jcmissionary

"Let's face it, Microsoft just taking the easy way out and just didn't wan't to devote manpower to these areas as the would lose some profits."They want to make a profit?!?!? Say it ain't so! :-)I don't see them dumping ATC in single-player mode. I don't particularly like flying online, either. That being said, it the simconnect API allows utilities like RC to exert greater control over AI traffic and ground handling of A/C, then I can live with that.

Indeed. I believe that the new Simconnect API is one of the best features of the new sim, although how great it will be is dependent on the add-on developers.For example, if simconnect could allow an add-on such as Radar Contact to issue ground commands to AI traffic and provide a better ground handling experience, one of the (IMO) major drawbacks to it would be eliminated. Then, all we'd need would be an EditVoicePack for it, and we'd be set.

Ah, sorry. :-beerchug It's what I get for reading a post once, then replying without rereading it. Oh well. :-)

An informative post from Paul on ATC and FSX.http://blogs.technet.com/p-12c_pilot/archi.../24/449488.aspxLooks like online ATC is the future, which is probably a good idea, anyways. If only VATSIM and IVAO would get their acts togeter and merge.:-grr

"Yeah, sad to see that MS is catering so much to the gamers with stuff that hardcore simmers could care less about, like flaperons and retractable tip-floats"Ummmmm.... The average person wouldn't even know what flaperons are. It seems to me that those features will allow developers to make even more realistic aircraft.

This fix is not implemented in the demo. Thus, adding the line to the fsx.cfg will not do anything. It would be like adding FLIGHT_SIM_RUNS_PERFECTLY=1. It might be in the cfg, but it sure isn't gonna do anything. :-)

Absolutely gorgeous. Kudos to the cameraman.

Hmmm... I have none of those, except for ASVI, so by getting FSX, I actually save myself $60 or so.As others have said, its not really fair to compare a fleshed-out, mature FS9 with a brand-new FSX. When FSX has been out for a few years, and we have $120 worth of scenery add-ons to put in it, then we can compare. :-)

I think I figured it out.When I set the clouds at just Juliana with 8/8 Stratus overcast, I had the same result as above: A patchy overcast. However, when I set all the nearby weather stations to the same thing, I got the solid overcast seen in my shots. So, it appears that the more stations that are reporting overcast in the vicinity, the more solid it will be.Try setting the overcast, but apply it to all weather stations, not just Juliana.

Could you post some screenshots of your display settings? I would like to find out what setting affects the overcast of FSX. There is obviously something different between your settings and mine, because I can consistenly generate overcast layers like those shown in my previous posts. Would be nice to narrow down what that difference is. :-)

Ummmm... I've managed to do without using visibility layers. Seems to work just fine.

Mine is moderate for this day and age. Athlon64 3500+1GB RAMRadeon 9800 ProHere are some more with a cumulus layer from 2000 to 13000 feet. Again, I used no visibility layers or any such workaround. This was created simply by creating a cloud layer, selecting overcast 8/8 and adjusting the layer size.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154198.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154199.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154200.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154201.jpgI also included the top-down pic to show that overcast is solid. The only fault I found with it was that the scenery objects were visible through the clouds, with some kind of strange glow. I would imagine that this will get fixed before FSX is released.

Considering the minor uproar over the lack of ATC/AI improvements, I imagine that ACES will be taking a long, hard look at it for FS11.

Indeed. IMO, FSX makes GE, FE, and Ultimate Terrain obsolete. That's over $100 worth of addons. However, I am also confident that the authors of those programs will find ways to improve on what's already in FSX.

What overcast flaw are your referring to? I was able to set up an overcast layer without using any visibility layers or anything else.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154194.jpgJust a simple 2000 foot thick 8/8 overcast stratus layer. If this isn't the flaw that you are addressing, then I apologize. It just seems to me that FSX's overcast is light years ahead of FS9's.

Not everywhere. MS has to pull their landclass from a variety of sources. If the data for hi-res landclass isn't available, or is extremely expensive, then MS has to work with what they can get.

You're not going to have to buy a new copy if you upgrade your hardware. I've yet to see a program that requires that.However, nearly all software released specifies in the EULA that the software can be installed on one computer only, although some games do allow installation to a second computer provided that both copies will not be running at the same time. Product activation merely enforces this.

Well, I've been going with product activation with WinXP for nearly 5 years now, and I have yet to have any problems with it. I've had to call twice to manually activate, and that was after making major hardware upgrades. I've made numerous minor upgrades and never had to call.If MS has to have some sort of copy protection, at least it's something that can't be overridden by a simple .exe download.Also, I believe that Tdragger has mentioned that we won't have to put any disk in to run FSX.

Beats having to put in disk 4 every time, doesn't it?

This is where Mike Gilbert has also mentioned that a dual-core processor will be most helpful.

Check out the same thing in FS9. Looks quite a bit different (worse). I thought I'd grabbed a screen, but I didn't. :-(

I was experiencing the same thing as the original poster....until I turned the cloud coverage density slider to max. All I did was add a cumulus cloud layer from 2000 ft to 15000 ft. I did not adjust the visibility as was suggested above. This is the result. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154038.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154039.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154040.jpgIt would seem that overcast is alive and well in FSX, as long as you turn the cloud density slider up.

This has been addressed multiple times in multiple threads. There will be no 64-bit FSX. Not that I wouldn't like to see it. But they've already said that it won't happen for this version.

Tdragger has posted a possible fix at his blog for this.http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/200.../11/696112.aspxI don't know if this will solve your problem or not, but I hope it gives you something to start from.

Indeed. I've also noticed that the FPS for the overcast is much better than the Active Sky overcast enhancement for FS9. (Not knocking the active sky folks at all).