..and I am running fine on a 4 year old system that I will be replacing soon-only cause after 4 years my wife understands! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

PPSFA What are your frame rates on an ILS 22 KLGA,in the rain with PMDG 747?

I can't tell you because I have heard that plane is a frame rate killer so I dont have it installed. What I can tell you is that I just made that exact flight the other day in multiplayer from KPBI in a 737 and although I don't normally check FPS anymore, I did on that flight to compare to what the guy I was flying with was seeing.My FPS stayed pretty much pegged at 30 for the entire trip ( FL 310 with lots of real time weather), until I turned inbound for 22. At that time it dropped to between 22-25, but still smooth as silk until touchdown. This was in external view zoomed all the way out. In cockpit view it stayed at 30.Edit: OOPS, my bad. It wasn't KLGA it was KJFK

Jim-Point well taken though I wouldn't know.However I know a couple Rw 747 pilots-one who is trying to take a demotion to a lesser aircraft-that considers punching an autopilot/fmc at 200 ft. per company rules and not hand flying not flying-he has to go do simulator work every month just to stay current-he says he wants to "fly" again and wants a demotion to a lesser aircraft.I mention that not to diminish the fine PMDG aircraft add on-but to point out that that is not necessarily the litmus test for a fine flight Sim-at least for some?!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

I installed and was playing LOMAC last night with all the graphics turned up, and whilst it looked quite good FSX actually looks far better (well on my system, anyway) and runs quite well considering LOMAC was actually struggling in certain areas.Oh, and everyone goes on about how good LOMAC's graphics are. Yes it's now about 4 years old but I can assure you it looks adequately dated. FSX really does do a very good job considering the amount of visible world it has to render, and when I fly the new F-18 in Acceleration I'm amazed at the fidelity that is in that aircraft.How about all you wingers get out that copy of FS98 or Flight Unlimited III, and see how far flight simulation has really come, in such a short time.Yeah FSX isn't perfect but those DX10 shots of Combat Aces were really not that much better than FSX with everything turned way up, and don't forget Combat Aces runs on dedicated hardware, the developers didn't have to worry about creating the application for the thousands of different configurations that exist. Oh, and if FSX weren't designed to be backward compatible you'd be winging about how your old aircraft don't work in it.Get a freaking life and stop complaining, enjoy FSX for what it is.

>The reason we don't have graphics like this in FSX is due to>lack of competition in this genre. Why would a company spend>thousands upon thousands of hours developing a new graphics>engine, and everything else that would go along with that>graphics engine, just to compete against themselves and the>older version of their game. Totally agree, some of the biggest strides taken by the MSFS franchise was during the Pro Pilot and Fly/FlyII era. Unfortunately, until some significant other publishing house ponies up for a rival title, not much else is going to change.It would be great if a military sim developer could make their platform somewhat more open, both for the flight/visual model and scenery/weather/visuals/AI engine areas, then leave it to the third party devs and modders to give us simmers what we are after.Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaCheck out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.html

Where are the "Vectors" You-Tube movies of this title?With my humble setup, I can fly FSX, land the carrier, record all my maneuvers, replay that video ... make cuts with FSRecorder, minimize FSX, open Windows Moviemaker, import all the cuts, and make some awesome videos of my flights in any part of the world with accurate realism.I can then open my browser, check the news to make sure nothing important is happening while I'm playing a game, upload my video to something outside the XBox sandbox, open another tab in my browser, post the link to the video on AVSIM, and enjoy the accolades!How come you can't do that with an X-Box? How come I can't add RAM to my XBox, or a larger hard drive without voiding my warranty?Neat cloud shadows, though.

Wonderful mountain topography in those pics; but I'd have to imagine that a worldwide data-base using that resolution (if available)would be enormous! We're somewhat already there, with a few photo-real areas combined with topography mesh. Would require a depiction of all seasons, though.L.Adamson

>However I know a couple Rw 747 pilots-one who is trying to>take a demotion to a lesser aircraft-that considers punching>an autopilot/fmc at 200 ft. per company rules and not hand>flying not flying-he has to go do simulator work every month>just to stay current-he says he wants to "fly" again and wants>a demotion to a lesser aircraft.>>I mention that not to diminish the fine PMDG aircraft add>on-but to point out that that is not necessarily the litmus>test for a fine flight Sim-at least for some?!>Being in the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association), I've gotten to know many commercial airline pilots who have taken the extra steps, and regularly fly high performance aerobatic type aircraft on the weekends. I suppose this keeps their hand flying skills in check! :-hah In fact, the guy I share a hangar with, is a commercial airline pilot, who has built numerous experimental airplanes, published several aviation books & manuals, and currently owns a Pitt's M-12, which has a large Russian radial on the front, and puts out close to 400 HP.You see, flying those big busses around the sky is just a day job. But then there are those who really like to fly.............after work!:D L.Adamson

