FSX Haters thread

[ozzy72]

Okay time for a little objectivity here. FSX is a blindin' bit of kit if you have a suitable rig to run it on.... alas most of us haven't. If you have prepare to have you gray-matter hit meltdown

[RitterKreuz]

true "simulators" as they are recognized by flight and maritime academies are mounted atop large full motion hydraulic jacks that simulate the very movement of the aircraft or ship.

FSX is a PC based simulator, its pretty freakin realistic, im not sure how it would come across as a "game".

Its not like your cessna 172 has lasers on it and your chasing around aliens.... now that would be a "Game".

FSX might not be any more or less of a simulator than any of the previous releases, but i think it does a fantastic job. The 3-D panels look GREAT especially if you have TrackIR and the slightest turn of your head reveals the rest of the panel. I liked the 3-d cockpit option in FS9... im glad they really took it to a whole other level in FSX, the 3-d panels in FSX are cleaner, sharper, and more realistic looking than previous versions. and if you dont like the 3-d panel you can always use the 2-d optional panel, but this is much more game like and in tune with something like "pro-pilot 99" or "FS98".

Flying a 2-d panel is much easier because the basic instruments you need and all of the buttons and switches essential to your flight operation are right there a mouse click away, so im sure there are a lot of players who arnt die hard sim fans who play it as a game this way that get lulled into thinking that climbing out in an airliner at 250 knots is "easy" - i guarantee you that it is not as easy as playing the game - the first time a person sits in a high performance jet and pours the fuel to the fire and goes thundering out into the wild blue their eyes get wide and their mind is still sitting on the runway. in real life you have to look and verify that your hitting the right switch, or pressing the right button... in FSX and FS9 the 3-d panels require you to perform this task while the 2-d panels are more in tune with a point and click play style.

The only "game" like features are found in the training turorials or "just for fun" challenges that require you to fly through boxes and rings floating in the air. these are GREAT additions to the FS series because it gives new players an opportunity to learn how to fly and control the planes in the sim. And since so much of learning is visual these game like features are a fantastic step in the right direction for new players which is the back bone of any sim genre like the MSFS series new players are the life blood of keeping flight sims going.

Microsoft has really done great things for aviation over the past 20+ years by creating the FS line of products... so many people have actually taken the plunge and become real pilots because of the MSFS series... so many enthusiasts have become so well versed in aviation and its history because of the MSFS series as well.

[Brett_Henderson]

To say that FSX is very good is to say that berlusconi is a honest man. FSX may have something good to give, but whatever it may give is WAY less that what it FSX MIGHT have given if someone had made it less a game and more a simulator.

I have agree with Ashaman here, to a degree. If I was asked to write the FSX script, I'd have devoted more to flight dynamic and instumentation accuracy, and less to the eye-candy. But that's not to say that the eye-candy is a waste. The whole sim experience is about a graphical representation... so improvements there are still very much improvements to the sim, overall.  They can't please evryone completly. The fact still is, the whole thing is better sim. If your computer isn't up to the "game" graphics and you can't abide the performance degradation... then either turn the graphics down or upgrade your hardware. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I find that FSX is so much more a satisfying simulator (game qualities aside) (even on my two year old hardware), that FS9 is unuseable.. like listening to cassette tapes, after hearing a CD.

[Brett_Henderson]

in FSX and FS9 the 3-d panels require you to perform this task while the 2-d panels are more in tune with a point and click play style.

How very very true !

[ashaman]

The fact still is, the whole thing is better sim. If your computer isn't up to the "game" graphics and you can't abide the performance degradation... then either turn the graphics down or upgrade your hardware. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You're completely missing the point. It's a given that a new simulator needs an upgrade, do you think I'm daft? The problem is the... "exchange of goods", if you will.

In the end, if I upgrade to a super duper system that allows me to max out FSX (selling my house to play under a bridge can be hard though. Where will I find a power socket and a net connection there) what will I have in the end if not a nicer looking FS9?

I could here launch myself in what is not been done in exchange if nicer graphics... but is completely useless to speak to the deaf (before you start getting offended, I'm talking about M$, not you).

As stated above, too little has been given for me to move on this release, if not from time to time outside of boredom, to look at the pretty graphics.

