FSX in Top 100 games of 2006

[remilton 66]

FSX does look good in that shot. The problem from my perspective is that photo-real scenery is static 2D pictures that only look good from altitude. Auto-gen while being a bit cartoonish as some remark, is a dynamic 3D environment that provides relief from a flat and uninteresting view at or near the ground.The most interesting parts of a flight from a pilots point of view is the takeoff and landing which is were auto-gen really is most useful in providing a surrounding with dimensionality.Hopefully, with the help from the Aces performance patch and near future hardware improvements, we will have the headroom to be able to enhance FSX into a clear winner over FS9. Currently it is not as FS9 with after-market enhancement is clearly still superior in some respects with FPS to spare.Ron

[Guest Len]

>>>It's a good seller with poor performance. It doesn't matter>that it gets a 2.6 rating people will by it because it's the>thing to do. I've bought every single version since the>Sublogic days. This is the poorest version and deserves the>rating it has. Didn't stop me from buying it. If I didn't>you'd cry and squak that I was dissing it without even trying>it. Well I've more than "tried it" and it stinks performance>wise. Oops, sorry I hurt your feelings.<<>>Why would you hurt my feelings Len? I was just asking a>question. You seem to be very serious about spending a lot of>time on the forums creating negative posts on FSX, I tend to>think that one would suffice. Right now FS9 and FSX live>happily side by side on my HD, and I use them both, FS9 a>little more right now, because there are more addons. I don't>care if someone prefers one sim over the other, but can't you>see that it's hard for simmers to help eachother when they>have to navigate through hundreds of useless threads about how>much someone hates FSX,. Also, your defensive posture and>patronizing comments have been noted, so I will not reply to>you in the future, but please do your fellow simmers a favor>and think next time before you post if your post is a useless>bash or has it something to contribute to the FSX forum,>that's all I ask. Also, if this topic (FSX vs FS9) has become>an overwhelming source of frustration for you, then I suggest>you ignore these posts, it may save you some frustration.>>JeffThis is my fourth year on this site. If I believe something negative should be said, I'll say it. Maybe next time ACES or whoever else wants to get into the flight sim game will do a better job. Moreover, is all your seeking on such sites feel good posts? I'll bash when it's justified and praise when that's justified. I would recommend the same advice you gave me. If you don't like the negative posts then ignore them. If they are a source of frustration to you then move on. But for you to suggest that all this site is, is one big love-in for FSX or FS9, or whatever other version, then that is false and to be rejected.

[Guest LSflyguy]

>>This is my fourth year on this site. If I believe something>negative should be said, I'll say it. Maybe next time ACES or>whoever else wants to get into the flight sim game will do a>better job. Moreover, is all your seeking on such sites feel>good posts? I'll bash when it's justified and praise when>that's justified. I would recommend the same advice you gave>me. If you don't like the negative posts then ignore them. If>they are a source of frustration to you then move on. But for>you to suggest that all this site is, is one big love-in for>FSX or FS9, or whatever other version, then that is false and>to be rejected.>Personally I don't care how many years you've used FS, or how many years you've been on this site. The fact is, you (and others) are simply trolling the FSX forum to spam the rest of us with your useless and often inaccurate negativity. Even with its flaws, I'm getting very satisfactory performance from FSX on two-year-old hardware and I'm enjoying it immensely. In fact, FSX is BY FAR the best bargain I've ever purchased in more than twenty years as a flight simmer. I'd have paid many times more if I'd purchased FSX's many new features as add-ons -- and it's not even possible to do that. If you're so unhappy with FSX, how about heading over to another forum and blessing the people there with your sunny outlook on life? Honestly, you (and your ilk) are adding nothing of value to the discussion in this forum and the relentless negativity has gotten to be very old. It's time for the moderators to start policing the discussion in this forum or you're going to start losing the participants who want a CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue about FSX.

