FSX vrs FS9... is it really THAT different?

[Joe_D]

I'm really glad that some are

[an-225]

Why is there all this FSX hate? It is really fun! All I see at the moment are people complaining and whining about FSX but they don't think to take a deep breath, relax, and either, fly in a rural (high FPS) area or go back to FS9 and wait to get a hardware update. As you guys say, FS9 IS better with all the add-ons.

Proud FSX user.

[Brett_Henderson]

[quote]I'm really glad that some are

[Mobius]

I don't know how to respond to that other than to point out that even ACES admitts there are serious  issues that  need to be addressed. Iwould suggest that some do some more research (and get past the initial wow factor) and take off the rose colored glasses.

You mean some of the information presented by an ACES member HERE?  Particularly this one...

[quote]DX10 by itself isn

[Hagar]

From what I understand, FSX is coded to take advantage of these things when they are released, and bring out even better features/performance. And if I'm not mistaken.. there will be a Vista/DX10 upgrade for FSX(it'll be like getting a brand new sim .. to me that's a GOOD thing.. not a short-coming).

I could be wrong but I got the impression that FSX was originally intended to be released after Vista. When Vista ran into problems FSX had to be quickly optimized to run on existing systems. This could explain some of the many problems people are having with it. To be frank it was a rush job to catch the Christmas market. This is not so much the fault of the developers but the suits who make the decisions. Whoever's fault it is, let's not pretend this is an ideal situation. Far from it.

Why is there all this FSX hate?

There is no hate but severe disappointment felt by people who dare to comment when they find bugs & faults that should not be there. They immediately get shouted down by those either lucky enough to have no problems as yet or reluctant to admit they made a mistake in getting it too soon. The latter seem to have an inexplicable blind loyalty to M$ & leap to its defence whenever anyone dares to point out the truth they obviously have problems accepting. I have to agree with Joe about those rose-tinted spectacles.

What's happening here is almost a repeat performance of countless bitter arguments in the CFS3 forum when that was released in November 2002. For someone on the outside like me it's like deja-vu. Only now, 4 years & a couple of patches down the line, are the 3rd party developers (mainly the freeware community I might add) starting to get to grips with it & making it what it should have been in the first place.

[krylite]

I have to echo that the flaws of FSX are too conspicuous. I like the new 3d effects, the cars on the highway, the higher rez/pixel scenery etc, but I haven't played it all that much. Wondering to sell it used, or try out the SDK and make something with it.

Seeing the standard edition only on #28 on Amazon.com best sellers for PC games is a valid indicator that the vast majority of pc gamers where not happy with it. It's even rating 2.5 stars average, a low overall rating and these aren't haters or competitors to the product, just honest disappointment as said. Look at FS2004, still #8  on the top pc game sellers. At least FS9 still carries the banner of MSFS still being at the top tier of best selling PC games of all time. (PC's started in 1984, but FS still wowed for the 8-bit dinosaurs: Apple I,II, Commodore 64, Atari etc. with Artwick's FS I and II, I still have the Sublogic  box and 5.25" floppy discs for my FSII for Atari)

[Daube]

There was a lot of dissapointment for all those people who strongly believed that better graphics are for free, and additionnal power is useless  ::)

Yeah because, if a card can display perfectly 600 objects with 256x256 textures, it can also display 3000 objects with 1024x1024 textures, why not ?  :P

As for the original post, if I understood right, you wonder if it's worth playing FSX since the graphics are no different from FS9.... so you play a game JUST for the graphics, then ? I see... personnaly, I still focus on the list of other enhancements.

Finaly, for DX10, from what I could read, there will be some enhancement, just because DX10 and the unified shaders use the harware in a much better way than DX9 ever could. The gain will not be miraculous, of course.

[NicksFXHouse]

Been lurking and I was going to stay out of this one however with Mobius making a totally correct reference to

[Brett_Henderson]

No rosy glasses here..  I see the problems.. I just think they're being exagerated out of aggravation by those not equiped to enjoy it..  Oh well  ::)

Pointing them out.. probing for fixes is one thing. This seemingly never-ending bash of a product that's pretty darn good is the problem.

[NicksFXHouse]

Oh.. and have a nice day  ;D

[Joe_D]

Why is there all this FSX hate? It is really fun! All I see at the moment are people complaining and whining about FSX but they don't think to take a deep breath, relax, and either, fly in a rural (high FPS) area or go back to FS9 and wait to get a hardware update. As you guys say, FS9 IS better with all the add-ons.

Proud FSX user.

OK this is the common miciception.... that a hardware or OS update will somehow eliminate all the bugs and rewite the FSX code.
It just isn't going to happen.

The most we can hope for is to have the same flawed program running at few more FPS with perhaps a couple of more graphical features to wow the uninformed.

What is need is a serious patch to fix the known issues in addition to the DX10/VISTA patch.

If the majority say that they are satified as is and only need the DFX10/VISTA patch, that is all we will get. Such is marketing.

BTW, I'm currently running an x2 4400, with 2gigs of RAM with a X1800XT.
It's not exactly a low end sys.

However, one ACES member on his blog has admitted that they missed the boat on multi core when they failed to see it's future and instead, relied on single cores to get ever faster.

[Daube]

JUST LIKE FS9 IN 2003 WAS DESIGNED FOR 2005-2006 HARDWARE.

Nooooo, don't tell that, nobody would believe you, you liar

[Brett_Henderson]

OK this is the common miciception.... that a hardware or OS update will somehow eliminate all the bugs and rewite the FSX code.
It just isn't going to happen.

You're right..  A hardware upgrade or new OS won't debug FSX.. Nobody expects that. But software upgrades/patches will. That's how it works. That's how it's worked for a long time. I don't think I own a piece of hi-end software that hasn't been patched.. several times.. And again.. considering the techno-leap the is FSX.. the TRUE bugs are pretty minimal...

[an-225]

Did I say that it will "debug" FSX. No. BUT it will help with perfomance. I got 1 gig of RAM (From 510 so I now have 1534 megs) the other day and it runs like an X-15. FPS is still low but it doesn't lag nearly as much.

[Brett_Henderson]

I could be wrong but I got the impression that FSX was originally intended to be released after Vista. When Vista ran into problems FSX had to be quickly optimized to run on existing systems. This could explain some of the many problems people are having with it.

I don't know the time-lines.. but I'd bet that's accurate. However.. I can't imagine there was much optimization to make it run on XP, as it would still have been a LONG time before a good chunk of simmers moved from XP to Vista. The double whammy there is that folks reluctant to upgrade hardware.. aren't likely to be forking over another few hundred dollars for Vista too. And who knows.. It probably won't be long after that, that DX11 shows up  :P