Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About boshar

  • Rank
  • Birthday 11/28/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Flight Sim Profile

  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

2,099 profile views
  1. >The other is Roads and Rivers Europe scenery addon; You get>correctly placed rivers, but next to them are the fs default>ones, so you end up seeing double rivers!While I can agree with the topic and the feeling some add-ons can give you I do have to correct this statement. I used (and still use) Roads and rivers of Europe you don't get double rivers with a standard install of this. Maybe an install problem?
  2. Don't know if they will change the engine but reading the ACES team blogs I get the impression there are a lot of changes in personel at the moment (lots of guys moving on). Who knows? new programmers, fresh idea's, new insights. Lets hope that FS11 wil be less controversial then good old FS-X
  3. >expensive and I can't see why the majority of community>unecessarily upgrade their system just for a flight sim, and>still no guarantee that the game will run as you were>expecting. >There you mention the main problem I see for FS-X. I could buy the latest hightech quad core but I find posts in the FS-X forums from guys that have such hardware and some of them still have FPS problems.Based on that info I will keep on using my current hardware and fly with F9 / X-Plane.
  4. Be warned that the following advice is from way back and my memory is not perfect:Patching depends on the version you have. The worst case would beInstall the release version of Fly! IIApply the Fly!IIFeatureUpdate1.exe file (bringing the Fly! II version up to 164)Apply the Fly!IIFeatureUpdate2.exe (bringing the Fly! II version up to 177)Apply the Fly!IIFeatureUpdate3a.exe (bringing the Fly! II version up to 197)Apply videoupdate2 (where applicable)Apply the Fly!IIFeatureUpdate4.exeFinaly install the Version 2.00.210 -> 2.50.240 Update over all of this.For the European release you just have to:Apply the Fly!IIFeatureUpdate4.exeInstall the Version 2.00.210 -> 2.50.240
  5. >PS: Its interesting to note that what is not being mentioned.>The FSX only features like Multiplayer and Missions. Maybe>there is a different group out there are having a good time>with those.The thing I'm wondering about is the save settings ability. By now I would have expected a forum full of user exchanging the latest best fps for setup X profiles. Instead we get a deafening silence about this feature. Almost like it never took off.My guess is that the non discussed features never realy took off.
  6. >To find out if FSX is better: Buy it, install it, and see if>you like it :-) If not, stick with FS9 :-)Just lend a copy and install without activating. After 30 minutes watching the slideshow you will know if you want to spend your hard earned money on it or not.Use the money you saved yourself to buy a nice FS9 add-on. I know I did.
  7. Aw... but I even tried that new SP2 taste. (It was easy the old ice cream was still there on my HDD) The only thing the new fresh SP2 taste convinced me of was to free up that HDD space and give up on the new taste al together (*now hat they stopped any work on tweaking the taste)
  8. Just one maybe two things.Compare the volume of this type of posts.... One year after release of fs9 most of the negative post had already vanished.Compare the new postings in the library. One year after release FS9 was the section in which most of the new content was posted.Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5 FS-X posts against ~40 FS9 postsFS-X is very slow in replacing FS-9. My guess is that this is caused by the drawn out release (RTM, SP1, Acceleration, SP2) and the fact that it relies on top of the line hardware more then ever.But if you want to simplify things by saying that both era's had those nasty 'the glass is half empty types' be my guest.
  9. >I bought an ice cream cone one day. Hated the taste, even>though lots of other people liked the taste.I never bough the ice cream. Tasted a sample from a friend and I couldn't believe they tried to sell that a such a high price. Now I have to wait for the new flavour they will make in a few years time.Meanwhile I'm glad I never bought the ice cream cone myself. I would have felt robbed. A few months later I bought a box full of the old ice cream flavours. They even had some of that rare 4.0 add-on stuff. On top of this fine collection there also was our familiar ice cream cone. I made quite a good deal on the box with the old flavours so I gave the seller the ice cream cone back with the advise to sell it on its own. He wasnt into ice cream (just selling his old friends stuff) so I informed him that it was the most current flavour and he might get quite a good price.Some flavours just don't do it for me I guess.
  10. >First, FSX was developed with the future in mind - both from a>software and hardware perspective. The goal was to support>multiple core hardware, DX10 graphics, and Vista.That is rewriting history just read the official Aces blogs multicore hardware was not in the official guesstimate when they defined the features for FS-X only in SP1 they did some multi core work. Blog entries before SP1 emphesise that the FS engine needs major rewrites to benefit from multiple cores and that multi core benefits where questionable.The DX10 graphics engine (now called DX10 preview) was only developed after they released the original FSX so this was also not in the original specs.My speculation is that the original target machine probabley was a high clocked (Intel/AMD never reached those clockspeeds) single core machine running Windows XP and DX9. During the project FS-X had to be made into a Vista flagship game so they probabley tried to adjust the graphics engine to be more geared to DX10.The result is an extremly messy release which only now has reached the point where they have frozen the code. Until now 3rd party add-on maker where building upon a game engine that could still change major features that might braek their add-on.On a more positive note. FS-X 'final ever not going to tweak or fix anything else this is it' is out now. 3rd party add-on makers can finaly get on with releasing their add-ons. Meanwhile older hardware is getting replaced with improved machines that have processor speeds and graphics cards better suited to FS-X. In a year from now whe finaly might know how FS-X works for us.We will probabely be debating the needed features for FS-XI at that time though ;-)
  11. >After reading this post, I was about to question why I have>to purchase Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Visual Studio, and>I don't count the others I have! They are all been developped>with the Windows API!>>And don't forget: any of these items running on Windows cost>more than the sim, euh, sorry, than Windows...You don't have to. You use Open Office, Gimp, Gcc or one of the other free open alternatives.Then again we should al be flying FlightGear to keep the money in our pockets ;-)
  12. >I don't think anyone has any problem with well expressed>negative views.>>Rants that go on and on and in the words of the complaints I>have gotten "over the top" are different.>>...and yes-those that continue to express that this board is>not for them-why do you come back? Please save me the>trouble-I am extremely busy today...>>I think a lot of the current problems can be avoided via a karma / self moderation system. It would make moderation much more easier and it seems fairer. Instead of a small team deciding what is a well expressed view and what not we as a community can decide whats acceptable.I think the current moderation hides behind broad terms and own interpretations. Everybody has some bias in their views. Just show us one moderater that leans to the I'm not happy with FS-X. Without the we are not so happy with FS-X view represented in this forum the forum slants to the Yay FS-X! side and thats not the feeling I get from the FS community as a whole.
  13. >Perhaps it speaks volumes of "what avsim stands for" that I>am receiving alerts/complaints from fellow avsim members about>your posts.>>I'd rather be doing something else.>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg>Forum Moderator>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/Kind of a bummer we can only give negative input to posts on this board via the alert link. I wish we could trade it in for a moderation/karma system like they have on slashdot. The board would be easier to manage for the moderators and the board would give without a doubt a true reflection of what its readers think.As you know I do think this board needs a good representation of the FS-X? 'not that good' view. Its so easy to mod, lock or ban them on several grounds but it won't fix the underlying problem.
  14. I'm still of the opinion that you can compare 3d engines regardless if they are used to show us feet, miles, inches or even millimeters.You can indeed still look at how many objects the engine can handle and how good it can keep up the framerate while doing that. Sure an engine with a fixed map size that pauses while loading the next map (or room) has it easier but with dual cores becomming common hardware how hard is it realy to do such loading in the background.The whole we simulate the whole world exuse is lame. It should be we give you the whole world in raw data. We use that data simulate a few 100 miles around your viewpoint. Thats all.
  • Create New...