Sign in to follow this  
Mace

I'm angry! I really am...and need to get it off my chest....

Recommended Posts

I think that **FSX+Plus**--- (my personal label, now to mean FSX with only two aftermarket programs (GEXnhanced, UTX (both USA and Canada)is the sim, and 'look' of the visual world--that I have ALWAYS wanted from the get go of around 1984 when I got my first Atari 800, then Commodore, etc. You have, or most of you have been there, too. I mean the climb-out through the differing systems to the present.I'm angry. I actually feel at this moment, quite angry! I am in a fantastic visual flight just south of San Diego at around 3,500 feet AGL. I have the scenario set as a beautiful day (weather) for visual flight rules. So...in using the words 'fantastic flight', and 'having waited for'...where does the word 'angry' fit into the landscape?!?!?Here it is...you may agree, you may also vehmently disagree when adding to this post, via thread.Fellow sim'ers, Like most of you, with all the hype leading up to and surrounding the release of FSX--I was having a drool-fest with the teaser shots from Microsoft and their ACES design team. This looked to be (in my opinion of the teaser screen shots) the Big Daddy, the great Kahuna of flight sims, by pulling all the best of the past, and then adding onto that base the latest in programming, etc.I couldn't wait until the product went RTM.It was released! I drove like a mad fool to each store that was supposed to have them in stock. I couldn't find a copy of FSX Pro for almost ten days after the shipping date.Got one! Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! Went home. Installed........and was so disheartened by the performance, the look, oh boy...I'm in a cartoon! The world is one block of patch and desert. Oh boy...this is what I was waiting for and at 3-5 FPS!!! NOT!I was so let down at initial release---and NO other sim at release RTM, ever had left me feeling so deflated. This was the big hype? Since having flown FSX-Plus, I see now that FSX as a flight simulator should NEVER have been released as it came to us. NEVER! It was crippled and down on its knees before the wrap came off. **It was not the product's fault**. Not as a generality of thought. It was not polished, and was unfinished in my opinion. FSX-Plus tells me that, and shows me that with every minute of use.Today, the sim brings me such ***pleasure***, in its accurate and wonderful depiction of flight---and so importantly---of what is below the wing. I can't believe how much, simple road traffic brings to the table in making the world you are immersed in---to bring on believability of mind-set.If we consider our minds to be liken to a CPU, with 'cycles of processing', to have your mind see the life-like animation below you, as you would see road traffic on any climb-out, or while descending in a commercial jet over inhabited land-mass---it would only stand to reason, that your mind would 'align' itself to the viewed scene, collaborate that it is 'normal' and hence your acceptance that YOU ARE INDEED FLYING OVER REAL TERRAIN---and is then delegated to the subliminal sub-set of the active mind. You can now focus your attention to enjoyment, and learning of flight and control,--- rather than much mind-set staying devoted to 'selling yourself' that you are in the real world, and at the control of a 'real' aircraft.Please consider what I am putting forth. The more 'real' it seems in a simulation, the less time you are ACTIVELY thinking about 'how real it looks', or that you 'would wish it to look real', No,... the mind sees the highways, highways in real life should be there, with interchanges---and traffic should also be there upon them. End of statement. Your mind moves on...and you enjoy the simulation experience. If it looks real, it mentally feels real.So..back to being angry. I see now, that FSX should have NEVER been shown the heat it took from the flight simulation community as a technological base. IT wasn't delivered polished, and tuned. It is a fantastic piece of software. It has all the elements and more importantly--built in capability to deliver that which we all want most---the advance and push--to realism! FSX did not deserve the lambasting, as a piece of software. The developers behind its RTM release point---should. Microsoft should.They released an unfinished, non-polished product to market. It was as rough as sandpaper! This is my personal opinion. From then, to now...what is was then...to what it could have been, THEN...if coded properly and with attention to visuals, post GEXn and UTX.Please don't even offer... that is what addon developers are for. For my money, I deserved then, what I have now..right out of that wrap!I am angry at all the time lost, that could have been devoted to sheer flight simulation Nirvana. Enjoyment, rather than frustration, disappointment, and angst.Today, with what I consider a FINISHED product that DELIVERS the true next-generation post-FS9 advancement in the believability of flight... and that of outside developers that picked up the torch and literally SAVED THIS