For the longest time I have been hesitant to make this post, but....

[Paul J 349]

>photo real textures look more like the real world view from an airplane >until you get down to 500 agl or soThat's the key: the last 500 feet. Re the attachment below - they might not be lit due to the MS methods of turning on city lights, Larry - but the buildings at SLC, in this shot here are hardly "cartoonish".On an approach - even using TrackIR - there's not a lot of time to focus on individual buildings, but I personally need to see them. It's one of Vauchez's principles as he designs an approach. I may not see (or want) fancy waves, or lots of road vehicles, but looking at a totally flat, blurry 2d picture just before a threshold is completely unrealistic, and it's why I dropped MegaScenery SOCAL: The most intense and pleasurable parts of flying are the two bits ya gotta do - land and take-off. http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=vie...&file_id=174154Ultimately it depends upon your hardware: if you don't have the horses, you get blurries or stutters: and from what I've read over the last eight months - it seems (to me, at any rate) the majority of those two complaints come from folks running AMD and nVidia systems. And for gosh sakes - please - don't start a b***** flame war over that statement. It's my own opinion and nobody here will prove/disprove it or change my mind: I was AMD all the way, 'till the Conroe hit us, and even ATI has it's issues.Another edit: I use full autogen.

[CanadaOne 36]

I'm enjoying FSX very much. I'm about to go for a fly right after this note.For those who dis the FSX experience because "it's not living up to expectations", all I know is that I've had FS9 for years and only since last week when I got a new rig was I able to max out FS9 in every situation with lots of add-ons installed. For me it took a E6700DC with a 640 meg 8800 series video card to get fluid FPS in all situations. (That means JFK with full custom AI traffic, NYC in the background at 1280x1024 with 16XAF and 8XAF. GE Pro + FE + UT + yada-yada-yada.) The hardware I'm using to get FS9 to run at top shelf (it looks stunning!) wasn't even in anyone's imagination when FS9 was released. I'm certain two years from now we'll be seeing extraordinary advances in hardware that we have not foreseen and FSX will follow right along just as FS9 did.The point is if it took me this long to get FS9 in hand, how on Earth can anyone realistically expect a program as complicated as FSX do jump through hoops in so much less time. For now, I'm enjoying wonderful bush flights with lots and lots of trees. I don't care how cartoonish they look - more trees!

[Paul J 349]

heheheh! Good on yer, C1! Once you develop a slightly different mindset you find new challenges: the helicopters were never very realistic in 9: they are much more so in 10: VFR is just fantastic: I've abandoned hope for the Dreamfleet 727 and now Eaglesoft's Citation has come along for IFR/regional flight: the weather is SO much better, and since UT_USA came out - WOW! - the whole thing is coming together. Just like when FS9 came out - it's only available with better hardware.

[Guest djt01]

"Sure it might look a bit different from the FS stuff but the X-Plane World is buzzing with new developments and add-ons. Just look at the x-plane.org site."It is amazing how far X-Plane has come along

[Murmur 3,941]

>It is amazing how far X-Plane has come along

[Geofa 108]

....or that fly's like any real plane I've flown(along with rw instruments-is there a manifold pressure/fuel flow gauge yet?). I've bought several versions of xplane but despite all the hype on flight models never recognized one that I've flown (and I designed a Beech Debonair and scenery for it that was quite popular for the time).With that being said-I am a flight sim junky and haven't taken a look at xplane for about a year and will take another look-thanks for the link above (e.g. a probable buy...again).But I'm pretty much with Larry on past experience(he has only been a flight simmer since the beginning of time and built his own aircraft-but seems some hold these credentials as not worthy for some reason that eludes at least me)--but I'll keep an open mind.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Murmur 3,941]

Re-reading my last post, just to be sure it's not misunderstood, I was not mockering Larry: I was actually expressing my own opinion on X-Plane FM as well. :)Marco

[LAdamson 240]

I do have X-Plane 8.60 for the global scenery since topography's my main interest. But I still don't think too much of the flight models. Still lacking in a sense of inertia, dampening, weight to power, and a few other things. I must compare them against the RealAir SF260 or the Spit. They just don't measure up! :)Note: Used 8.5xx before version 8.60BTW-- the global scenery can be very good; as it's on seven DVDs.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>Re-reading my last post, just to be sure it's not>misunderstood, I was not mockering Larry: I was actually>expressing my own opinion on X-Plane FM as well. :)>I know that... :)

[Geofa 108]

Ok-glad to hear that. I at least respect Larry's opinion greatly....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest kingairvols]

John,and Geofa:Thanks, I may have forgotten to mention that I have the FSG Mesh and Landclass for FSX. I also just realized the SP1 which translate into the fact I have been keeping my head in the sand and simming in FS9.I will attempt to get thinks up to speed and be a bit progressive. I also need to mention that from a Hardware point I use the www.flypfc.com, Cirrus II set up which has also led to a bit of a delay in getting up to speed.I am glad I posted here in FSX forum and appreciate the imput you guys provided. Take it easy.Mark. Thank you.Mark.System:OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM Radeon X1600 Pro 512MB running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB running a NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel

[Vuong 0]

Hi,Can you encourage us by attaching a few sample screenshots.Best regardsJimmy

[LAdamson 240]

>>Can you encourage us by attaching a few sample screenshots.>A quick comment on screenshots, as it's something that I really noticed yesterday.I've seen it many times , and read it in reviews from others. Thanks to FSX's high resolution graphics, terrain such as the sloping foothills at the base of mountains, or just gently rolling terrain in city/country settings have a real look of 3-D depth as you pass over, that you just don't get from FS9. However, when you take a static screenshot, with no movement, you loose that sense of depth. In others words, FSX offers something that screenshots just won't portray. And IMO, this illusion is one of the items I like about FSX best.L.Adamson