Jimmy Angel

Looks fantastic.And, yes, TrackIR support would be great.

Up until very recently, I was flying FS9 and was thrilled with the performance and the library of addons. I was one of those guys who was just planning to skip FSX and see how FSXI worked out. Not any more. I picked up my copy this week.The next 2-4 years will be good ones in terms of FSX. Hardware will continue to improve. Addon developers will push the technology as far as they can. Initially, simmers like us might even be willing to spend a bit more money on addons knowing that they won't be made invalid in two years by a new version.But, it won't last. Without the "new and shiny", there's not much to draw anyone to the community. Others will simply quit playing the aging sim. Addon developers will close up shop. It'll become a niche with a few die-hards.And, despite the press releases from Microsoft, they didn't get rid of the Aces team because they are dedicated to supporting MSFS. We're talking about a team of very experienced developers, pilots, etc. Despite all of the flak we gave them, with every version you can see how they worked hard to put the heart and soul of aviation into our computers. These weren't just your typical grunt game coders.Other companies might take a run at it, but the undertaking is complex and the potential for a new franchise is VERY limited. In other words, smoke 'em while you got 'em.

Was just looking at the calendar today and realized it's been a bit more than 5 years since FS9's release. I purchased it on release day, and was happy to find that it was a significant improvement over FS2002.But, it was also a continual point of frustration for me. I could just never get performance where i wanted it to be. I had a hard time ignoring the stutters and wavering frame rates. I could fly (and enjoy) the RealAir SF260, but the whole experience was still quirky and I spent more time tweaking than flying. I spent hundreds of dollars on add-ons, but never really felt as though I got enough use out of them.I gave it for the most part last year. A week ago, on a bit of a lark, I reinstalled it on the new system I built in March. I spent way too many hours during the evenings getting everything reinstalled. I purchased a few new items, including Ground Environment Pro to replace my Summer/US only BEV.And, five years later, FS2004 has finally come into its own for me. The combo of ActiveSky and Ground Environment Pro is stunning. The water of Flight Environment rivals that of FSX. Airports from FlyTampa continue to be unrivaled.There's also an aircraft I've fallen in love with, the Suprunov Design Yak 40. It's old school flying in an aircraft that burns fuel unapologetically, and climbs to altitude with a complete lack of motivation. The virtual cockpit in this thing is simply amazing.When I bought this new system, I had planned to purchase FSX. But, I'm over that now. I'll see how it's aged in a few years. In the meanwhile, I've started up an FSPassengers career as an owner of an old Yak-40, flying tourists in and out of Princess Juliana and to other destinations in the Caribbean. I've had a few rough landings, and a heck of a lot of fun.With the help of all of the talented add-on developers, FS9 has aged really well, and I can finally just enjoy flying.

Hello:I have an add on (FSPassengers) which only works when FS9 is run in administrator mode under Vista. Unfortunately, AS2004 does not seem to detect FS9 when it's running in administrator mode ... the status bar just displays "Load Flight Simulator to Begin Weather Processing"I tried running AS2004 in administrator mode as well, but this didn't seem to make a difference. If I uncheck the administrator option from FS9, it works fine.I realize these are old products, but just wondering if there is a suggested fix.

>A few quotes from your post though is where for me, you left>your valid points and said what causes unnecessary problems>for this forum:I've been following this thread, and this is the second time quotes from Josh's post have been taken completely out of context.For example, you quote the following:"part of some corporate scheme to #### us off and take our money"Here is the actual original quote in context:"Do I think that this is part of some corporate scheme to #### us off and take our money?Hardly. FSX is the most impressive piece of simulation software I have ever seen available to the public, and that only becomes more and more true with every subsequent release."I think Josh's arguments have been reasonable, well-stated, and balanced with plenty of praise of the MSFS series. With all due respect, Geofa, I think it's bad form to snip out a bunch of pieces of his post because it tends to distort the original meaning and intent. Better to include the original quotes in full context and then comment on them point-by-point when you disagree or think he's being inflammatory.Personally, I've watched FSX from the sidelines. I've been waiting for the service patches and DX10 update to upgrade my computer to a level where I can fly rather than endlessly tweak. Now, I'm honestly no longer compelled to upgrade and may even just wait it out and see what FS11 offers.I think everyone has to admit that the DX10 enhancements are a bit of a letdown. I know that Phil and other team members have been honest and forthright in recent months. I think that Microsoft marketing really built up the potential of DX10 (and how it would impact FSX), so it's a bit of a bummer to see that that the emperor has no clothes.So, if I were a flight sim aficionado who payed thousands of dollars and upgraded to the latest and greatest hardware earlier this year, I think I'd have a bit of venting to do on the matter. I'm glad I waited it out.Finally, I have to give huge props to Phil and the team. It's been great having this open communication, and It sounds like they have a great plan for moving forward with FS11.

