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

[NicksFXHouse]

[quote]I told you you would return....

The pic you posted only shows autogen on city textues. The autogen masks the blurry textures.

Nick, I've grown weary

[Joe_D]

.....Also, maybe Nick finds it insulting that you keep saying MS (company who he, errrr, I donno, helps beta test?) is trying to steal and assault you.....

Maybe?

Like I previously said, there are those who take any critisizem of FS much too personally.
Remember the bridge disaster in FS9 an how insulted some got whenever you brought it up?

"It's deja vu all over again"

[Daube]

[quote]
I have yet to see a pic of FSX without blurry textures in the near distance as compared to FS9. Not even a pic from MS

This is because of the new way FSX handels ground textures. The ground textures in the near distance are of lower resoulution than in FS9.
Hardware upgrades,etc wont fix this.
The combo of blurry ground textures and high res autogen

[Daube]

The more I hear about this crappy "X is better than 9" the more I'm thinking to migrate toward X once and for ever.

X-PLANE, I mean.

I really don't get people that, put in front of a NEW sim, only because is a NEW sim, they begin behaving like religious integralists.

FSX, you like or not, is STILL chock full of problems. You may not want to admit it even to yourself, but this has no consequence on reality.

1) Desertification in real world is a problem, but in FSX Italy is almost a desert as Arizona. FS9 had this problem NOT.

FS9 had the world most crappy landclass ever. Sure there was no desert... there was cultivated fields everywhere !

2) Greeks islands in FSX are a MESS. Only thanks to some generous users this problem has being recently corrected.

Talk about the magnificient coast lines in FS9  ;D

3) All the bluster for the so called "better flight algorithms" is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY due to the admittedly better-than-FS9 defaults' flight dynamics. No one has ever remarked on having noticed better flight behavior in add-ons, if compared to FS9.

So you didn't fly it, then ? Someone has already answered you on this point, improved turbulences, gournd effect etc...

4) Lukla. Should I explain further?

Yeah, the FS9 scenery was so much better  ;D What's the problem with the FSX scenery ? Incorrect orientation... Because with FS9 we had missing mountains, incorrect landclass, the airport was in a giant hole in the montain etc... so much better  ;D

5) Ask, if you will, someone in South America how good is FSX rendition of their lands, that I'm not touching this even with a 10 meters long pole.

Why go to to south america ? Just ask if ANYBODY was happy with the way FS9 did render their land ? South of France rendering SUCKED, North Italy rendering (especially the Alps, general Piemonte and Liguria completely SUCKED... but noooo, it was better, I'm sure  ;D

...I'm called to dinner... if you really wish I'll continue the list when I return.

But even if I don't, I HOPE (against good sense, I know) that at least SOMEONE among the FSX integralists will see a little light. FSX might have a future in front of it, but its present is FAR from perfect (needs a BIG PATCH, bigger than FS9's, and BADLY).

Not a patch, addon scenery. You are mixing bugs and bad data. What you described are not problems in the program, they are problems in the scenery, nothing else.

I have uninstalled it, FSX, by the way. Add-ons to try out are still far away and 15Gb of further free space on HD is always welcome. Will reinstall it when I'll need it, and only out of duty.

You did well, there is no need to use FS9 addons in FSX, who ever used FS2002 addons in FS9 anyway ?  ;D

[Daube]

[quote]


As FogHorn LegHorn would say

[NicksFXHouse]

Also, maybe Nick finds it insulting that you keep saying MS (company who he, errrr, I donno, helps beta test?) is trying to steal and assault you.

I have no love for M$. They do not pay my salary.


==============================
HEY jOE..


Here

[DizZa]

Enjoy:
http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php? ... 854&st=420
29 pages of happiness.

Wow! Those are some amazing shots, especially for stock fsX! OMG the future is bright, and resistance is futile (donno why I said that). LOL.

[NicksFXHouse]

Nick, the forum limitation for the size and wieght of the pictures will not allow you to show real good quality shots, because mainly of the needed compression to satisfy the rules. I have poste a link to another forum who do not suffer this kind of limitation, and the screens are explicit enough there.

Thanks Daube.. I am no screenshot expert and I was just taking quickies so no one would think (CoUgH Joe) I was setting something up that was rigged or fixed. I wont post anymore because I think Joe needs to sit back and think about what he says before he opens his mouth.



When I said it was my recommendation the software be held back, it was strictly from a hardware point of view because I know the MSFS community and I knew what was going to happen if the people who were not running decent computers and top end hardware tried to run it.

As far as I was concerned, the software/scenery glitches and growing pains were fine and good to go for release.

[Daube]

Wow! Those are some amazing shots, especially for stock fsX! OMG the future is bright, and resistance is futile (donno why I said that). LOL.

Impressive for sure, but carefull, some of the members in this topic have edited their shots, sometimes to highlight the colors, sometimes to include some "camera focus" effects with blurries. The guy called Mango posts unedited shots.