Maybe FS11. Maybe. If they (M$) learn to make it worthwhile.


PS
By the way, after the SP I can finally use it this great FSX (hear the sarcasm, please) without cursing to the everlasting hell all those overpaid... people in M$. Still, I'm using FS9 more than 9 times out of 10. Still, "the cross" is my nephew's [glow=yellow,2,300]GAME[/glow]. There has to be a reason, don't you think? :-?

[Brett_Henderson]

I think I got the point (I even agreed with you on it)

[RitterKreuz]

i built a whole new rig for 1200 dollars turning out FSX maxed sliders at 17 to 20 fps. I was seeing at least that on my old computer with FS9 maxed out.

of course i did all my own labor to save money, a computer genius friend of mine told me that my machine built by dell or someone would have cost near twice that.

[Brett_Henderson]

Just for nostalgic reference... My MSFS history (best as I can remember it):

FS98)

[RitterKreuz]

Brett your right... and its sort of the way i have been saying all along... we can run games and sims all day long on the same machine, but just about every time Microsoft comes out with a new FS addition... its time to upgrade the old girl.

and guess  what? in another 24 - 36 months I'll probably be upgrading her again... and MS will probably be coming out with another FS addition about that time too

[SkyNoz]

Nothing is perfect, but FSX is very good, and the best we have, so why not enjoy it?!

Why do people still use 2D panels?

To say that FSX is very good is to say that berlusconi is a honest man. FSX may have something good to give, but whatever it may give is WAY less that what it FSX MIGHT have given if someone had made it less a game and more a simulator.

As for the 2d panels... well, maybe people wish to read the instruments without having to lose their eyesight, perhaps? Personally I don't give a flying f... k about passing fashions and very much prefer a good 2d panel to a half-assed VC.

+1

[crotiusf16]

I see a lot of positiveness and then a bit negativity as well hanging around. Overall most of us agree that M$ did a great job with FSX. FS9 on my machine is a pleasure, and I must admit it has become an addiction. Flying around in jet, propeller and rotorcraft engined aircraft has made me a simmer "junkie".

FSX needs an aircraft installer, electronic mapbook and a aircraft registration utility.

The missions in FSX is enjoyable, but I would have liked to have seen it more categorised for rotor, jet and propeller aircraft. Then all of us could have chosen which one we would do or not do.

Well that is all from me. I am still trying to get my "super machine" to give me more than 20fps.

[DizZa]

As for the 2d panels... well, maybe people wish to read the instruments without having to lose their eyesight, perhaps? Personally I don't give a flying f... k about passing fashions and very much prefer a good 2d panel to a half-assed VC.

Virtual Cockpits are passing fashions?

LMFAO!

[Gunny04]

As for the 2d panels... well, maybe people wish to read the instruments without having to lose their eyesight, perhaps? Personally I don't give a flying f... k about passing fashions and very much prefer a good 2d panel to a half-assed VC.

Virtual Cockpits are passing fashions?

LMFAO!

LMFAO! Vc's are a passing fashion? Gimme a break! I fly the VC view only 98% of the time, running the 2d panels for certain dials and such and thats it.

Gunny

[macca22au]

I have Matrox TripleHead and I ONLY run in VC.  The VCs are very good, and yes they are more like real world flying.  I use a fourth screen (technically the second)on which I put pop-ups like GPS and FMs, ATC and the like. I would like to be able to get rid of the yoke in VC. or I will need to get TrackIR running again.  My hate, hate and seething hatred is my inability to get the scenery smooth, the autogen numbers right, find the right balance between trees and buildings without having to have three different cfgs.  It has taken me six months and I am still frustrated, but as I said once before, I feel like the man who was asked why he was banging his head against a brick wall, his answer was that if felt great when he stopped.  Well it won't stop until the next generations of CPUs and GPUs are on the market at the end of the year.

[krigl]

Ashaman, we are well aware of your obsessive hatred of FSX. You stated your opinion, great. But you don't need to rehash it all again ad-infinitum and get into yet another arguement.... It is boring and off-putting to new members, disruptive to normal discussion. You have been warned by admin about non-stop dissing of MS and FSX.

Now give it a break or I will just have to delete all your replies