"Why don't we do a series of compares to reality such as I have done here the other day, but also with shots from with fs9?"Just a static scenery comparison? Or perhaps also comprehend avg and min framerates between FS9 and FS10 with comparable level of AI on a... say, PMDG744?As for the answering the original post, FS10 has been a disaster for FS10 (don't know about VISTA). FS9, thanks to market savy add-on developers, continues to thrive:)Later,Pat AMD Opteron DC 185 @ 3GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 2GB DDR, 7800GS-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, WinXP-sp2

I am talking about graphics engine quality not the volume of content.Content is just content. There are few smarts to make the content.Would you rather a limited area with perfect graphics or an entire world that looks like a cartoon?

Yes the PMDG isn't really playable in FSX. And if you had a complex airport add on, a weather add on and AI add ons..... :-hang

> Actually in real action Aces combat looks great but when close to the ground it's real ugly :)That was a bit embarrassing.Did you look at the cityscape picture I posted? The graphics low down look awesome.

I suggest you take my challenge then...your pictures above look great but don't have anything to do with the quote that fsx offers no more than fs4 does.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Believe it or not-there are many of us who have no interest in the PMDG 744 and don't judge the total sim on the basis of one add on.But yes-the only way to compare in this forum is with still shots. A charge of "more cartoony" and no improvement to fs9 was made-I think a still shot compare can show if this it true or not-especially when compared to reality.Moving videos I think would show the difference even more-I have real videos available if someone wants to do video compares to both sims. http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>I am talking about graphics engine quality not the>volume of content.>>Content is just content. There are few smarts to make the>content.>>Would you rather a limited area with perfect graphics or an>entire world that looks like a cartoon?>I didn't much care for Flight Unlimted II & III due to "limited area". Give me the complete western USA from Denver to the Pacific Ocean in intense photo-graphic detail (content), and I might think about it.L.AdamsonBTW-- content may just be content, but it takes a lot of "individual" smarts, a lot of money, a whole lot of hours, and access to data-bases to provide it.

>Obviously this version is a major disaster.>>And a lot worse than the previous disaster (FS2000).>I just love the FS2000 "disaster debates"!!! :-lol Here we finally get an MSFS simulation that uses real life Jeppeson data-bases for topography, navigation, and airports....And it get's "dished" as though it was somewhat inferior to FS98!I didn't LIKE FS98! The flight models were truely on rails, and all mountain airports west of Denver were a joke when it came to representing accurate altitudes. But what the heck, in FS98, most high elevation airports simply didn't exist! :-lol L.Adamson

I've avoided this line of argument so far - largely because it has been so effective in killing the Avsim forum as a useful place to look for interesting things, rather than rants - but finally feel the need to contribute.I was a Flight-Simmer in 95 or so, when the thing was ugly and (for me) unflyable and I tried to throw a Cessna about here and there at Meig's with little success under Win 95.In the last 12 months I've been a complete convert: FSX has taken more of my time than every other PC game/sim combined. I've learned to pilot GA planes and heavy jets. I can fly a Level D 767 with FSCrew manning it, and Radar Contact ATC-ing it. My skies are FEX-beautiful, and I have state of the art graphics and can cope with some blurries, even if I'd prefer not to have 'em. I've learned to navigate with VORs, NDBs and GPS, and I can program a FMC. I have spent

>Did FSX And Vista Kill Flightsimulation?I've never known the community to be divided for so long, and I've never seen so many files for an "obsolete" simulator before!Other forms of PC simulation are also suffering, and rumour has it that Auran are closing down for good .....

Someone's a step ahead of you.Check out this video on YouTube comparing a real landing at St. Marteen with the FSX version and tell me if you think the FSX version resembles anything you saw last night on The Simpsons.http://youtube.com/watch?v=it8nzI0dAGECartoon? Huh? What?

Geof,I'd love to do this. Email me at fsxmissionguy at gmail and we can work out the details of transferring the video from you to me.Cheers,Kevin

Yeah-but I'd like to see a third screen with fs9 doing the same...http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

All my videos are linked on my web site-I'd do it but don't have the time right now or the knowledge how. I'll email ya...http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>I've avoided this line of argument so far - largely because>it has been so effective in killing the Avsim forum as a>useful place to look for interesting things, rather than rants>- but finally feel the need to contribute.>>I was a Flight-Simmer in 95 or so, when the thing was ugly and>(for me) unflyable and I tried to throw a Cessna about here>and there at Meig's with little success under Win 95.>>In the last 12 months I've been a complete convert: FSX has>taken more of my time than every other PC game/sim combined. >I've learned to pilot GA planes and heavy jets. I can fly a>Level D 767 with FSCrew manning it, and Radar Contact ATC-ing>it. My skies are FEX-beautiful, and I have state of the art>graphics and can cope with some blurries, even if I'd prefer>not to have 'em. I've learned to navigate with VORs, NDBs and>GPS, and I can program a FMC. I have spent