What is interesting is that they are doing a "round the world" trip, and it's very nice to see how much the default scenery has improved all over the world compared to FS9.

But of course, the FS9 integrists wil still prefer the 'hole in the mountain' original Lukla scenery of FS9, with the little mud runway and no buildings... (in reality, this is tarmac runway, sloping, with various buildings around)

[Daube]

Thanks Daube.. I am no screenshot expert and I was just taking quickies so no one would think (CoUgH Joe) I was setting something up that was rigged or fixed. I wont post anymore because I think Joe needs to sit back and think about what he says before he opens his mouth.



When I said it was my recommendation the software be held back, it was strictly from a hardware point of view because I know the MSFS community and I knew what was going to happen if the people who were not running decent computers and top end hardware tried to run it.

As far as I was concerned, the software/scenery glitches and growing pains were fine and good to go for release.

Well, you have to understand Joe's point of view. The fact is that because of hardware limitations, the textures of FSX won't be displayed as precisely as they should. Lack of video memory, incorrect drivers, incorrect settings in the drivers (like 'performance' instead of 'quality') incorrect Anisotropic filtering and mipmapping, etc.... al those things will have a very negative impact on the display of the textures.

In the link I have posted, this guy, Mango, has really taken its time to set up his machine properly, and we can see the results.

[NicksFXHouse]

Well, you have to understand Joe's point of view. The fact is that because of hardware limitations, the textures of FSX won't be displayed as precisely as they should. Lack of video memory, incorrect drivers, incorrect settings in the drivers (like 'performance' instead of 'quality') incorrect Anisotropic filtering and mipmapping, etc.... al those things will have a very negative impact on the display of the textures.

In the link I have posted, this guy, Mango, has really taken its time to set up his machine properly, and we can see the results.

I made it quite clear I understand Joe

[Daube]

agree 100 %  ;)

[Politically Incorrect]

The real annoying part is the fact that those who are having issues make it seem that MS has ripped them off.

They bring in the "minimum requirement" argument all the time when anyone with a speck of common sense knows that those are crap no matter what company the software is from.

And they also make it seem as if they were forced at gunpoint to purchase the software.

What is different about the release of FSX is that for months (actually more than a year prior since I built this rig last November specifically for FSX) prior the release it was told that you would need the hardware to run it. This is something that is not the case with most companies. You were WARNED way before and if you made the decision to buy it you took the chance.

The way FSX was released and marketed reeks of coporate greed.

Where has anything been wrongly marketed? I am being serious becasue I haven't seen anything misleading.

The way it was released isn't corporate greed it is the way software companies work ALL of them. Get it out to the public, see how it sells, patch the issues and move forward if demand sees it fit.

It obviously was not redy for prime time but, was released anyway.  
This really rubs me the wrong way as the consumer is always getting the short end of the stick.

Again who forced you or anyone else to buy it? What caused you to believe that this would be "perfect" on your setup? If you say the "minimum requirements" then that is again your fault for still not getting the point.

I am curious as to 1 single piece of software you have purchased from any company that installed and ran perfect right out of the box, with no flaws whatsoever , never needed a patch or update etc... just one , i know I haven't and i own a lot of software of all types.

And out of all that software have you ever once showed the anger towards it in a public forum as you have here with FSX?

Really people give me a break FSX cost less than a prom date. did you ask for a refund when you didn't score there also? Did you get what you expected even with the minimum requirements?



And what is this denial thing that keeps coming up, what am I in denial about? I never said there might not be flaws, although I haven't seen anything I didn't expect  and are what I don't consider flaws becasue I know it is a hardware limitation.

I can not comment on certain parts of the world I have not been to personally as I don't know what they look like. So telling me to go to South America and look around doesn't help since I have no clue as to if it is correct or not, same with seeing a screenshot of it how would I know for sure if that isn't what it looks like?

I know my hometown airport isn't modeled exactly so I guess that is a flaw at least the runway is pointed the right direction. I did notice that Bohannon's cow pasture seems to be a little bigger than it really is and there are more trees than in real life. Out on Douglas Lake where I live I do see a few commercial buildings that shouldn't be there. Flying into Knoxville TN, I don't see Neyland Stadium the largest University football stadium in the US (or second don't know how many seats UofM has now), Pigeon Forge TN, home of Dolly Parton major tourist attraction, wait where is the strip loaded with shopping and diner theaters? The Great Smoky Mountains have far to many of the wrong species of trees. OH MY GOD!!! I AM BLIND!!! FSX is crap!!!

Sorry I take back everything I have posted about FSX seems now that I take a closer look it is badly flawed with many errors i am off to uninstall it now and will wait a patch.

Sarcasm or not? you decide

[Joe_D]

[quote]


I made it quite clear I understand Joe

[Daube]

I said that the ground texture LOD is lower in FSX than in FS9

Are you sure of that ? This is not what I have seen.
Textures in FSX shots are more precise in the near distance, but also more precise in the far distance... Have you checked the link I provided ?