I've gone through the same trials and tribulations as Scott. Now, whenever I fire up FSX, one thought echoes through my mind: Man, I really miss those Looking Glass guys!!!!!I think those guys had the right ideas with flight sims, and if they were around today, we would surely be getting a next-gen sim. As wonderful as MSFS has been for us, having performance issues with a sim that is not all that dissimilar to previous versions leaves a lot of us scratching our heads. I love FS9 and I'm sure I'll come to love FSX in time. But I was hoping for more with this new sim. I was hoping that finally our hobby of flight sims would be taken into the next-gen arena with the likes of FPS and sports games on consoles. Sure, the obligatory "But no one models the entire world.. etc...etc...etc" does apply. But I had hoped we were ahead of that thinking. I thought the time for a next-gen flight sim was near. But with a bloated FSX and a confounding SP1, the next generation of a flight simulator seems 20 years away.Man, I really miss those Looking Glass guys.

>>And yet you seem content with FS-X blurries al over your>terrain (its vissible in your own screenshots). I'd rather>have consistent FS9 medium res scenery then put up FS-X high>res scenery with constant blurring issues.>A- Screenshots are highly reduced in pixel count.B- Scenery resolution fades to the distance; just like real life.FS9 -- more like low rezhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173572.jpgFSXhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173573.jpgFSXhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173574.jpgReal life fade to the distanthttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173576.jpg

>>Man, I really miss those Looking Glass guys.I don't. Looking Glass's Mt. Rainer had the texture of mush, compared to a fantastic looking Rainer in Microsoft's FS2000. The 2000 model of Rainer, was actually the most detailed of this whole series.And then there is the Looking Glass "anvil cumulous clouds".....yuk!Instead of contemplating visions of what the Looking FU series might look today; actually compare the series to how FS looks today. It looks rather out od date, for the most part.L.Adamson

If Scott had a really old computer or a newer computer that was low spec when it was sold [ but he hasn't ], it might well be worth buying a new top end machine for FSX but since FSX has performance issues even when run with the most expensive and best hardware, I for one would not go around advising people to buy new high end computers as a shotgun cure all solution to FSX performance issues. Best and Warm regardsAdrian Wainer

>If Scott had a really old computer or a newer computer that>was low spec when it was sold [ but he hasn't ], it might well>be worth buying a new top end machine for FSX but since FSX>has performance issues even when run with the most expensive>and best hardware, I for one would not go around advising>people to buy new high end computers as a shotgun cure all>solution to FSX performance issues. >>Best and Warm regards>Adrian Wainer Well, if a P4 3.47 Ghz cpu is a high end cpu, what would you call a Intel X6800 or a QX6700? And if a X850XT is high end, what would call a 8800 Ultra? You tell me.I admit that high end hardware is no garantie to get good performance in FSX. BIOS may be badly setup, the mobo may be a cheap solution, the of-the-shelf pc might be equipped with a too weak psu, your OS may be running background services that steal a lot of cpu cycles, your FSX settings may be too ambitious. There are a lot of causes why you may not get the good performance out of FSX, even with high end hardware.Ulf B :-)

I didn't state that Scott's computer was leading edge, but it is not a rubbish machine either and with that in mind, the advantages of going to a current top end machine are somewhat debateable, as we are agreed I think that even the latest, best and most expensive current hardware has limitations with respect to FSX and with that in mind a limited upgrade of his present machine e.g. the graphics card and then a wait for the next generation of hardware, might be Scott's best choice. Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

When I say I miss those Looking Glass guys, I am mainly talking about their ideas. Making a complete sim out of a particular area and then linking them together is a better way, imo, than making this huge, almost generic mass of a simulator. I think those guys had the right idea. MSFS has been greatly enhanced by 3rd party products that make flight simulator into the true to life simulator we crave. It just would have been nice to have a 1st party developer with this model still around.I am not saying that they had better talent. I had my performance issues with Flight Unlimited to numerous to mention here. But the idea of having a complete sim dedicated to an area is really the way a flight sim should be made. We have a sudo model of this with 3rd party developement in MSFS. But I miss those Looking Glass guys for their ideas and everything, however misguided or impractical, they stood for. And I am certain within myself that if they were still around today, we would have a sim worthy of critical debate and praise. I like everything that they tried to do and I wish that MS, or some other top developer would take the LG approach when designing a flight sim. We all could benefit from that.

Bubba04,Excellent idea. If that flight sim would model only the Scandinavian countries, I would immediately get it ;-)Ulf B

>terrain (its vissible in your own screenshots). "blurries" or no blurries - FS9 still looks much worse, in fact more 'blurried'.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

If your eyesight is still good the distant terrain shouldn't look blurry in real life. Of course it's different with a photo which is focused on a certain distance. The eye focuses aswell, depending where you're looking at, so when looking into the distance it should look sharp. Naturally you can't see the same amount of detail from something far away like as from a object nearby. But that's already given by the fixed resolution of the monitor that you're looking at. The Problematic thing is that the screen is 2d and doesn't know what you are looking at the moment, so just to blur the distance isn't really a solution, although it adds a cinematic (not the same as reality) effect of depth.regards,C.G.Off Topic: The second screenshot nicely demonstrates how bad the default textures can look in certain places. The FS9 textures are blurry and do resemble the real scenery very badly aswell, but somehow the scene notheless looks more realistic than fsx!

oktorn777,Blurry textures in the distance was a problem with FS9 as well. I remember the good advice to set visibility to 40 miles to make it less obvious.If FSX was built based on photoreal textures with 5m resolution without any autogen and only covered Hawaii and the virtual world was flat, I guess MS could have designed the graphics engine to produce crisp sharp textures as faar as you could see.I reinstalled FS9 the other day, just for fun. No add ons. And I must say that the default FSX is SO MUCH BETTER, flying over Europe, than the default FS9. FSX has changed that a lot and for me as an European. The additional geographical regions is a big improvement over FS9. Only my personal opinion.Ulf B :-)

Larry,If those FS-9 sceenshots are from the same machine you realy need to reinstal and re-apply the 9.1 patch. Its been a while since I saw such bad FS9 screenshots.

Just a few FS9 examples from the one area I can see the coordinates. Default FS9 with fsgenesis 76 mesh and freeware add-on water.Cockpitshot from FS9http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173583.jpgI like to fly in Springhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173584.jpgWider exteral viewhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173587.jpg

>Larry,>>If those FS-9 sceenshots are from the same machine you realy>need to reinstal and re-apply the 9.1 patch. Its been a while>since I saw such bad FS9 screenshots.This machine is nearly dedicated to FS9, FSX, and X-Plane. No need to re-install anything! :-hah This machine & FS9 with FlightScenery Portlandhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173585.jpgAnd FlightScenery Portland againhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173586.jpgBut just down the road, FS9 becomes more of it's normal default blurhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173588.jpgUntil it's stock FS9 with a few scenery enhancement addons.But still of low resolution, where stock FSX is a "whole lot sharper"!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173589.jpg

I do believe, that I still prefer mine...FSXhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173590.jpgFSXhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/173591.jpg