I think that the whole idea of a new version of FS being built for future hardware is essentially broken.For one, release cycles for MSFS are every 2-3 years. If the sim was being released every 6 years, then I'd understand having a lot of headroom. It's a bit silly to release a sim and then have hardware fully "catch up" a year or so (if then) before the next release. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and I can't think of any other games/sims I've played which follow this paradigm.Which raises the issue ... should MS "dumb down" the graphics in order to achieve this? Do we artificially just make everyone happy by allowing the sim to run with all of the sliders to the right? No, but I think MS should define features and set optimization goals by a current benchmark, not one a year or two following release.Personally, I'm still waiting for hardware to catch up with FSX. It's a bit depressing, because by the time I upgrade my system, I am sure they will be announcing FS11. My hope is that they really take advantage of computing power (GPU's, multiple CPU's) to deliver awesome graphics and immersion, and that they do it in a way that can be enjoyed fully and immediately without jumping into a time machine.

Here's my question ... I am considering a system upgrade but am wondering if I should even bother, at least as far as FSX is concerned.Is anyone running FSX at medium-high settings on current (reasonable) hardware.For example, one of the high-end Nvidia video cards (i.e. 8800GTS) and a reasonable CPU (such as an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600)And I'm not talking just bush flying....

I agree that looks pretty bad.In FS9, the texture resolution was low enough that realistic roads (such as in the Ultimate Terrain series) looked a bit awkward but not too bad. Now, there is a pretty severe disconnect between the road data textures and the scenery textures. Also notice the way the forest cuts through the houses in your screenshot.With the previous muddier textures, you could suspend disbelief. Now, especially if I fly in areas I am familiar with, the level of detail just shines a light on the inconsistencies with reality. ("Hey, there's not a shopping mall there!")Personally, I'm happy for the greater texture resolution but it is also taking a step away from surreal to real, and other elements of the sim just don't support that detail. When I move to FSX (still on FS9), I will probably fly almost exclusively in areas with good satellite terrain coverage (such as the Generation X package for UK/Wales). That way, you're looking at what exists in reality.

I don't even own FSX and I'm still tempted to purchase the new version. That's how much I love these RealAir guys and the SF260. Great service as always getting this out so soon.

>I never said it wasnt light on frames and looked nice, I'm>just wondering how exactly you can justify a high price like>thatI would agree the price seems out-of-line (as a comparison Flightzone Portland with 4 airports and a large area of high detail terrain and autogen is around $34), but I am more worried about the future of FSX airport scenery in general. Custom textures make a huge difference, and I sure hope that developers can figure a way to give us the same quality of add-on airports we've seen in FS9.

>Like Allcot and Tom have been written : there is no hardware>nore will be hardware released that will be able to make FSX>run like we all would like it to run.I think the jury is still out, and some people do report good performance in dense situations. Some of that is probably rose-colored-glasses, some of it is probably reality.I have a decent system, and I still can't run FS9 at full detail in all situations. Heavy clouds, for example, can be a killer. Most of the time I am at 40+ fps but flying close to heavy clouds can actually introduce stutters. I've heard that the weather performance in FSX is actually improved.I haven't bought FSX yet. I won't buy it until a PC upgrade probably in late 2007. My current system is 3-yeard old. I wouldn't expect to be able to run FSX on what I have now. When I do buy FSX, I'll probably be buying one of the UK VFR packages and flying there exclusively. I'm pretty confident I can get great frame rates with that scenery (even if, as planned, they introduce custom autogen objects).That said, I sure can see how heavy iron fliers are disappointed with the state of the current release. There is very little headroom for any complex add-ons. >Eg My 8 year old son has a Celeron 1700 pc with a 6800 card>and is playing San Andreas very fluidWow. 8 years-old? San Andreas? Really?That aside, as has been said many times, you can't really compare something like San Andreas to FSX.But I do wish that Microsoft had poured more time and money into making FSX cutting-edge in looks and performance. It's just the reality of business, I suppose.