PRODUCT. They shouldn't have NOT had to....Is FSX a keeper...NOW, post GEXnhanced, that corrected the sheer ground texture CR*P that was FSX RTM, and UTX-X that brought to view a real world with superstructures in place that makes the animation of FSX shine---is FSX a keeper? You had better believe it. I am angry that Microsoft short changed us. I am angry that they went for the dollar at Christmas time, rather then having a responsibility to deliver to me, the end user who PAYS FOR IT---a post-beta tested, POLISHED product, and one that could run on a older high-end system (at time of release to market)such as mine---PROVEN to be able to run---by the release of SP1...so it could have been programmed that way out of the box! I am indeed angry! I didn't need the angst and initial disappointment-of-use. I actually paid for that.... It is my personal opinion that as it was delivered,...with all its negatives--it SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE!That was then, this is now. To all those that were so turned off of FSX, and haven't thought to revisit the product---I heartily encourage you to give it another review. But..only with adding on the programs that CORRECT the blatant deficiencies that was FSX RTM. In my opinion , they are of course GEXnhanced, and UTX-X (whatever). I do NOT work for, get paid by, have any reason to 'promote' for personal gain. I am ONLY, a user who paid his one hundred bucks to buy the three programs---and that in doing so, makes FSX--what it SHOULD HAVE BEEN...on the year of its release.OK, I finally got the above off my chest, and will now only enjoy what FSX-Plus (the CORRECTED version) brings to the table--and in my personal opinion, it bring a cornucopia of adventure, discovery, putting you into the seat of a machine that flies...and with beautiful detail and execution. FSX-Plus...that is. I want that to be clear!OK, back to my flight over San Diego..and so much to see at 3,500 feet... Thanks to all that bore with me, and made it to this last sentence. Here's to the hobby! It is now nearly perfect...Cheers!Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Looks like Microsoft merely provided "the platform", and other add-ons provided "the content".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not see you mention this. I think the inevitable march of hardware advancement has also helped matters a lot more. Not just the Service Packs and add-ons.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rhett. The reason that I did not mention that, is because we (at date of release) did not have those systems...and hence, NOBODY could have a great or even 'usable' experience. Everybody was telling of FPS in the toilet. Not flyable on any body's system by the numbers. My angst was that it was ON THE DAY OF ITS RELEASE, a crude piece of software--that could not deliver what people paid 70-100 dollars for. We certainly, as the simulation community, deserved better from Microsoft right from the get-go!Cheers!Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it hadn't been that slow (or ugly with sliders on low) I would not have bothered to develop Tileproxy ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch-one point considering the ground textures. Did you do your initial trial of fsx a year ago with them set to 30 cm-at least 1 m, as you probably do now?Because-though I agree with you gex improves them, and that fsx could have been a more finished product-the default textures are not bad.But of course you have to have them turned up to see.Why I and some others were raving a year ago at the great textures that remain sharp down low and look photoreal from altitude (even recommending that autogen did not need to be used, and actually could get in the way). How many persons fired the sim up then-looked at basically the default settings which can be quite ugly-saw low fps and gave up quickly?As an interesting experiment-disable the gex textures and leave your settings where they now are-do a compare on the screenshot forum...But yes gex, utx, fex all improve fsx, as did their predecesors for fs9.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I liked it the first day I saw FSX on my newer computer. The mountain textures/resolution were a lot more photo like, and had a good sense of "depth", that I hadn't seen before.I suppose this is a case, of where a first flight experience in FSX takes place. If it's one of the vast desert regions, then I wouldn't have been impressed. But for me, I took off out of KSLC, headed up the mountain canyons, and was very pleased to find a lake that's been missing for the last two versions, as well as a new reservoir. These lakes, and the much sharper and better looking textures, made it a hit on day one.