4 that precedes it.>>Jeff all FSX is remotely good for at this point is GA flying>in the most remote areas (class G airspace). Every other>version before FSX one could fly both airliners and GA>aircraft. In FSX you can barely fly the default 737 into KLGA>or KLAX without a slide show (furthermore FS9 looks better in>places like NY versus how FSX depicts it). In versions before>FSX you didn't have to turn off resident features that's been>in previous versions in the series. In FSX autogen in most>cases needs to get turned off plan and simple. Previous>versions always had a problem concerning future hardware. >FS2k4 for example took no advantage from HT Technology but>just the same a fast PC ment there was hope. FSX on the other>hand has run it's course before it's even been on the market>three months. FSX only uses one processor. All new machines>will be dual core. What this means is if a 2.6gig processor>can't do it for FSX alone then anything in the future is ####>out of luck. Computers will be running Dual or Quad 2.6gig>processors while FSX will only be able to use one of them. >All other versions were written and released along side new>OS's (FSW95/Windows 95, FS98/Windows 98, FS2000/Windows>ME/2000, FS2k2/FS2k4/Windows ME/XP, FSX/yet to be released>Windows Vista/DX10). The funny thing now is Vista is rumored>for slated release without DX10, the major piece that's>promised to turn things around for FSX.>>Jeff no matter how much some of you try FSX is very different>from all other releases of Flight Simulator. FSX now has>FS2000 beat as far as the worst version of Flight Simulator>released in the history of the franchise. The only hope here>is to see what the proposed patch does before the final>verdict is out... Could not have said it better. By the way a thread like this (or more) has already been posted to repeatedly in the last few months. FSX is a different ball game entirely. Any of the contemporary technology with FS9 could easily handle it WITH frame grabbing addon planes, scenery, 100% traffic, etc. and FS9 sliders pumped full out. That's not the case with FSX and will not be for the forseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike! I agree that out of the box FSX has a serious performance issue, even after applying the published tweaks. However, others as well as myself seem to have resolved these issues on our systems. A common theme for those that now say their FSX installations are performing well, is that they either by choice or necessity reinstalled and applied the MS installation registry fix to it, had resolved their performance issues with it. For me, while I had to do the same since a program corrupted my activation key, I didn't notice a difference until I applied the TnL=2 line to my video card section in my display.cfg file. Since then though, in most areas I'm getting 30 to 40 FPs low level and 50+ high level. It does drop in some conditions, (Mostly heavy clouds) to high teens to 20's in major city areas like New York, but mostly get mid to upper 20's there. This is with scenery extremely dense, autogen dense and a rather large traffic file (Non default) at 100%. I still think there is going to be an issue though with more complex aircraft, such as PMDG and LDS. Judging by the CS-757, which got similar performance as the pmdg OR LDS aircraft in FS9. In FSX I see roughly halve the performance of other available aircraft in FSX, so I can only guess, it will be the same with the PMDG or LDS aircraft when released, unless they find a way to cut the resources, hopefully without losing too much of the detail they're noted for. While FSX is performing well now on my system, FS9 still is faster than it, with frames in the uper 50's to 60's in most situations with default aircraft, and 30-40 with complex aircraft. So if you exstrapulate that to FSX, PMDG or LDS type aircraft, would only get about 15 to 20 FPS and much lower in major city areas in FSX. Check the FSX vs FS2004 thread in the sreenshot forum, for examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I'd really like to hear more about this tweak, I remember trying to do this tweak before, but I couldn't seem to find my video card in the list. I have a pretty common card, nVidia 7600GT 256MB DDR3, would appreciate it if you could give me some further info. P.S. These people don't care if your getting good performance, they'd rather, well, you know.Thanks,Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Tom, I'd really like to hear more about this tweak, I>remember trying to do this tweak before, but I couldn't seem>to find my video card in the list. I have a pretty common>card, nVidia 7600GT 256MB DDR3, would appreciate it if you>could give me some further info. >>P.S. These people don't care if your getting good performance,>they'd rather, well, you know.