FSX is the future..

[Guest A346]

..I hate to admit.Just take a look at this:http://www.fscloud9.com/php/projects.php?lang=EN&id=180

[Guest unitedpilot36]

Looks good

[Guest firehawk44]

Yikes! Stunning! Doesn't the Cloud9 Team ever sleep? They seem to be way ahead of everyone else on scenery development for FSX. Can't wait until they release all the US airports....:-jumpy Best regards,Jim

[Guest SimDog]

Yes indeed, those pics look very nice. But, I've written it before and will again. FS pics without the FPS display turned On tells me nothing. A still image of a moving world leaves much untold.I will though, put that product on the watch list for a future purchase.Thanks,SD

[Geofa 108]

While I see your point I kinda feel the opposite. A still shot with a fps rate blazed across the top doesn't really tell me what I need to know.Does the flight "feel" right?-does it react and feel like a real airplane-does the air mass feel right-is the moving scenery immersive-when you flare at the landing does it feel right-are the instruments reacting like they should-are there things happening in real time that create the illusion of flight? In the past a lot of people raved about the smoothness-e.g. framerates of xplane. I bought it repeatedly-and yes it was very smooth-always about double of whatever version of fs was out. But I always left it quite quickly-because it didn't fulfill the above criteria for me. Yes it was impressive that I could get double the fps on it that I did on whatever msfs version I was using-and it was very smooth-but it just never summed up the total experience of flying for me-and I always went back to the less smooth fs which just gave a greater illusion of the real thing. Smoothness and fast frame rates just don't do it for me if the other areas are empty.Flying the Real Air 260 over the Megascenery Hawaii in real time in fsx-that is having it all now including good fps-and imho that is the future.:-) But I also find-if I leave the fps counter just off in fsx-it is rare that I notice a problem-but I sure notice all the improvements that create a greater immersion. Turn on the counter-and of course it is hard to ignore ...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest]

>>While I see your point I kinda feel the opposite. A still shot>with a fps rate blazed across the top doesn't really tell me>what I need to know.>>Does the flight "feel" right?-does it react and feel like a>real airplane-does the air mass feel right-is the moving>scenery immersive-when you flare at the landing does it feel>right-are the instruments reacting like they should-are there>things happening in real time that create the illusion of>flight? >>In the past a lot of people raved about the smoothness-e.g.>framerates of xplane. I bought it repeatedly-and yes it was>very smooth-always about double of whatever version of fs was>out. But I always left it quite quickly-because it didn't>fulfill the above criteria for me. Yes it was impressive that>I could get double the fps on it that I did on whatever msfs>version I was using-and it was very smooth-but it just never>summed up the total experience of flying for me-and I always>went back to the less smooth fs which just gave a greater>illusion of the real thing. Smoothness and fast frame rates>just don't do it for me if the other areas are empty.>>Flying the Real Air 260 over the Megascenery Hawaii in real>time in fsx-that is having it all now including good fps-and>imho that is the future.:-) But I also find-if I leave the fps>counter just off in fsx-it is rare that I notice a problem-but>I sure notice all the improvements that create a greater>immersion. Turn on the counter-and of course it is hard to>ignore ...>>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgno single digits is ever smooth, regardless of how one perceives smoothness. fact.

[Geofa 108]

I would agree-however I can't say I see single digits very often....These shots to me show the future:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=250000&page=I didn't put my fps counter on but like Manny on my 3 years old rig I get an average of 22.I don't know how it could be any better...:-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest]

the 2nd shot, FS9 looks better. The first, it is just a matter of texture resolution. Nothing more. 22? Interesting. To tell you the truth i can get 30! if i want to return to the days of fs4 and wire mesh for graphics. Thing is, this is stock. Now imagine what will happen when people try to run some complex stuff, like we have loaded fs9 at this point. Stock fs9 i easily get 200+fps.. but at it's current state, it runs at 30-40, which is pretty good i would say given the abuse it places on the system.