I worked retail in the 80's and people acted like idiots back then. I think gaming is just more mainstream now than in the DOS days so there's a much higher mainstream idiot factor.That said, I don't really understand people pre-ordering games. When has it been hard to find a game on release day? With all due respect, there is a bit of a "you made your bed now lie in it" factor with EBGames and GameStop and their heavy focus on preorders and used games and other sales tactics.Not excusing the idiots, but I would argue that EBGames and GameStop have also gone much more mainstream. They aren't fun places to shop anymore, and they aren't targeting the savvy customers--they are targeting the mainstream ones who don't know better.Sorry you had a bad day. I remember it well. That's why I got the heck out of retail.

Glad to hear things are better for you, Mike. The darn thing better run well--you've got a killer system.Have a look at my lowly specs and you'll see why I'll be waiting to switch to FSX. However, with PC gaming bottoming out in general I just don't know if it's worth an upgrade at all. My priorities are definitely starting to shift.Have fun with it!

>Truly outstanding. I know some people don't like photo>scenery, and thats fair enough, each to his own, but I for one>cannot wait to fly over REAL UK with 1m detail. GREAT WORK!!!I'm with you on this one, Matt. As soon as I upgrade to a new PC and FSX, I will be buying this scenery. People complain about photo scenery, but I don't understand the distinction now that FSX's scenery tiles are basically photo scenery. Where UK VFR will be different from past photo textures is in the 1m level of detail. I mean .. look at those screenshots. Look at the details on the roads and how they wind naturally through the countryside. In contrast, I've seen all of the FSX screenshots with the fuzzy-looking roads cutting unaturally through the scenery tiles.(not a knock against FSX which does look great on its own, but I just think that with FSX the terrain texture sizes have reached a point where we can shoot for "real" rather than "surreal".)

>I am still waiting for such a photo-secenry that would also>incorporate night scenery. I would be pleasantly surprised if>this one also included night scenery but I know chances for>that are small. I am an avid night flyer and could not justify>spending this kind of money for purely daytime flying.Yes, it includes night scenery.From their feature list:"VFR Generation X includes custom night lighting that gives you incredible scenery to enjoy even at night. VFR Generation X uses Horizon's new texture based night lighting for best performance and visual appeal."

The best scenery I have seen in FS9 is Flightzone 02: Portland. It's amazing.

Wow. that looks awesome.And next year they are coming out with 3d objects (trees/buildings) for the entire scenery.I would seriously consider (when I can finally upgrade to use FSX) buying this stuff and flying nowhere else. It seems to me that there is zero compromise with this scenry.

>The measurement is what is available NOW and the comparison>is what runs best on my CURRENT hardware. I am not interested>in how FSX might look in 3 years or how FS9 looked 3 years>ago. I am interested in this point in time. I don't get it.Indeed. For many of us the decision on whether to fly FS9 or FSX NOW is based upon our current installation, hardware capabilities, etc. Why all the defensiveness? This is a valid comparison, and it certainly contributes to my current decision to stick with FS9 and try FSX in a year or so.I appreciate the time taken to assemble this post. Plus, it's always interesting to see X-Plane in the mix.

>Correct me if I am wrong but I remember a lot of the same>problems when fs2004 came out. The fourms wrere flooded with>people getting stutters and poor performance on high end (for>the time) machines. Autogen was a large part of the issue then>as it is now.I'd say there was some similiar posts, but definately not to this magnitude. FSX is a different beast.For example, here's my first post about FS9 compared to FS8."The most surpising (to me) thing is that the fps is comparable in this situation (sitting on the runway at KSEA) between both sims, even with the 3d clouds (other sliders the same). It's pretty hard to be critical about the performance of the sim in this context....I think the overall look is much more detailed and realistic in FS2004."Arguably, the only major visual update in FS9 was the clouds, and that's where we saw some issues (lots of us downloading the "fix" to reduce the size of cloud textures). At the time, however, I was running FS9 on the same (aging) system I had been running FS8, and I was able to achieve consistent performance and visuals through the sliders.And, of course, before that we had FS8, which was a HUGE visual upgrade over FS7 and actually smoothed out many performance issues.With FSX, even if you tune the sliders to FS9 level visuals, you are taking a big performance hit--apparently because of the Shader 2.0 model.