[Guest Len]

Personally I don't care how many years you've used FS, or how many years you've been on this site. The fact is, you (and others) are simply trolling the FSX forum to spam the rest of us with your useless and often inaccurate negativity.'Trolling'? Is that your favourite little comeback? Your inaccurate and false impressions about the nature of FSX may be equally problematic. But of course any negativity is deemed to be 'trolling' in your fantasy land of what's good and appropriate posting. Quite frankly, since the standard of what is considered a 'troll' has been lowered to whatever standard you've chosen, let me suggest that you are equally a troll by trying to silence negativity concerning the biggest flop in the fs series (maybe 2000 as well). You will try to spam away any attempt to cast FSX in a negative light.If you're so unhappy with FSX, how about heading over to another forum and blessing the people there with your sunny outlook on life? Honestly, you (and your ilk) are adding nothing of value to the discussion in this forum and the relentless negativity has gotten to be very old.It's time for the moderators to start policing the discussion in this forum or you're going to start losing the participants who want a CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue about FSX.Maybe you should create a site where everyone will make you feel oh so peachy happy about the latest iincarnation because it seems that any negativity spins your world out of control. I also paid for this product. I pay, I speak. Unless you're volunteering to foot the bill you can keep your fragile personality to yourself and let the opinions of the consumer stand for what they are: A poor implementation.

[AWACS 12]

>>I also paid for this product. I pay<

[Guest Len]

>>>I also paid for this product. I pay<<>>Just out of curiosity, why didn't you take it back and get>your money back?>>JeffGet my money back for a product I broke the seal and used? Don't think so. But I've purchased a lot of things and said nasty things about them never returning them. It's my prerogative and keeps others honest. Consumer Reports is just a nice way of dissing a product without using it. I prefer the use option then I can speak freely about it's negative characteristics.Your self-imposed moratorium on me ended pretty quickly didn't it? lol!

[AWACS 12]

>>Your self-imposed moratorium on me ended pretty quickly didn't it? lol!<

[Guest Len]

>>>Your self-imposed moratorium on me ended pretty quickly>didn't it? lol!<<>>Well, if someone is going to be rude, then I'd rather not>respond to that person, if the person I'm talking to is civil>and keeps the conversation impersonal then I'm fine. Besides,>I'm geuinely interested in trying to understand what exactly>is happening here with this whole FS9 vs FSX debate.>>JeffFair enough.

[LAdamson 240]

> I prefer the>use option then I can speak freely about it's negative>characteristics.>Then let's talk about FSX's positives. I'm attempting to have a positive attitude regarding simming & simmers, from now on. Let's see how long it lasts. :-)1- An improved perception of flight.2- Improved turbulence and up/down drafts.3- Much improved resolution that's around 16 times that of FS9. Can even be higher than that.4- Vastly improved default virtual cockpits that are not an embarrassment to a first time user.5- The RealAir SF260 does it's spin/slip routine even better in FSX.6- MegaScenery for FSX shows just what higher resolution is capable of. You no longer have to fly thousands of feet above for clarity.7- Default weather looks better, and has less of a frame rate hit. Default weather with real weather can look rather stunning, right out of the box. No weather addons required.8- Simulated three dimentional cockpit movement is standard. Does not require an addon, and is much like RealView that was incorportated into RealAir's FS9 models. Subtle, but nice effect.9- Default city scapes much improved! For all those times you're flying away from addon sceneries. Mountain textures are improved too, as well as high resolution ground textures. 10- bump mapping which adds to the look a wing/fusalage structure, and improved panel resolution.More for later :)L.Adamson

[Guest abulaafia]

I have used FSX for three months now, and I am very happy with it. It performs well on my machine. But obviously something went wrong with this release, even if you filter out all the whiners and those who simply don't like change or wish to protect their FS9 add-on investments. My analysis is this, based on the previous post: Many of the features of FSX were already available to many people buy using add-ons. Textures, high-res mesh, virtual cockpits, great weather by ActiveSky, etc. It seems that with the exception of a) a better flight model and :( light bloomthere is nothing in FSX that wasn't somehow available already, to a degree that satisfied most users. Now as for flight model: it is the most important innovation of FSX, but I wager that most users don't even know what it is, means, or feels like, or if they don't couldn't care less. And as for light bloom: most turn it off because its a FPS hit (strangly on my machine it only reduces fps by 2-3?) . Which leaves us with ... nothing? It seems that the success of FS9 add-on development, its flexibility and openness ultimately cannibalized FSX, hence the lag in adoption. And here's a tidbit: the absolute best indicator of a product success is not sales figures, as some have rightly pointed out, but availability on the street markets of Asia where illegal copies are being sold. Strolling through the software "market" of Hong Kong yesterday, I found plenty of games, but only 1 "vendor" of FSX. I first thought maybe the protection mechanism of FSX somehow prevents them from copying it. But when I asked some why they didn't sell it, they said: "It don't run, nobody want." I find all this very curious because I am very happy with (my legal copy) of FSX. At least its forward looking: it has features I can't use yet - think of DirectX 10 and what it will bring. So what if it is ahead of the hardware performance-wise. Bring it on I say. Our hobby can only get better!