[Geofa 108]

Yes-but the 2nd shot was before the "patch" if you read Manny's post.On the matter of texture resolution-16x more resolution on fsx-I'd say that is pretty big. At 49 I am starting to loose my vision a little-but fs9 looks like without my glasses....I fly real airplanes-and I judge not by the fps counter but if it duplicates the real thing-in all respects.If you are stuck on 30-40fps-by all means stay with fs9-I'm going with the future and greater reality to the real thing. I've jumped ship many times in a search for the closest to reality between Pro Pilot, fuIII, Fly, and fs-and FSX is the closest for me now..As for complex stuff-I was flying the Dreamfleet Baron-knocked about 10 fps off of fs9 and does the same on fsx-still 22 is quite good I think.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

>Thing is, this is stock. Now imagine what will happen when>people try to run some complex stuff, like we have loaded fs9>at this point. Stock fs9 i easily get 200+fps.. but at it's>current state, it runs at 30-40, which is pretty good i would>say given the abuse it places on the system. We're not talking exactly stock. As was mentioned, it's the RealAir SF260 combined with Hawaii MegaScenery. I'm doing the axact same, and get a very smooth and stutter free 25 fps nearly all the time. The scenery has 25 times the clarity of FS9, and the Marchetti fly's better as well.What I'm getting out of this, is a much better visual representation of the earth below, than I've ever imagined possible in the past! And at the same time, I'm getting some of the best possible "feel" of flight yet!In numerous ways, FSX is very advanced over FS9; but in it's present form, it is NOT the "sim" for frame rate hogging advanced cockpits, AI traffic, & densly populated airports. And I'll freely admit to that! And I am keeping FS9 for that purpose.But at the same time, let's don't go down the path of pretending that FSX is just a low fps "bush flight" sim. IMO, it has the possiblities of being the best "scenic flight" sim yet! And yes, many people actually do like flying "scenic flights"! It's actually a big industry! And FSX can do it with 25 times the clarity & even better! You don't have to stay 5000' above photo-real Megascenery, as with FS9. As I've now experienced, photo-real scenery areas ARE the future! This type of scenery is believable, beautiful, a better sense of three dimensions, and above all, very interesting to fly over, and over again! This is the advantage of FSX, and quite a big advantage at that!L.Adamsonedited.... fix one spelling mistake, and probably still have others...

[Manny 1,293]

>the 2nd shot, FS9 looks better. The first, it is just a>matter of texture resolution. Nothing more. >>22? Interesting. To tell you the truth i can get 30! if i want>to return to the days of fs4 and wire mesh for graphics. >>Thing is, this is stock. Now imagine what will happen when>people try to run some complex stuff, like we have loaded fs9>at this point. Stock fs9 i easily get 200+fps.. but at it's>current state, it runs at 30-40, which is pretty good i would>say given the abuse it places on the system. I do not want to debate FS9 vs FSX. I fly both of them.Its the location that decides which one I fly.For St,Maateen and Hawaii (Maui), Its FSX. For So cal and Nor Cal and North West, Providence, Boston, Chicago, New York, its FS9.For Frankfurt, London, Hong Kong and Tokyo its FS9.Basically....its addons that decide which Sim I fly.Right now, FSX is limited. But this Megascenery FSX is something to behold. And there is no FPS cost to pay.The only thing remaining is ...the Runway and taxiway textures in FSX. If and when this gets fixed (or an SDK info on how to do custom textures in FSX), Fly Tampa and Flight scenery and Aerosoft would be on board and then, slowly FSX would see more utilization. Until then.. FS9 edges out FSX when it comes to utilization for me.Is FSX the future.. Nah!.. My bet is on FSXI ;)Manny

[LAdamson 240]

>On the matter of texture resolution-16x more resolution on>fsx-I'd say that is pretty big. At 49 I am starting to loose>my vision a little-but fs9 looks like without my glasses....>And the resolution is even better than that! 1 meter per pixel in FSX versus 4.8 meters in FS9. This is 23 times plus, and FSX is actually capable of much more than that, if the hard drives were big enough!I've heard that 7" per pixel is possible, while FS9 is around 14' at it's best.L.Adamson

[Guest]