>>Thanks,>JeffJeff! Go into your system information utility under Programs>accessories>system toolsUnder components click on display. You will find a line similar to thisPNP Device ID PCIVEN_1002&DEV_7240&SUBSYS_0D021002&REV_004&16020E22&0&0008The pertinent information is the PCIVEN and DEV section. The first is the vendor code for your card, the second is the Device code.Go into your display.cfg file in the FSX folder (Back it up first)and add an entry for your card below the generic entry for your vendor, in my case ATI, yours would be Nvidia. You will see different entries for different types of cards. If you don't see yours add one. Mine looks like this;----------------------------------------------------------------------; Radeon X1950 CrossFire Edition ; ;----------------------------------------------------------------------[00001002:00007240:ati2dvag.dll]TnL=2the last 4 digits of the first set of numbers (HEX) is the Ven # above, and the last 4 digits of the second set is the Device code. The dll is the driver for your card, in your case it will be the Nvidia driver. Note of the people that have reported a performance gain with this most have had a later model ATI card, so not sure how it will work for your Nvidia card. I did try it on my other system which has a Geforce 7800GT card, and did see a gain, but not as great as I did with the ATI card in my new system! So your mileage may vary!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joey I've tried the demo which more than covers the basics as to what one could expect with the full product. I have many friends who own FSX and have either shelved the sim or returned it. I also have friends who are hold outs for the patch. I've toyed around with FSX countless times.For the record, Geofa and L.Adamson are in way more threads than me touting FSX. 'Dude' you need to go visit Flightsim.com and Simflight's forums. I challenge you to find me in one thread in those forums mentioning anything pro or con FSX on the level that these guys do (go check their screenshot forums as well. I wish one was able to search by poster name). As far as Avsim is concerned there are way more people than me commenting on FSX on a daily and weekly bases. Look around this whole community first before you make blanketed statements. People like L.Adamson have me beat 10 fold concerning FSX. To turn this around correctly, L.Adamson praise is what's getting old. I respect the fact that he likes the sim but overlooking valid issues and shooting down every poster that raises valid points is another thing... That's why I mention these guys by name as their the only ones I see do this on a consistent bases. It's almost like these guys are damage control for Aces. I actually hope their efforts are compensated in some form outside of basic beta testing because their actually good at what they do... Anyone able to tell people to turn off key features like Autogen at this late stage of FS's evolution and actually get people to do it has the gift of gab far better than I ever could. I put that right up there with telling people to go back and using 2D clouds. The price of moving forward by going backwards is a hard sell but these guys are more than capable of doing it. They'd give a used car salesman a run for his money.Joey 'Dude', I wish you could do a head count as to who has more praise post versus my con posts. I'd bet you'd see L.Adamson has me beat hands down 10 times over... :-roll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"FS9 vs FSX" is completely different to "FS8 vs FS9". The community reaction has been completely different. There were tons of new files when FS2000, FS2002 and FS2004 were released.You can always find messages dating back 5 or six years with similar arguments. It doesn't mean that the current situation is comparable :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Joey I've tried the demo which more than covers the basics as>to what one could expect with the full product. I have many>friends who own FSX and have either shelved the sim or>returned it. I also have friends who are hold outs for the>patch. I've toyed around with FSX countless times.snipped> Anyone>able to tell people to turn off key features like Autogen at>this late stage of FS's evolution and actually get people to>do it has the gift of gab far better than I ever could. I put>that right up there with telling people to go back and using>2D clouds. The price of moving forward by going backwards is>a hard sell but these guys are more than capable of doing it. >They'd give a used car salesman a run for his money.>And another famous display of low level auto-gen in FS9 versus FSX without those cartoon houses. It doesn't look like reverting back to 2D clouds to me! :D And I should also mention that this aircraft in the FSX shot, fly's with even more refinements in FSX, than was possible in FS9. Of course, someone just "toying with the demo", wouldn't really know -- would they?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/164353.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/164354.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>For the record, Geofa and L.Adamson are in way more threads>than me touting FSX. In the year of 1998, Geoff Applegate & I, both "touted" the strong points of "Pro-Pilot" over Microsoft's FS98.Afterall, it had a real topography data-base, more realistic startup procedures, and a much better "feel" and control of flight! Of course, as Geoff & I fly real aircraft, and we DO know what the feel should be. In 1999, Pro-Pilot released the look of real clouds, while MS continued with shaded blocks.In '98/99 , We were both known as anti-Microsoft, and as Pro-Pilot shills.:) Back then, even the famous "four letter word" could often be seen in heated debates! Happily, along comes FS2000 with real topography, an excellent data-base of airports & navigation, and a big improvement in flight dynamics. At this time, Microsoft's CFS2 had some of the best flight dynamics possible in any sim, and CFS2 is still some of the best.And now we're in 2006/2007 with a new sim that's upped the feel of flight, uses much improved resolution, has the ability of improved flight dynamics, especially with addons created with FSX in mind, and yes, we're going to "spread the word" so to speak! We are aware that FSX won't fit all scenarios; but as more than casual demo users, we're also aware that FSX is capable of much, that FS9 is not. Simple as that.