FS2004 vs FS2002

[LAdamson 240]

>>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>FSXsnipped>--------------------------------------------------------------------->>Amen to that!I don't care about "dual core support"! I don't have it! :7

[Dillon 2,197]

"I'm only curious as to your reason(s) for doing so..."The short answer to that Bill is FSX could/should have been so much more than what it is after 3+ years in development (future hardware compatibility, features, etc). We shouldn't still be seeing all these performance problems in a 20+ year old series that's centered around the same theme. Especially now that technology is moving away form constant speed increases in raw CPU horse power. All the headache FSX brings for developers like you and everyone else with constant tweaks we have no advancement in ATC, AI technology, Float planes still land/takeoff on water arcade like, etc (I could go on and on). This goes beyond just performance problems as nothing much has changed outside of graphics that really matters to those trying to simulate flight in the real world. No holding patterns in bad weather, no AI separation, no scolding when flying faster than 250kts under 10,000ft. All we have is graphic updates. That's what ####### me off Bill. I'm sure others can name a number of other things that missed the boat in this release. If we wanted pretty pictures we all could open a book. The underlying meat of the sim has no real substance over FS9.Bill you amaze me with your logic concerning FSX because when I think of all the work you guys have to put into making your planes FSX compatible all the while being told before hand that backwards compatibility was at the forefront of Aces minds, the tolerance level is beyond belief. Each new release brought something that pushed the series that much farther along. No matter how you guys try to sell the graphic enhancements of FSX, it's still the FS2k2 engine at the core with enhancements here and there. There's no real leaps and bounds for all the work developers and simmers have to put in to make the thing work. Aces would have to redue the underlying engine to really impress folks at this stage. Some of you act like FSX is of the same leap graphically like of FS98 was to FS2000 when in reality the leap is more so on the level of FS5.1 to FS98. So outside of the performance headaches FSX gives nothing to the community that was most requested. Graphics was on the bottom of the list for most simmers including myself. We participated in surveys, talked extensively with Aces group members in these forums, and they even flew you guys to Redmond only to give us a graphics update (with a few other enhancements here and there). They even forgot about dawn/dusk lighting. Even with the patch FSX falls short of many expectations. I love the ability to fly into space, I love the new water, I even like the perceived new feel of flight FSX gives but outside of that it's far from what I expected overall. So any post on the subject I find little to be happy about when I was prepared to fully embrace this version a year ago. Hopefully the patch will give us better performance especially with Vista/DX10 but with everything me and my fellow simmers were hoping for with this release, FSX is a total 'DUD'... Even FS2000 was more exciting than this upon release.

[Guest Len]

FYI, I tried Tom's tweak above as it was new to me and it did nothing at all. My video card was not in the display.cfg so I added it but got no performance gains. I've also tried every other tweak from replacing all the textures to the FIBER_FRAME, etc.Same with me. Didn't help in the least.

[LAdamson 240]

>The underlying meat of the sim has no real>substance over FS9.>Oh B.S.----What's this, "if you want to fly pretty pictures garbage!"Go fly a real airplane for a while, get your hind end to other places besides huge crowded airports, then purchase FSX, and perhaps you'll find some excellent subtance in FSX, that is truely different from FS9.You constantly harp on what doesn't work in FSX, but fail to see what does work well, which is not surprising since you don't even own the program!Why do you waste paragraph after paragraph on a flippin $70 program, unless of course your total real world involves around a desktop flight simulation. Mine sure as #### doesn't! I'm not reduced to owning just one program that somehow is suppose to surpass all the rest! It just isn't going to happen!!! I have NO problem with owning both FSX & FS9! I can see immense differences!I come here to state the ways that a flight simulation can emulate the real world. If it takes a combination of FSX, FS9, and X-Plane, then so be it! I'm not stuck on one personalized scenario, and become blind to the rest! Obviously you are; as, according to you, were now we're reduced, as FSX users, to "pretty pictures"Hey, as you are a NONE FSX owner, please waste the diatribe somewhere else, as it's becoming the same old re-hash from a person who doesn't own, and seems to know little about the program, as well as learning little from his friends, who don't appear to own it either...And get off the bla-bla-bla dual core setup. I don't own one & don't plan too! L.Adamson

[Guest Len]

I don't need 30 fps for FS9 to run smoothly with PMDG 747, Ultimate Terrain, 80% traffic MyTraffic, addon on airports, etc. on the ground. Running with a maxed visual FS9 1600x1200, at a high density airport 15-20 fps gives a very smooth performance in FS9. So what I consider "pumped up" is an artificial variable. With FS9 I always gauged fluidity by reference to how much I can max everything out with a FPS intense addon like PMDG 747. As it happens I can pump up every variable and get fluidity both on the ground and of course in the air. So for me "pumped up" is defined by useability, flyability, and perception of realism. All of those factors create an excellent commercial flying experience in FS9.These variables are virtually non-exitent in FSX for commercial flying and that's with no addon airports and default planes.Got it now?