I won't be upgrading to FSX for now because I can't run FSX at a comparable level of detail to FS9 with comparable frame rates. The relatively minor enhancements in flight modeling that you mention just aren't enough of a selling point for me, especially when I have great aircraft in FS9 such as the RealAir SF-260. Do I want to run a sim at 10fps when I can have one that runs at 30fps and looks better? I've tried the demo, and I am not convinced that 10fps in FSX feels "smoother" than 30fps in FS9.Things like autogen are important to me for a sense of immersion and speed at low altitudes. I guess that probably disqualifies me from being hardcore, but there you are.Now, I understand that the ACES team upgraded the visuals to a shader model, which is the reason that FSX takes a hit when doing side-by-side comparisons with FS9. I won't knock their choice. I'm glad they are moving forward. I wish they would dump backwards compatability altogether and just go crazy with the engine. I think the biggest selling point for me in this version is the level of detail on the ground textures, which look great.My plan is to buy a new PC in 8 months or a year and give FSX another try. If FSX doesn't scream along with top-of-the-line components at that stage, then I give up.

For scenery improvements, in order of importance (IMHO):* A good mesh (i.e. FSgenesis)* UT USA and/or UT Canada/Alaska* Ground Environment Pro* Flightzone 01 and/or 02* Flytampa KSEA, KSFO, etc.

Your video card settings should override anything in FS9 (assuming you don't have them set to "application preference" or some-such).For anisotropic filtering, pay attention to the textures out a little ways from your aircraft. Without anisotropic, they will look muddy and indistinct. With anisotropic, you will see detail further out.Personally, I found around 8x anisotropic to be optimal. Any more than that almost adds too much.If you aren't seeing a difference you can try a couple of things:1) pause your flight looking out the side of your VC, take a screenshot, save the flight, then close out FS9, change your video card settings, reload the flight, and take another screenshot. Compare the screenshots. If you aren't seeing a difference, there is probably a problem.2) Some video cards might require a reboot to see your setting changes, especially if you are running FS9 windowed rather than full screen.Let me know if you work it out. If not, I can take a couple of screenshots and show you the difference.

The advantage of BEV for some people might be if you tend to fly in a particular area in a particular season, it's a fair bit less expensive. For example, I fly in the US and mostly in the summer. I stay away from other seasons just because of the FPS cost of heavy weather. For me, BEV currently fits the bill with just the US/summer textures.That said, GE Pro looks amazing and it has tons of customization options--just hard for me to justify the $50 right now.

I am considering upgrading my CPU from am AMD Athlon 64 3000+. I'm imagining that this will be a relatively cheap ($100 or less), short-term upgrade. I'll be doing a "start fresh" upgrade probably late in 2007. My card (6800GT) seems to be out-pacing my CPU, since I am able to ramp up to the highest resolutions without helping my frame rate.Anyone have any sense if this will net me any worthwhile improvement?How can I determine what processors my motherboard (AOpen AK86-L Socket 754) supports?

I purchased the FSD Skymaster and flew around for a bit. In a word, great.Gauge refresh is very good. Not realair quality but very close (and this is a pretty complex panel)Frame rates are good. I'm taking a bit of a hit, but not bad.She handles with a sense of momentum and grace (bit of a contradiction, but there you are). Lifts off easily with a bit of trim, and settles in for cruise just as pretty as you please.Great visibility from the cockpit. Subtle tints to the windscreens, which helps with immersion (and not as "in your face" as some of the reflections I've seen on other payware windscreens).The nighttime panel lighting is awesome--subtle, very atmospheric.The aircraft is just plain cool to look at. Part of that is to FSD's credit for their modeling, and part of it is because the 337 is just an interesting aircraft. It's a step up from my last purchase, the PMDG 1900C. Not because PMDG didn't do a great job with the model, but because the 1900C is just an ugly, boxy aircraft.So, thanks for the recommendation. This looks like a keeper.