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's ugly in here I can't imagine what its like to work at Aces right now. A lot of people who work on games aren't really all that invested in the outcome of their work because they don't really enjoy the type of game they're making or whatever. A job is a job sometimes. I've worked on a few that I had no passion for because, well, we all need a paycheque. However, I doubt that's the case for most of the Aces crew. Flight sims are a very difficult niche product to develop, so to work on one and remain sane it pretty much has to be something you enjoy. I suspect morale there is a tad low currently, given the bashing FSX has received since day one. I'm not deriding anyone for giving it a good thrashing, fair enough, it's buggy and slow, just saying I've been there and its less than fun when your audience starts throwing tomatoes. ;)Franchise games, even ones much simpler than FSX, will always be hindered by legacy code for two reasons, cost and domino effect. It's prohibitively time consuming and expensive to rewrite everything from the ground up and in something like FS it's nearly impossible to do and still keep the retail cost at what we expect. Doing so means you have a lot of expensive artists and sound engineers twiddling their thumbs for a long time until they have something functional to build content for. As well, when you start changing even seemingly small things in the graphics engine late in development you'd be amazed at what gets broken 'down the line'.In my ten years of game art development I've had several cases occur where I literally had to throw out *months* of work and redo it simply because the programmers had hit a roadblock in their design philosophy and needed to rewrite something important. This usually resulted in me grabbing my coat and heading to the nearest pub. :)Not long ago when I worked on the NBA Live franchise at EA we had some AI code in there that dated from 1994, which when discovered gave us a good laugh and a bit of a chill. That tells you how willing programmers are to rewrite something that isn't broken just because there might be a more efficient way to do it. It's just the way game development is, hate it or not. Unfortunately for Aces, they've hit a real barrier this time, one that cannot be avoided. They're all too aware by now that they made some fundamental design errors (dual core, fixed function graphics pipeline etc), and now that rewrite the franchise been lucky enough to avoid for so long is finally gnawing at them. The performance patch they've mentioned isn't going to be easy by any means, let alone what they're up against for DX10. Unfortunately it was released before it was ready, which is the hallmark of a publicly traded company. The bottom line is what matters to shareholders, the shareholders are what matters to management, and the product is nearly always shipped before it's complete. We and the developer are left to pick up the pieces and try to make the best of them.FSX runs like a dog, but looking past all the problems with it, it is a pretty good dog overall. I'm not going to sing its praises or bash its problems, it's been done to death, but having walked in their shoes I'm willing to cut Aces some slack and see if they can pull a rabbit out. Stranger things have happened.Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>Could not have said it better. By the way a thread like this>(or more) has already been posted to repeatedly in the last>few months. FSX is a different ball game entirely. Any of the>contemporary technology with FS9 could easily handle it WITH>frame grabbing addon planes, scenery, 100% traffic, etc. and>FS9 sliders pumped full out. That's not the case with FSX and>will not be for the forseeable future.>In reality, FS9 still won't keep pumped up frame rates with full everything & frame rate hogging addon planes. It's pure B.S. and we all know it! This fact is always brought up on FS9 forums too. I find it interesting, that FS9 "always" seems to work at high fps with all sliders and all addons ----------- only on the FSX forum! :-lol I don't find it too difficult to drag my normally 35-70 fps edition of FS9 into the mid 20's or perhaps lower with a lot of scenery additions, complicated aircraft, AI, water effects & autogen, all going at the same time. And I'm certainly not alone! :)And yes, after all these months of FSX, I still prefer it overall, over brand "9". :-hah L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Joey I've tried the demo which more than covers the basics as>to what one could expect with the full product. I have many>friends who own FSX and have either shelved the sim or>returned it. I also have friends who are hold outs for the>patch. I've toyed around with FSX countless times.All of which gives me cause to wonder about your underlying motivation to continue posting in the FSX forum, Dillon. Do you have a "Messiah complex" that drives you to sound the "trumpet of doom and gloom?"It's rather telling that there are no such