I have to say-I looked at these last night-but wanted to give another look today for a fresh opinion.If this is the new graphics engine I am somewhat underwhelmed.First-everything has a greyish depressing look. While under and in an overcast this may be appropriate-when you break out on top it is a totally different look. Secondly-the clouds look not at all as good as what I get with fsx-especially with fex-far superior. The distant ones have an especially cartoony quality in my opinion. I notice most of these shots are at dawn and dusk-wonder why? I don't find the sky environment great-certainly not am improvement.The city shots-while nicely populated with buildings-the low down shots show a blurry ground texture that reminds me of fs4. The autogen trees in the low down shots look rather primitive-and the buildings the same.I see the same limitation of fsx that above 1000 ft. the autogen is spotty and doesn't blend well with the ground textures.The shots of Italy-the ground textures don't look much different from what we have now-and the autogen buildings in the same way don't really blend in very well.Then of course-I presume one can not improve this with products like megascenery, tileproxy-improved aircraft. I can get much better looks than this with megascenery and fex clouds right now.Performance? Notice most of the shots have the visiblity (especially cities) way down. Are most users aware that fsx defaults visibility to unlimited and that turning it down to what is more commonly found in the world-especially around cities also gives better performance?Of course-still screen shots don't really convey any compare-on fsx or this-one would really have to see them running both side to side.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Of course, the XBox 360 isn't running Win XP or Vista. If you don't know why that would make a major difference in performance abilities... well, you're pretty much done discussing this topic. ;)

>Totally agree, some of the biggest strides taken by the MSFS>franchise was during the Pro Pilot and Fly/FlyII era. I recall something quite the opposite. FS2000 was one of the worst executions of the MSFS genre ever.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

I don't post a lot-- and if I do, I would do my best to keep myself out of discussions and silly comparisons like this. I can't resist this time though, the xxxxxx time of apples and oranges comparison.It's very easy to bash on FSX, based on how it looks-- in comparison to other titles. But there's a huge difference, that sets it apart from those other titles-- something that many seem to forget and simply take for granted. Flight simulator is an open source! An open source with basic stuff programmed in it, which are simple yet very complex in itself. Like for example (just to name a few of the many) air and aerodynamics. I don't see air programmed in Crysis, or seasons, or differences in runway length used depending on circumstances and seasons. Or a full weather simulation. Not even long ago, quite a few would have paid top dollar for just a weather simulation like it is included within flightsim. And ALL need computer strength and cycles. We all take for granted that FSX needs to simulate all that, and at the same time the devs have to keep the sim open for inclusion of some (very complex) add-ons.I see quite a few bashing on FSX, based on how it looks. But boy would we cry if flightsim wasn't the open source like we want it to be. Meaning, no complex aircraft like PMDG or LevelD, no external weather programs like ASX-- no other excellent NOTHING. It's a bit easier, to make a program and just know that what you deliver is JUST that. Sure, Crysis comes with an editor-- but I can already imagine the scenerio of importing a complex plane (that eats more computer power than a Xbox 360 can handle), like a FSX PMDG-- into a game like for example Crysis:tower: PMDG 747 cleared for take-off runway 27, wind 7 knots 89, follow runway heading, 5000PMDG: roger, cleared for take-off0:43 min later (very optimistic)PMDG captain: holy sjit! what was that?PMDG co-pilot: I think we hit something..PMDG captain: Houston, we have a problem!PMDG captain: I think we hit a invisable wall...Houston tower: you hit WHAT???It's really VERY silly to even imagine that a shooter, like Crysis, which looks without doubt very good-- that it is remotely capable of what FSX can do-- and DOES do. The game Crysis itself brings itself already to it's knees, with even the best of the best computers struggling. Now imagine FSX, looking exactly like that-- with a few additional complex add-ons. You gotta be kidding me right???Could FSX look better and perform better? Doubtful, since it's based on a older code which we ALL knew was going to be used. IF it was programmed new from scratch, meaning a new engine-- we would still all be simming with FS9. And prolly quite some time before that new flightsim based on a new engine would see the light. It's not something you pick from trees you know-- it needs some major time involving programming, especially if done from scratch!Does FSX look bad? Well, on my machine, which runs FSX DX10 on a Vista 64 bit platform succesfully-- it looks stunning! No way, that FS9 (or ANY Xbox) can even come close considering what all is being simulated-- and I have ALL major addons for FS9!Are there still problems? Yes, there are-- I get lock-ups and I hope, since it seems very much graphic driver related, a new driver that solves this will show up soon.But I'm flying my PMDG and LvLD, under realistic weather conditions with ASX and FEX, with a big grin on my face-- as long as I don't get a lock-up that is. And it looks and perfoms great!I'd like to see a Xbox, or a game like Crysis-- pull off what FSX does. Only people who believe in fairies believe that's possible..Comparing is just THAT too-- a fairy! Please, get real!Just my 2 cents..Gert

Thank you, Gert and Geof, for putting things in a perspective!Excellent responses!Pete S.

>>The reason we don't have graphics like this in FSX is due>to>>lack of competition in this genre. Why would a company>spend>>thousands upon thousands of hours developing a new graphics>>engine, and everything else that would go along with that>>graphics engine, just to compete against themselves and the>>older version of their game. >>Totally agree, some of the biggest strides taken by the MSFS>franchise was during the Pro Pilot and Fly/FlyII era. >Unfortunately, until some significant other publishing house>ponies up for a rival title, not much else is going to>change.>>It would be great if a military sim developer could make their>platform somewhat more open, both for the flight/visual model>and scenery/weather/visuals/AI engine areas, then leave it to>the third party devs and modders to give us simmers what we>are after.>>Chris Porter>:-outta>>Perth>Western Australia>>Check out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at>http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.htmlAgreed. Since when is competition a bad thing? It pushes the developer to do better. Unfortunately since FS is the only game in town (well besides X-Plane which has never really been a competitor) who will push the envelope of this kind of simulation?By the way, thanks for that link. I'm off to rent that game. Fabulous.