boshar

Members
  • Content Count

    679
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About boshar

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 11/28/1969

Flight Sim Profile

  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

1,978 profile views
  1. That is the simple crux of this kind of debate. Not agains you personally Helo_Head but there is a motivation when one is still on the FS-X side to want to rationalize the amount of $$$ invested in the system. It creates a gut feeling in which you don't want the other sim to be just as good OR beter because of that invested amount. Its great that you are honest enough to mention this yourself.
  2. Strange, I really want to love FS-X (if only to justify all the add-ons I bought) but I have come to the conclusion I'v become a 100% X-Planer now (eeeh make that 90% still need my steam gauge a300 fix very now and then). I just can't stand the blurries. The tweak, get it right then fly somewhere else and start again dance is tedious. I've never been able to hit a consistent sweet spot in FS-X. X-Plane give me a sharp beautiful view and a constant 30+ frame rate every single time. Of course it also helps I'm not interested in AI (one of the first things I turn off when tweaking FS-X). Just last week I discovered a website that has free X-Plane photo sceneries for practically the whole of Europe. (see http://simheaven.com/?page_id=1335 ) . I tried some of my preferred flying area's and was blown away by the effect. We are talking hires photos, no blurries and the autogen is aligned (due to x-planes OSM roads match the photo scenery and the autogen is aligned via the roads). This is what a 64 bit modern program can do for you and it doesn't cost 1 Euro to explore it. I can understand that if you love your boxed AI and ATC you hate X-Plane. But writing this program off because you don't like the UI? How about the FS-X UI, you can't even set the all important HIGHMEMFIX using the UI. It takes a while before 'you get' X-Plane but at the moment there are exciting developments. The new GPS in the BETA is so much beter and most airplanes are easy to update. To me as 'oldtimer' this feels like the time I upgraded my FS by getting RealityXP's Garmin add-on but even beter because its in the default program, there to be used by all the add-ons. If you have X-Plane 10. Leave it on your HDD and play with it from time to time. It might grow on you an who knows maybe one day you will be like me and leave 100's of Euros behind... (getting a bit depressed now).
  3. Converting to X-Plane certainly took me a while (as in years I started when version 8 was the current release) but at the moment is the main simulator I use. For my intents and purposes I rate it an 9 (to leave some room for improvement). The thing that is the hardest to get used to is the changes that are rolled into a new major version over time. X-Plane 10 has had unbelievable changes for the better but with that there are always some add-ons ore little things we have to leave behind which kind of sucks but in general the changes are good and give us an ever improving program.
  4. I would love to have an FS-X thats is screamingly fast and doesn't suffer from the blurries. I made a bootcamp partition on my brand new iMac i7 with GForce GTX 680 MX 2 Gb graphics card in order to have access to my Windows flightsimulator collection. Everything I throw at that machine looks amazing and runs blazzingly fast but FS-X is still the tweak fest that it always was. I installed my ORBX PNW add-ons, apply the ORBX reccomended tweeks and up close and the first few minutes it looks amazing. After those first few minutes you start to notice the blurries and pop up. As always the blurries spoil the experience for me. Large amounts of tweaking can get rid of them for a while but then you switch to another area or add-on and it becomes another tweak party. I'm used to the sharp X-Plane look. I never liked AI and artificial ATC (not even in FS-X) so those things I don't mis. I just want to enjoy my virtual flying, tweaking feels to much like work. I think the ORB-X guys are way to quick to dismiss X-Plane. The thing that is never mentioned is the format that is used for X-Planes add-ons. X-Plane add-ons are pretty open and models, textures and ACF's can be opened, converted and used by a more technical user. I wonder if this is the real reason for developpers to steer clear of X-Plane add-ons.
  5. boshar

    your worst addons?

    >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?
  6. boshar

    FS11 - Will the scenery engine improve?

    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
  7. >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.
  8. boshar

    fly2 patch and win2k

    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
  9. boshar

    Sooooo, what do we do now?

    >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.
  10. boshar

    Happy Holidays!

    Merry Christmas everybody!
  11. >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.
  12. boshar

    I bought a new TV

    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)
  13. 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.
  14. boshar

    I bought a new TV

    >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.
  15. >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 ;-)