>Yes-but the 2nd shot was before the "patch" if you read>Manny's post.>>On the matter of texture resolution-16x more resolution on>fsx-I'd say that is pretty big. At 49 I am starting to loose>my vision a little-but fs9 looks like without my glasses....>>I fly real airplanes-and I judge not by the fps counter but if>it duplicates the real thing-in all respects.>>If you are stuck on 30-40fps-by all means stay with fs9-I'm>going with the future and greater reality to the real thing. >>I've jumped ship many times in a search for the closest to>reality between Pro Pilot, fuIII, Fly, and fs-and FSX is the>closest for me now..>>As for complex stuff-I was flying the Dreamfleet Baron-knocked>about 10 fps off of fs9 and does the same on fsx-still 22 is>quite good I think.>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgI fly real steel too. Surprise, so do many people here.Does not change anything. I am not stuck at 40 (which is more than you will ever need in a sim anyway), but pulling into KLAX or Cloud9 schiphol with 100% traffic provided by ultimate traffic tends to twist things a bit. Regardless, stock FSX gives me 4.5-9fps, no traffic over some rural area. No thanks. I am not even going to bother explaining settings or computer specs because we have plenty of threads documenting the perfomance failure. I would understand if it were few people who had issues, but when you have long term simmers with state of the art computers getting abysmal performance on stock files, you have a problem. The future sometimes skips a generation. There are many people who speak of fluidity and "reality" but i chuckle.. where have i heard this before? FS2002? FS2000? FS2004? Not really. It is irrelevant. Because the moment you get into a slideshow, there is no reality, no fluidity, pauses do not matter, and so forth. You cannot judge how smooth something is if you have no FPS to deliver and sort of motion: perceived or real. For some reason I feel and i get the impression from you too, that the people who force themselves into praises do so for the sake of having the latest and greatest simulator - period. If i could get 22, or even 15, with any decent graphics i would have kept my copy too. If i have to castrate the sim down to playable levels (and i am very conservative here, just give me 15fps with no traffic!) then what is the point? Having the latest without actually enjoying it?

[Guest]

>>Thing is, this is stock. Now imagine what will happen when>>people try to run some complex stuff, like we have loaded>fs9>>at this point. Stock fs9 i easily get 200+fps.. but at it's>>current state, it runs at 30-40, which is pretty good i>would>>say given the abuse it places on the system. >>We're not talking exactly stock. As was mentioned, it's the>RealAir SF260 combined with Hawaii MegaScenery. I'm doing the>axact same, and get a very smooth and stutter free 25 fps>nearly all the time. The scenery has 25 times the clarity of>FS9, and the Marchetti fly's better as well.>>What I'm getting out of this, is a much better visual>representation of the earth below, than I've ever imagined>possible in the past! And at the same time, I'm getting some>of the best possible "feel" of flight yet!>>In numerous ways, FSX is very advanced over FS9; but in it's>present form, it is NOT the "sim" for frame rate hogging>advanced cockpits, AI traffic, & densly populated airports.>And I'll freely admit to that! And I am keeping FS9 for that>purpose.>>But at the same time, let's don't go down the path of>pretending that FSX is just a low fps "bush flight" sim. IMO,>it has the possiblities of being the best "scenic flight" sim>yet! And yes, many people actually do like flying "scenic>flights"! It's actually a big industry! >>And FSX can do it with 25 times the clarity & even better! You>don't have to stay 5000' above photo-real Megascenery, as with>FS9. As I've now experienced, photo-real scenery areas ARE the>future! This type of scenery is believable, beautiful, a>better sense of three dimensions, and above all, very>interesting to fly over, and over again! This is the advantage>of FSX, and quite a big advantage at that!>>L.Adamson>>edited.... fix one spelling mistake, and probably still have>others...You will get no argument from me about the texture benefits of one over the other. You will also not get an argument that FSX is geared towards bush flying (which is great in a chopper). What you will get an argument about is what most can see - it is the same old flawed engine we have been fighting for years, now made times worse because of all the new additions choking the old platform. No multithreads, no lightning, no proper 3d renders. And this is why powerhouse computers cannot run it. It is still relies on old technology of 4 years ago, where CPU speed was all there was. But now the actual speeds are dropping for the sake of more cores, bigger memory buffers and faster memory. FS has no clue what to do with those. If that isn't a concern to you in the least bit, i envy your passion i suppose.

[Guest Jimbofly]

Well it's good to know that all of us who like FSX are doing so just to have the latest flight sim.I get average 30fps on FSX and it still looks and feels far superiour to FS9. There's an incredible amount of documentation that explains why FSX is superiour in terms of flight modelling and immersion, but feel free to ignore all that if it makes you feel better. I won't lose any sleep.James