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right about that first sim experience. Speaking of lakes-the one I live on never appeared in fs and add ins up to fsx only had a crude rendition of water. My first flight in fsx I took off from my home airport and went to my lake-and there is was-in perfect rendition!If my first try had been in a commercial jet at klga I might have had a different impression!http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mitch.I see your point but I think your expectation was a little off IMO.My expectation from ACES was not they give me good data... Textures etc/ I was delighted that I could load 9cm photo textures..or whatever the lowest of the slider reads. I knew that it was not possible with the hardware we have. But hope is eternal and that they have thought ahead was a good sign. I look at FSX as an operating system for flight simming. Mind you...I have my own disappointment with FSX... and its certainly not textures nor terrain details since I knew and was expecting to procure from addon vendors. They could have not given me any land class, or even FS8 textures etc and I could care less as long as they giv provision for loading high resolution textures and good land class meta data etc. My disappointment is in the fact addon vendors like Fly Tampa and Flight scenery kind of folks have walked out since the current architecture seems to have clipped the wings of creative people and other Hardware out of sync with the product architecture (Multi core) issues.IF Hardware can compensate in the near future 10Ghz??? :)... I am still ok with FSXManny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly understand your frustration. My own personal story is quite different. I was amazed at FSX right out of the box. When you compare it to my fully tricked out FS9 with all the main addons like all UTX, BEV textures (GEX now for FSX), Active Sky, many airports, Fs Genesis Mesh, and countless other enhancements, the RTM was better in some cases and worse in others. If you compare the RTM of FS9 to FSX I believe there is absolutely no comparison and FSX was an insane improvement. Now that all these addons are out for FSX. I am floored every-time I start up the sim. As far as performance goes I think it is difficult for Microsoft to predict how a piece of software is going to perform not on thousands of beta machines but millions of users machines how can anyone expect that how it going to perform on millions of computers with all the hardware configurations that are possible. I respect your opinion and emotion but my experience is different maybe you should give your computer a shot. ;) Just in good fun, interesting thread thanks for starting it and your articulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Mitch,When your done having Nirvana in your flying volkswagon at 3500 feet AGL, and chugging along at a steady 180 knots, why not jump in the default 737 and climb to 31,000 feet at 350 knots.You might rethink your post.Although I have to admit, your enthusiam is refreshing in light of many negative posts centering around FSX - even perhaps my own. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>For my money, I deserved then, what I have now..right out of that wrap!>Today, with what I consider a FINISHED product that DELIVERS>the true next-generation post-FS9 advancement in the>believability of flight... and that of outside developers that>picked up the torch and literally SAVED THIS PRODUCT. They>shouldn't have NOT had to....Er... whenever did FS come with loads of addons in the box...? I do also think FSX was released a bit hastily and it should AT LEAST be up to SP1 standards out of the box, but the rest of the story makes me wonder where you have been all those FS-simming years... FS has ALWAYS been some sort of OS for pilots: FS is the (quite beautiful imho) bottom of the pizza and you have to add the nice and spicey stuff yourself. It's been like that for years and years. You can't expect MS/Aces to add UTX and GEX into it, worldwide, out of the box. 'I deserved then, what I have now...?' Come on, get real. How much do you think FSX would have cost if it came with WORLDWIDE UTX and GEX like data...? A few hundred bucks? I wonder what you would say if FSX would have costed that much! FSX isn't saved by outside developers, it is made even more better. Just as always. I really don't understand your anger. You totally miss the point and are completely off, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,I agree with you. I bought FSX, installed it. Found it looked and ran like crap. Installed the Level-D 767, ran like crap. Installed SP1 when it was released, slight improvements but still ran like crap.I then gave up and flew FS9. When SP2 was released I couldnt be bothered trying it, I thought Id wait.However, after reading your post last week about GEX+ and UTX I decided to reformat, reinstall and try SP2. I installed GEX+, UTX, ActiveSky graphics and the Level-D 767. I then set a some sliders high, some low etc and departed from KSFO.Unbelieveble, I was getting 30fps solid (I had them locked at 30) in VC on the ground, in the air and this was with max clouds overcast.I couldnt believe the difference that both SP2 and a clean install had made.To cut it short I am now flying a lot more in FSX and hardly touching FS9. I even installed PMDG 747X and found the same.I am just waiting now for REX and I think this will be sheer heaven.So, Mitch, thanks again for your inspiration. ( I also had major improvements in FS9 when you posted about the ATI 7.10 drivers!)Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>For my money, I deserved then, what I have now..right out of>that wrap!>>>Today, with what I consider a FINISHED product that DELIVERS>>the true next-generation post-FS9 advancement in the>>believability of flight... and that of outside developers>that>>picked up the torch and literally SAVED THIS PRODUCT. They>>shouldn't have NOT had to....>>Er... whenever did FS come with loads of addons in the box...?>I do also think FSX was released a bit hastily and it should>AT LEAST be up to SP1 standards out of the box, but the rest>of the story makes me wonder where you have been all those>FS-simming years... FS has ALWAYS been some sort of OS for>pilots: FS is the (quite beautiful imho) bottom of the pizza>and you have to add the nice and spicey stuff yourself. It's>been like that for years and years. You can't expect MS/Aces>to add UTX and GEX into it, worldwide, out of the box. 'I>deserved then, what I have now...?' Come on, get real. How>much do you think FSX would have cost if it came with>WORLDWIDE UTX and GEX like data...? A few hundred bucks? I>wonder what you would say if FSX would have costed that much!>FSX isn't saved by outside developers, it is made even more>better. Just as always. I really don't understand your anger.>You totally miss the point and are completely off, if you ask-------------------------------------------------------BTW, sorry about some typos, and a grammatical error as I typed a sentence, and then edited it (missed taking out a word, then not needed, lol) I was typing fast and had to make an appointment, but was on a roll and so continued.What I meant about 'right out of the box'...is that what the developers of UTX and GEX added to the sim, in my opinion, should have been (within the base code) already there in the sim, and to that level of visual quality. That is what I meant, and not that you would see addon software bundled. I can't see that in creating the level of detail and immersion that both GEXn and UTX brings to the sim, would have added a few (meaning three hundred) bucks.Thanks for your thoughts. I enjoy debate, and then meditation that results. :) My opinion will not be another's, and this is totally acceptable!!! Good debate, pro and con is what is the truce spice of a forum!Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Mitch-one point considering the ground textures. Did you do>your initial trial of fsx a year ago with them set to 30 cm-at>least 1 m, as you probably do now?>>Because-though I agree with you gex improves them, and that>fsx could have been a more finished product-the default>textures are not bad.>>But of course you have to have them turned up to see.>>Why I and some others were raving a year ago at the great>textures that remain sharp down low and look photoreal from>altitude (even recommending that autogen did not need to be>used, and actually could get in the way). >>How many persons fired the sim up then-looked at basically the>default settings which can be quite ugly-saw low fps and gave>up quickly?>>>As an interesting experiment-disable the gex textures and>leave your settings where they now are-do a compare on the>screenshot forum...>>>But yes gex, utx, fex all improve fsx, as did their>predecesors for fs9.>--------------------------------Geofa, yes I did...I did the whole gamut of slide combinations. It still was so, so...cartoon. GEXn is totally the reverse. GEXn and UTX-X has totally transformed this sim to such believability (this will be subjective to the reader) and my frustration formed in seeing what FSX RTM COULD have been like--- out of the wrapper. That was the level of view quality that I was expecting, after having seen the teaser captures. Here is an example Geofa. In FS9, we had lakes, ocean coasts, all of it. But..did it look real? No. No beach at Myrtle Beach. No beach along any strand of the East Coast (of the U.S. for example). With such hoopla about the new, better textures, and higher resolution over FS9---and oh..about the much more realistic sense of the FS world per FSX...why were beach textures NOT built into the released RTM sim? It certainly could have been, and what is more realistic and expected, ...than beach textures where beaches should be. It was things of that nature (when I loaded up UTX-X..that PUT THIS STUFF THERE, that opened up my eyes to what had NOT been properly included, IMO.My angst, Geofa---is that FSX RTM should have been what I call: FSX-Plus. It should have come this way, and not having for me to buy addon's to put a beach where the sim shows a beach to be, etc. They say that ignorance is bliss. I guess they are right. Ever since having FSX with superstructures that I can actually identify as I fly over; beaches that look so good, I want to land and walk upon them; rivers that run to a horizon; railroad tracks that actually route themselves through the towns, cities, and byways; lakes, that have true earth-tone shorelines with rock outcroppings; roads with encasement's, REAL...highways, overpasses, interchanges, two lane, four lane, country lanes....THIS is what I expected FSX RTM to be as the next FS generation. I have it now, so the angst is only a getting-something-of-the-chest and is now done with. FSX-Plus is now the next generation. The litmus test---is that when I now look down ANYWHERE, I feel the thrill of flight and movement over the terrain. I have been VFR'ing myself to death! There is now a reason to fly that Volkswagen, LOL....where I only used to fly in the nose-bleed section of the sky with FS9.Cheers!Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>If it hadn't been that slow (or ugly with sliders on low) I>would not have bothered to develop Tileproxy ;)>Well then, some 'good' might have come out of my not seeing FSX-Plus on rip-the-wrapper-and-install-day, lol :)Your contribution is a huge one. Thank you for it!Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Graham!As you know, I was so disgusted with trying to get FSX-RTM to run truly smoothly (pre SP1 and SP2) and until I found GEXn and UTX, could not get past the desert scape and Cartoonville North America-wide.I sold it to a friend down the street. He used it for about six weeks, and then called me up to 'ask' if I would like to buy it back. He was going back to FS9. I certainly felt obligated to buy back FSX and did so. In hindsight, it was perhaps the best thing that has happened to me in a long while (that is how much fun and sheer sense of flight and exploring I am having with FSX-Plus) and gave me the chance to buy and then install GEXn. I did that (GEXn)...and was BLOWN AWAY! I then purchased UTX-USA and did not initially truly take the time to customize it to my liking..and of course I publicly ate crow willingly for that...lol. The FSX-Plus experience has been just simply stellar---AND the sweet part Graham, is that I am getting post Nick's Xpsp2 Tune-up, a most steady 18 LOCKED FPS out of FSX-Plus. At major airports like KMIA or KLAX, I do go down to the occasional 10 to 12, but...STILL MOST USABLE until I decide to upgrade.I'm glad you were inspired to take the plunge once more. BTW, I won't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. FS9 is staying on my system, and I intend to use them both for different reasons. For now though---I simply can't wait to get home and fire up FSX for another exploration of areas I know in real life. I now see them, via accurate superstructures, and my memories of the locations becomes the greatest graphic generator that can be had.Enjoy...and I'll see you up there in my Volkswagen 172 or hand-glider! (Large SMILE :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Actually, I liked it the first day I saw FSX on my newer>computer. The mountain textures/resolution were a lot more>photo like, and had a good sense of "depth", that I hadn't>seen before.>>I suppose this is a case, of where a first flight experience>in FSX takes place. If it's one of the vast desert regions,>then I wouldn't have been impressed. But for me, I took off>out of KSLC, headed up the mountain canyons, and was very>pleased to find a lake that's been missing for the last two>versions, as well as a new reservoir. These lakes, and the>much sharper and better looking textures, made it a hit on day>one.>>L.Adamson------------------------Good personal observations, Larry. Thanks for adding! :)Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the big problems with FSX then and now for new comers that turn them off right away is how the Jetways work. When they first load up FSX with full sliders right and 100% traffic at JFK and was/is immediately greeted with a single digit slide show. What they don't realize is the main cause of it is all the jetways are engaging on all the AI aircraft, for a radius of 120 miles. If they wait a few minutes, they would have seen a significant increase in performance. This is one of the main reasons FSX gave such a bad first impression, and you know what they say, first impressions are lasting impressions, and what counts most to alot of people. What made it worse was there really wasn't/isn't a user friendly way of disabling them, once they realized the issue, without taking away additional eye candy they may want, without editing config files, or replacing default AI aircraft, that wasn't setup to use the jetways. This isn't such a problem for us here in the forum, but for a new FSX gamer, they probably wouldn't know what the problem was, and the game would be returned, or go on the shelf. Aces really shot themselves in the foot with these jetways. Not that they had them, but they didn't explain there impact and provide an isolated way through the GUI to disable them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I can certainly understand your frustration. My own personal>story is quite different. I was amazed at FSX right out of the>box. When you compare it to my fully tricked out FS9 with all>the main addons like all UTX, BEV textures (GEX now for FSX),>Active Sky, many airports, Fs