Only if Texture Bandwidth Multiplier means what he has done with his hair!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

Ahhh, the 'sand' textures........Roll out the excuses for that one.Offer as many as you like, it stll looks awful.Glenn

The lack of proper prop sound changes when changing the pitch of a constant speed prop-something that still hasn't happened in stock fs since the beginning of time, and something I use every time I simulate, is actually more "annoying" to me than sand.But we all have our "realities", our personal wish lists, and priorities as we continue the move up the reality scale in fs.I think Bob's point is while these wish "lists" and present features used to be viewed as a never ending progress towards reality, and were viewed as part of the fun, transfiguration, and whole fs experience-they are now viewed by some as excuses and are a source of anger to some. It does seem people were happier years ago with less-now that they have more-it is interesting that the opposite seems to be the case. Kinda similar to other aspects of life today.I personally find it interesting that when fsx came out a year ago-the general reaction seemed to be it was a "non serious upgrade" and mostly about eye candy. Now a year later-it seems the majority of complaints about fsx are....about eye candy! Interesting! :-)Me-I want some correct prop noise! (I have yet to see a complaint about that one yet-or a whole bunch of others on my personal wish list)....but I also don't see the lack of inclusion of my personal wishes as excuses, or something to get angry about-but more the fun and hope that these, and others not on my list, may appear presently with add ons (I got the prop sounds with the Eaglesoft Commanche along with the ability to feather a dead engine-two more of my wishes) and be the part of the future of the sim. It is and actually can be fun!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Come on Glenn don't you see this was the part of FS3 being brought forward for the backward compatibility folks?Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

Jim,Backwards compatability........another pet hate of mine.It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who have addons (freeware and payware) from FS9 and then complain that they don't work in FSX!

>>Me-I want some correct prop noise! (I have yet to see a>complaint about that one yet-or a whole bunch of others on my>personal wish list)....I think part of the reason for that, is because most of us are not pilotas and so we do not KNOW what we are missing concerning prop noise variations.I am glad you pointed it out though. :) Makes sense that it would sound different...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Wow, just wow. A thread which uses ACES, and Phil's name in particular, as cannon fodder for jokes.That should keep him posting here. Not.I didn't realize it was kick Phil in the nuts day. I'm glad I'm not him sometimes.

Maybe because they (we) paid a lot more for all the addons together then for FS itself ? I can understand, you pay let say 20 or 40 bucks to get you home airport in full glory and bam, there is a new version of FS, or in the case of FSX, a new patch, that disables it.Don't forget : the lifecycle for MSFS is between 2 and 4 years.It takes a developer often as long to make the add on.Jan

Do you think the fact that the three eyeglass posters were probably clinking beer glasses with Phil last night might have something to do with this humorous thread? Unless they spilled some beer on him I would think he would still post here... :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Like Robbie, I am always amazed at how blurried the real world looks from altitude or from a distance. Very surprising.Here is a picture taken by our friend, Jerry Thorne, while flying South over V-3 (East coast of Florida) in his RV-9A looking at the Kennedy Space Center:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180476.jpgSo, I tried to reproduce that shot in FS X. Weather visibility is set to 30 miles and altitude is 8500 AGL (I have recently lost all my charts, but I think that MEA on V3 is 2000 ft. But, then Jerry seems to like to fly high.)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180475.jpgThe FS X version does not seem a lot more blurry than the real thing.Of course, I never fly a 737, nor would I want to. But, I understand Tim's problem, and it is very true that at higher speeds, and with more complex aircraft and settings, people will have problems. Too bad.Best regards.Luis

Hi Jan,See the thing is though the life cycle in not 2 to 4 years, the life cycle is whatever YOU wish to make it. People can use FS9 for the next 25 years and the computer won't care and either will the software. We have this strange idea that once a new version of FS comes out, the old version no longer works or can be used and this is not the case. So take that 20 or 40 buck add on and use it for the next 5 years. Nobody needs to know or care!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

Luis-you had to go and do that! Not only blurries-but sand....A view of Mt. Shasta over Redding, Ca. in August and 2 shots of fsx-1st in August, 2nd in November..andA shot over Montana in August (between Lewiston and Billings) and 2 shots of fsx-one in August and one in NovemberLooks like the real shots win in the sand department-at least in some areas of the country-and neither of the sim shots have it quite right-in either season :-lolhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180479.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180480.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180481.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180482.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180483.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180484.jpg

I totally agree with you Jim. I have definitely learned my lesson with this entire FS9 to FSX leap that I have struggled with for a year now. It has been one disappointment after another, and mainly because I don't have all the time necessary to tweak and adjust a bunch of settings in various files of the software. In the end, I have to honestly say that sitting down to attempt a flight in FSX was like waking up at 6:00 AM in the morning to go to work. I just didn't want to do it anymore!!!! I actually quite flight simming for about 6 months because it was just too much work anymore.I will mark this up as a lesson learned though. As far as new MSFS's coming out in the future, I am going to delay my upgrade plans for at least 15-18 months after the initial release date of the new MSFS. It takes at least 12 months for all the great add-ons to come out for the new simulator, and at least 18 months for new hardware to come out to run the simulator. The FS9 to FSX migration was my first one, so this was a huge lesson to me. If I plan on this, watching the new Flight Simulator come out will be like watching another "Medal of Honor" FPS come out. NO BIG DEAL!!!!I really think many people are going to start thinking this way after this experience.

>Do you think the fact that the three eyeglass posters were>probably clinking beer glasses with Phil last night might have>something to do with this humorous thread? Unless they spilled>some beer on him I would think he would still post here...>:-)>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg>Forum Moderator>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/I unfortunately couldn't get out there to clink glasses with Phil, but you guys can take my word on it that I wouldn't do things to insult him. He's a good guy and puts up with a #### of a lot around here, and that earns my respect.

I actually skipped the MSFS series between FS5 and FS2002.In my opinion, the "photoreal" textures introduced with FS5 were plain ugly.I tried FS2000 a few times at a friends, and could not stand the redrawing of the scenery each time you switched a view (10 seconds when look to the left). As someone else said, we were more then happy at the time when the whole world was green with pyramid mountains !FS2002 to FS2004 to FSX are gradual improvements of a good concept IMO.It is true however that it takes at least a year for HW to catch up.Right now, I am quite happy with the performance in FSX.So I agree, no one is forced to go to the next version. But it is in the human nature to want the best for no money at all !Jan