[LAdamson 240]

>These variables are virtually non-exitent in FSX for>commercial flying and that's with no addon airports and>default planes.>>Got it now?>So what...As we stand now, when I want to play airliner captain, I'll use FS9. I've already stated the fact. If I want a preferable GA experience to simulate my real life flights, then I'll use FSX!If a real life airliner pilot wants to come closer to duplicating their own real life flights, then FS9 seems to be the answer! Is this so hard, for so many to see?L.Adamson

[Dillon 2,197]

"Why do you waste paragraph after paragraph on a flippin $70 program, unless of course your total real world involves around a desktop flight simulation."Man you can't talk... Your in every forum in the FS universe touting FSX. It's more like your world revolves around FS versus mine. Since when do we need three sims to do what one has done since the start of the franchise. Now FSX has been released all of a sudden it's fashionable to have one sim for GA flying (FSX), switch to FS9 when you get close to a given city, and then switch to X-Plane for the landing in say KLGA for example. You can take that mess somewhere else, no one's buying it. Let's not get on real world flying because we both have experience there and what's that got to do with FSX anyway and the argument put forth by many here??? L.Adamson do I need to go into the FS9 forum here at Avsim and prove you've been in there posting crap about the pros of FSX? Do I need to pull up threads on Simflight with your name or Flightsim.com? I challenge you to find me in any of those places talking about FS. You tell me who has nothing better to do with his time, me or you??? ;-)

[LAdamson 240]

>You tell me who has nothing better>to do with his time, me or you??? ;-) I was setup to fiberglass wheel pant & fairing parts today...And now, look what has happened...The day is two thirds over, and heat has been wasted in the shop ...Flight Simulator & arguing about it = Big Waste of Time! :-hah

[Dillon 2,197]

"Flight Simulator & arguing about it = Big Waste of Time!"I agree but what's got me is your working on New Years day when most people are off. Either your trying to pull the wool over my eyes or I'm starting to really feel bad concerning your social life... I for one can't sim because my three year old son keeps popping in and out. I'll take my son any day over FS. :-) Oh, well might as well argue with you I guess (just joking)... ;-)

[Guest Len]

Flight Simulator & arguing about it = Big Waste of Time!Then why are you still here doing it?

[LAdamson 240]

>>Flight Simulator & arguing about it = Big Waste of>Time!>>Then why are you still here doing it?It's been a "sickness" since 1998. See, I'm here again!What's your excuse?

[LAdamson 240]

>I agree but what's got me is your working on New Years day>when most people are off. Either your trying to pull the wool>over my eyes or I'm starting to really feel bad concerning>your social life... Don't feel bad.I own the shop, and the parts are for my airplane. I'm technically taking the day off, too.

[Guest Len]

I don't have any excuse and never made any. You did. So I ask again: based on your professed wasting of time why are you still here, drivel and all.

[Guest Water Mango]

Bill Leaming Wrote this about Dillon:"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..."I guess you haven't been following your best friends post closly enough Bill... :-roll Dillon Wrote:"L.Adamson do I need to go into the FS9 forum here at Avsim and prove you've been in there posting crap about the pros of FSX?"Don't bother, here's a few examples straight from the FS9 Forum:Avsim's FS9 Thread titles to search for,"Tried FSX again but going back to FS9""FSX screenshots versus FS9.""Goodbye Kansas City Intl (OSS closes)""For those returning to FS9 from FSX""Why I still fly FS9"Flightsim.com's FS9 forum,"FSX--an opinion.""FSX vs FS9: Have we lost more than we've gained?""FS9 with addons vs FSX"The list actually goes on and on for L.Adamson on both Avsim and Flightsim.com's FS9 forums...When I get some time I'll search other sites but I challenge anyone to find Dillon posting with the same frequency on various forums as L.Adamson. I couldn't find one single thread where Dillon commented on FSX in Flightsim.com's FS9 forum. L.Adamson is clearly the bigger player and offender of the very thing he's complaining about Dillon doing especially here on Avsim (I should have searched the screenshot forum here). L.Adamson is in almost every FS9 vs FSX thread I could find here on Avsim.

[Guest Water Mango]

Again the point was made above, since when is it O.K. to switch to the older version of FS for certain aspects of flying (Commercial). FS has always served every purpose in one version. This is the point you can't seem to understand...