FSX in Top 100 games of 2006

[Geofa 108]

That is simply not true. I have used Active sky with fs9 and fsx-and there is a huge difference with or without it-including finally how the plane lands-a rather important part of the flight! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[DadJokeCinema 145]

It's always been my understanding, based on my own estimates, that a majority of people purchasing MS Flight Simulator don't use any sort of add-ons at all. It was certainly true for me up to the last two years or so. With that in mind, it is also my assumption that the dev team would use a base install FS9 as their point of reference for how much improved the new sim is. Of course, compared to that, things are much much better.Then you take into account manpower and time spent. Hundreds of teams or individuals working hard on specific projects since FS9 has been released have managed to put together a great lineup of add-on projects, that in the words of many here, look just as good as FSX.That one studio created something just as good if not better in the same amount of time as all those other projects and is able to provide it for around a tenth of the cost of all those other products, is pretty impressive, in my mind. Add in shared cockpit, SimConnect, a few new graphics features, and I think it even rises above impressive.So my compliments go to all parties, those who managed to take an older platform and make something even better out of it, and ACES for not only matching that level, but also adding in a few new tricks and opening the door for even greater levels of accomplishment.

[LAdamson 240]

>That is simply not true. I have used Active sky with fs9 and>fsx-and there is a huge difference with or without>it-including finally how the plane lands-a rather important>part of the flight! :-)>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgAnd Geof...How would you really know? :DJust because you've been flight simming since the beginning, owned about every flightsim in existance, plus beta tested many simulators and addons,and not to mention that you own a Beechcraft Baron twin after you sold that single engine Beech, and fly it regularly across the USA over & over.......Are you sure! :7 L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

Well I have to admit-I am at the age now where I realize I don't really know anything-as opposed to twenty years ago when I thought I knew everything..... :-lolhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Len]

I've posted a series of struggles with FSX going back to October of last year. You can max the works on FS9 including 80% + AI with MyTraffic max density clouds with PMDG 747, UT, etc. and have excellent framerates. As I've chronicled FSX (as others have stated with Duo core systems as well) has a split personality. I can fly ga aircraft bush flying and that's fine. But there's #### to pay for commercial flying without stripping FSX of that which makes it different - and that's with default aircraft. P4 3.6 Ghz HT 800 Mhz fsb, 2 gig ddr, ATI X800XT PCIe 256 mb card

[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. >>>>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, Michael>KDFW>Not anti FS9, just pro FSX!>>

Asus A8N32-SLI>Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[jpravain 0]

:-rollthicker skin

[LAdamson 240]

>I can fly ga aircraft bush flying and that's>fine. I always hear this term "bush flying" and FSX. I fly city to city from Denver to Los Angeles in FSX. This is NOT bush flying. Bush flying is all those nice gravel and grass strips in places like Idaho, etc. Idaho has excellent bush flying, I know, as I've been there many times. Come to think of it, I was born there. :)FSX works excellent with combination city/mountain scapes, where someone hasn't created a detailed add on. These are places that I prefer FSX. And I have Ultimate terrain and GE Pro for FS9. I use versions of FSGenesis in both. I know what I'm comparing to! I prefer mountainous regions (which is not bush flight), and I far prefer the new high res textures of FSX for the mountain appearence. For complex airliners and heavy AI, feel free to use FS9! For FlightScenery Portland and FlyTampa Seattle, by all means use FS9!FS9 won't do all that FSX does, and visa-versa. L.Adamson

[jpravain 0]

n/t

[Geofa 108]

I have to admit-I get tired of the "bush" flying mantra also. I have never flown "bush" in my life-in fact I fly 99% of the time ifr both in real life and on the sim.Do I avoid class "B" airports-yes-both in real life and on the sim-they take a long time to get thru ,are expensive (landing fees and fuel), and generally make life difficult for a GA driver. Last I looked there were in the US only 29 or so class "B" airports vs. many thousands of airports of other types-hardly a majority.So "Bush" flying-no-maybe "majority" flying would be more accurate.I seem to recall the last Aopa statistic was that in the US commercial airliners only make up 20% of the flights vs. 80% General Aviation.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Gate99 246]

>:-roll>>thicker skinSo your impliying that we should just put up with it?Regards,Mark

[Guest Len]

>>I can fly ga aircraft bush flying and that's>>fine. >>I always hear this term "bush flying" and FSX. I fly city to>city from Denver to Los Angeles in FSX. This is NOT bush>flying. Bush flying is all those nice gravel and grass strips>in places like Idaho, etc. Idaho has excellent bush flying, I>know, as I've been there many times. Come to think of it, I>was born there. :)>>FSX works excellent with combination city/mountain scapes,>where someone hasn't created a detailed add on. These are>places that I prefer FSX. And I have Ultimate terrain and GE>Pro for FS9. I use versions of FSGenesis in both. I know what>I'm comparing to! I prefer mountainous regions (which is not>bush flight), and I far prefer the new high res textures of>FSX for the mountain appearence. >>For complex airliners and heavy AI, feel free to use FS9! For>FlightScenery Portland and FlyTampa Seattle, by all means use>FS9!>>FS9 won't do all that FSX does, and visa-versa. >>L.AdamsonWhen I say "bush flying" I mean bush flying. Not GA flying from city to city. I like taking the DeHavilland Beaver out in the Alaskan wilderness or northern BC flying to different lakes.

[Guest abulaafia]

"FSX offers nothing in this department that Active Sky wasn't already providing in FS9 with it's Vertical Air Simulation (VAS)."point in case - most users don't recognize the advantages of the FSX flight model. maybe that's why MS had to add all the nonsense like animals and missions: because the real innovation is invisible :)

[GHarrall 494]

Hmmmm,Been simming myself since I was 13. Now 34 and am working towards a PPL out of Kingston, Ontario.I don't need the sanctimonius 'ageism' or 'I'm a real pilot so you know nothing' BS from you thanks.Just stick to trying to belittle everyone else who doesn't agree with your glowing reports of FSX, along with the threads that you have managed to hijack over in the FS9 forum despite your continued diatribe against the people who do the same thing over here in the FSX forum.If you guys were involved in Beta testing FSX then it explains a lot!Maybe you didn't have your spectacles on during the testing? It seems the only way you could have missed the terrible performance and multitude of bugs.See, I can do the ageism thing too.....it isnt smart. ;-)As for landing, I agree this seems better in FSX, however is this due to improved flight modelling or atmospheric condition modelling? L.Adamson maintains that FS9 'runs on rails'. With AS6.5, clearly it doesn't.

[GHarrall 494]

>"FSX offers nothing in this department that Active Sky wasn't>already providing in FS9 with it's Vertical Air Simulation>(VAS).">>point in case - most users don't recognize the advantages of>the FSX flight model. maybe that's why MS had to add all the>nonsense like animals and missions: because the real>innovation is invisible :)Makes no difference how real they make the flight model if it runs at 15FPS.