[LAdamson 240]

>Now as for flight>model: it is the most important innovation of FSX, but I wager>that most users don't even know what it is, means, or feels>like, or if they don't couldn't care less.I've had that figured for months now. It's especially noticeable when the term "improved air mass" is considered as a joke by some. However, since I am a pilot, use to fly aerobatic routines in a Pitt's, and prefer fast kit plane/experimental aircraft these days; and am NOT heavily in to airliners.....Then that must be it! :D , I prefer FSX 'cause it's more like my preferred flying! :-hah And it's at that point, that no one can convince me otherwise.L.Adamson

[tf51d 284]

Len, Can you quantify what performance you are seeing in FSX! What are your system specs! I'll give you FS9 does perform better than FSX, but on today's high end systems FSX does perform decent in 99% of the time. In most areas, I get upper 20's to 30's, close to ground, and 40's+ at altitude. The lowest I get is about 15-18 and that is around NYC, DFW and Tokyo with 100% UT traffic file (Modified with WOAI and EvolveAI aircraft.) real weather Dense Autogen and extremely dense Scenery. While FS9 I can get about 27FPS in the same conditions. While FS9 is faster on my current system which is a E6700 2GB ATI X1950XTX. It certainly usable , and if faster than FS9 was at JFK in my old P4 3.8Ghz. (11-12FPS). For that I get clearer textures, the Shader 2 water, better weather depiction (Note the FS9 and FSX JFK shots were taken with real weather at the same time!), and all the other features Larry noted. In general much greater detail than FS9, even with UTUSA and GE. Here is a few examplesFS9 JFKhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166874.jpgFSX JFKhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166875.jpgFSX Seattlehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166876.jpgFSX Las Vegashttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166877.jpg

[1mikel151 71]

>Personally I don't care how many years you've used FS, or how>many years you've been on this site. The fact is, you (and>others) are simply trolling the FSX forum to spam the rest of>us with your useless and often inaccurate negativity. >>Even with its flaws, I'm getting very satisfactory performance>from FSX on two-year-old hardware and I'm enjoying it>immensely. In fact, FSX is BY FAR the best bargain I've ever>purchased in more than twenty years as a flight simmer. I'd>have paid many times more if I'd purchased FSX's many new>features as add-ons -- and it's not even possible to do that. >>>If you're so unhappy with FSX, how about heading over to>another forum and blessing the people there with your sunny>outlook on life? Honestly, you (and your ilk) are adding>nothing of value to the discussion in this forum and the>relentless negativity has gotten to be very old. >>It's time for the moderators to start policing the discussion>in this forum or you're going to start losing the participants>who want a CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue about FSX. >>Thank you and well said! I spend less time here now because of angry little people like this that do nothing but complain about this sim and the people that find a way to enjoy it. I am still exploring the sim and it's features and when I have a question, I usually search other forums first. Same goes for great moments in the sim, no point posting about those as these little people will just twist it to fit their agenda!I truly appreciate posts from Geofa, Brian G, LAdamson, Manny, Jeff and others that are being positive and constructive even though we all have issues with the sim.Regards, MichaelKDFWNot anti FS9, just pro FSX!

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[Guest garyw2005]

You know you are right. I did that today and the frame rates dropped to below 20 for most of my flight from KMYR to KMEM. I see what you mean now. Thanks for the advice.Gary

[GHarrall 494]

"I've had that figured for months now. It's especially noticeable when the term "improved air mass" is considered as a joke by some. However, since I am a pilot, use to fly aerobatic routines in a Pitt's, and prefer fast kit plane/experimental aircraft these days; and am NOT heavily in to airliners....."Not a joke, just a lost point on those of us who decided to purchase AS6 for weather effects, including the 'improved airmass' that you constantly talk about. FSX offers nothing in this department that Active Sky wasn't already providing in FS9 with it's Vertical Air Simulation (VAS).FSX looks pretty, no question. But at 15-18 FPS, I'll stick with FS9+UT+GE+AS6.5 at 30FPS thanks.