Genesis Mesh, and countless>other enhancements, the RTM was better in some cases and worse>in others. If you compare the RTM of FS9 to FSX I believe>there is absolutely no comparison and FSX was an insane>improvement. Now that all these addons are out for FSX. I am>floored every-time I start up the sim. As far as performance>goes I think it is difficult for Microsoft to predict how a>piece of software is going to perform not on thousands of beta>machines but millions of users machines how can anyone expect>that how it going to perform on millions of computers with all>the hardware configurations that are possible. I respect your>opinion and emotion but my experience is different maybe you>should give your computer a shot. ;) Just in good fun,>interesting thread thanks for starting it and your>articulation. ------------------------------------Ahh...(smile :) ) but not to be a Nat on the neck, Mike---but SP1 made FSX (post SP1) MOST flyable on my Dell Pent4 3.4GHz. Most flyable. They COULD HAVE shipped the sim RTM that would carry 15-18 FPS on the high end Pent 4's of the day. They proved it, by writing SP1. It was obtainable, but not coded on the day of release.What I TRULY could not get past--post SP1 and then sold it for, was how the world was (again...my P.O.) so pastel and the land of Cartoonsville. No matter what I did to 'sell myself', it looked like a water-color painting I was flying over. That didn't change until I bought GEXn on another person's rave post, and when I saw what it did to transform FSX---I started raving out of my mind as well, lol! UTX-X (tuned for myself) put me over the edge in the raving department. The rest is history.... FSX-Plus STAYS! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What I meant about 'right out of the box'...is that what the>developers of UTX and GEX added to the sim, in my opinion,>should have been (within the base code) already there in the>sim, and to that level of visual quality. That is what I>meant, and not that you would see addon software bundled. I>can't see that in creating the level of detail and immersion>that both GEXn and UTX brings to the sim, would have added a>few (meaning three hundred) bucks.I know what you meant (sorry if that wasn't clear ;) ) but that's exactly my point: you want FSX out of the box looking just as good and detailed as FSX plus UTX and GEX. That IS in fact as if FSX would come with addons bundled, only it wouldn't be called addons because they came right our of the box. ;) But in truth it WOULD be as if FSX was released inlcuding add-ons, because you can't expect FSX to come with this much detail for the same price as you can buy FSX now. UTX and GEX both cost about 30 bucks per region. First of all, that's not for nothing! Making these addons costs time and data has to be obtained and thus it costs money. Now why would you expect MS/Aces to do this for free...? If you want this detail to be in FSX right out of the box, MS/Aces would also have to spend extra time and money. You can't expect them to offer this all without asking more for the final product.Secondly, imagine that GEX and UTX will offer worldwide coverage in the future, I think that will be about 5 or 6 addons for each of them, totalling to some 12 addons * 30 dollars = 360 dollars for the better textures and roads/rivers alone. So you want MS to put 360 dollars worth of extra detail to be in the box right away for the same price as FSX costs now... Now THAT is not what you can expect from MS/Aces. Okay, you COULD expect an extra effort, like making the textures better right away, so the GEX people wouldn't have to do it all over again, but that still would cost something extra. But expecting UTX to be in the box is too much asked, I think.In short: the money you spend now to get what you want, would also have to be spend in order to get it all right out of the box.I FULLY agree we should have gotten FSX plus SP2 right out of the box, but the extra's are extra's and never ever will be part of the 'base pack': you can't expect that and therefore I don't share your anger. ;)BTW I do like your enthousiasm about FSX and I am glad you looked upon my post as indeed being just another opinion and nothing personal! ;) That's indeed the true forum-spirit: wished more people could debate like this without getting nasty! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hey Mitch,>>When your done having Nirvana in your flying volkswagon at>3500 feet AGL, and chugging along at a steady 180 knots, why>not jump in the default 737 and climb to 31,000 feet at 350>knots.>>You might rethink your post.>>Although I have to admit, your enthusiam is refreshing in>light of many negative posts centering around FSX - even>perhaps my own. :)------------------------------Actually, I do fly heavy iron as well as that German Fella you mention. ;)I took a flight from KDEN to KLAS just yesterday at FL260. I saw the GEXn textures at that elevation...and was wow'ed to death!I do fly both, and mostly heavy iron in FS9.Cheers!Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>What I meant about 'right out of the box'...is that what>the>>developers of UTX and GEX added to the sim, in my opinion,>>should have been (within the base code) already there in the>>sim, and to that level of visual quality. That is what I>>meant, and not that you would see addon software bundled. I>>can't see that in creating the level of detail and immersion>>that both GEXn and UTX brings to the sim, would have added a>>few (meaning three hundred) bucks.>>I know what you meant (sorry if that wasn't clear ;) ) but>that's exactly my point: you want FSX out of the box looking>just as good and detailed as FSX plus UTX and GEX. That IS in>fact as if FSX would come with addons bundled, only it>wouldn't be called addons because they came right our of the>box. ;) But in truth it WOULD be as if FSX was released>inlcuding add-ons, because you can't expect FSX to come with>this much detail for the same price as you can buy FSX now. >>UTX and GEX both cost about 30 bucks per region. First of all,>that's not for nothing! Making these addons costs time and>data has to be obtained and thus it costs money. Now why would>you expect MS/Aces to do this for free...? If you want this>detail to be in FSX right out of the box, MS/Aces would also>have to spend extra time and money. You can't expect them to>offer this all without asking more for the final product.>Secondly, imagine that GEX and UTX will offer worldwide>coverage in the future, I think that will be about 5 or 6>addons for each of them, totalling to some 12 addons * 30>dollars = 360 dollars for the better textures and roads/rivers>alone. So you want MS to put 360 dollars worth of extra detail>to be in the box right away for the same price as FSX costs>now... Now THAT is not what you can expect from MS/Aces. Okay,>you COULD expect an extra effort, like making the textures>better right away, so the GEX people wouldn't have to do it>all over again, but that still would cost something extra. But>expecting UTX to be in the box is too much asked, I think.>>In short: the money you spend now to get what you want, would>also have to be spend in order to get it all right out of the>box.>>I FULLY agree we should have gotten FSX plus SP2 right out of>the box, but the extra's are extra's and never ever will be>part of the 'base pack': you can't expect that and therefore I>don't share your anger. ;)>>BTW I do like your enthousiasm about FSX and I am glad you>looked upon my post as indeed being just another opinion and>nothing personal! ;) That's indeed the true forum-spirit:>wished more people could debate like this without getting>nasty! :(------------------Oh my gawd, who would want people to be merely yes-men/yes-women in forums? :) Not I!!!! I relish this repartee. In response to your points, I would say, that in a small/custom publishing house that has to earn its income from a few titles, your point on 'not to expect the level of detail that UTX and GEXn brought to FSX's plate' is solid and valid, End of statement! I openly suggest that with a financial compensation base that the likes of FSX's developers have ie: Microsoft---that it would have been financially a drip off of the hide of a horse---to have offered us that level of detail. Their sales (compensation) would be in the hundred-to-one of let's say the developers of GEXn or UTX in units sold. Based upon that, I absolutely feel that it should have been offered---beaches, interchanges, greater plotting of freeway traffic as UTX brings to FSX, etc. With the financial base of M.S., this would have been a drop-in-the-bucket for/to them. If my viewpoint on the financial aspect of my personal opinion is skewed, I honestly can't see where? Volume grants leeway to produce more, for less expense per unit sold. :) On that viewpoint, I feel we were cheated of features, for to get the product out on a time line, and RTM. I'm hoping that they have reviewed all the negative forum traffic and will bring out a BLOCKBUSTER in the form of FSXI---and most excitedly---out of the wrapper!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the addition road traffic was fun i never found FSX immersive when looking around during a flight because of the similarity of the scene being rendered with the same set of textures for a given land class.Then came the latest V7 beta of tile proxy and at last i have a photoreal representation of the world that actually allows sight seeingto become an activity , the load times and the frame rates both improved as did my willingness to just buzz around knowing what i see is what i would if i were actually there .. Tile Proxy saved FSX for me , i spend the day designing Aircraftfor FSX and for the longest time would only look over the productionin FSX like a display window with an occasional "flight" for systemschecks ( bug hunting ), now i enjoy a tour of some new spot, last timeit was above the hills surrounding LA, in study of the architecture of the mansions , the other thing is the now complete road networkdown to the smallest trail is in place , i love using the sim again.thanks Christian . CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this