counterparts posting daily in the FS9 forum(s) of any website, who're attempting to sow the seeds of dissension and persuade folks to abandon FS9 in favor of FSX...Note carefully that I'm in no way suggesting that you've no "right" to be negative, much less that you've no "right" to post what you wish - where you wish. I'm only curious as to your reason(s) for doing so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, you put the words right out my mouth.I still remember that I was pretty disappointed with the FS9 release. During the course of the FS9 lifecycle, I continually upgraded my machine and went through 3 CPU generations, 3 GPUs and from 256MB to 1GB to finally got some really nice fps that allow me to fly precisely and enjoy the experience. Before the FSX release, I was finally able to max out my FS9 sliders and, of course, I wanted to achieve the same result in FSX. Sure enough, I was greeted by 5fps. By gradually reducing my sliders on the recommendations by nVidia, I have found now the optimal compromise between performance and quality.Yes, Aces has not followed up with the latest developments of multi-core CPUs, which have become mainstream and also the timing with the non-release of Vista/DX10 has been unfortunate.Some people are perfectly content and still run FS2002 on Windows 98. Some others like to be on the bleeding egde and are not satisfied until everything is "maxed out".Technology moves ahead and I will be the first in line on Jan 30th to get my final copy of Vista. I know I will re-partition my hard-drive the same day and my copy of WinXP will rest in peace on the pile of Win95, Win98, WinME and Win2000 CDs.Naturally, people will always compare the most current releases with previous releases, but in the case of FS it really is not an easy task, because there are a tenfold of variables involved: If you compare FS9 to FSX "out-of-the-box", then the clear winner is FSX on modern hardware. If you have previously ran a stock FS9 on 4yo hardware, then the experience may be a completely different one. If you compare a highly add-on'ed FS9 to FSX then the comparision is even more difficult. To me, FSX is FS9 + UT + GEPro + FSGenesis + Active Camera + hundreds of more detailed airports (about a $400 value in FS9 addons, if you calculate maybe $2-3 per semi-detailed airport) and that alone justifies my purchase.Additionally, the number of add-ons have truly exploded in FS9. We have never seen so many excellent and highly-detailed add-ons like for FS9. Personally, I have invested more than $1000 in add-ons and I am certainly having a hard time to let go of a PMDG or Level-D, but I also know that new versions are on the horizon and, again, I will be the first in line to purchase them. Flight simming is a never-ending money pit, but it's a hobby, which cannot be compared to any other computer 'game'. Other people spend $10k building their own ultra-light or spend $40k climbing Mt. Everest. My hobby (although not my only one) is flight simming and from time to time renting a real plane and zipping across the countryside.To say that nothing has changed in FSX compared to FS9 seems to be a little ignorant. Yes, most of the changes are graphical gimmicks and enhancements, but all of those enhancements still add greatly to the realism and immersion factor while flying. You should also not forget that FSX came with a complete new SDK, which will allow the developers to create even more complex and exciting add-ons. Vastly improved multiplayer, wet runways, improved flight dynamics, improved AI traffic, greatly improved "stock" planes, fly-by-wire, just to name a few.It has always been a fine line between the purists who value excellent flight dynamics and are perfectly content to fly in a low-polygon, monochrome environment and the realist junkies who want to feel immersed in the flight simulator experience with moving gates, environmental effects, AI traffic and photo-realistic scenery.Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!I don't believe we were in too much of agreement a week or two ago. :)But I generally agree with this one, except one small item. As I beta-tested FS9, I had some more time with it, and had gained a preference for FS9 by the time of it's release. It actually performed better than FS2002 did, fps wise.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>P.S. These people don't care if your getting good performance,>they'd rather, well, you know.>>Thanks,>JeffThat's the one thing that I find a little hard to take. Many of the people proclaiming that "no matter what, new hardware can't run FSX" don't have new hardware, so how do they know? From what I've seen, many folks who do have new hardware seem to be getting reasonable performance by their own feedback. I just placed an order for a Core 2 Extreme x6800 with a 8800GTX, so I'll know soon enough if I'm wasting my money and buying into hype. I think we all know what the positives and negatives are of FSX, but this isn't a zero sum game. You can acknowledge the negatives without turning it into a religious war, and you can simultaneously enjoy the sim for the positive aspects while acknowledging the limitations. It's not all good and it's not all bad, and it's still just a game that costs less than $75USD. That's still 45 minutes of flight time in a real Skyhawk. If you want 100% reality with unlimited fps, go to your local airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this