Beware!! WET FLOOR!!

[vololiberista]

calm down people, Hey vololiberista you been in computer since 1981 :o :o....that's remarkable dude.. I was very young by that time , I was only 16  years old  :)

 >:( People I beg you to be more respecful to each other call hypocrite just like that without known each others is insulting ,If don't have something nice  to say just as insulting just keep it for you.Were not interested in insultings opinion ,  as been call " ignorants" ,and By the way this is not the right place ,THIS ITS FOR POSTING SHOTS!......Insults the shots if you want...

Io sono completamento in d'accordo!!!
There is an English phrase "There are old pilots and bold pilots but never any old bold pilots!"
Quite true I'm classed as an old pilot. Also I've been involved with computers as previously said. There isn't much I don't know about computers or aviation. But one thing I'm certainly not is a hypocrite and I take care not to pass offending remarks to people I don't know!!
Vololiberista
PS I would say from a programmer's point of view I would not be happy to release a later version of a programme which included more errors than the last. Oh, and one final point as to why London is important to the sim. EGLL Heathrow is the busiest international airport in the world. (and please don't split hairs I said "busiest international not "busiest")

[ashaman]

I'm happy about what we get for 70 euros...

I paid 99 for FS9.

Does that mean it was done better?

Problem you see it's not that we're grousing about ONE damned measly error while the rest works grandly.

Being precise to the spot in all the world is next to impossible. But coming from a FS9 where things were lied down in a way that was, if far from excellent, at least satisfying to a newer software, that on paper should be better and that instead shows itself to be a shoddy work under so may angles (and it's not a matter of point of view) to result in so many way WORSE than the old software it should replace, and it's sold as a better software because some filtering effect was added... and shoddily at that...

...well I DARE hope the same philosophy is not followed in vista too (even if the sudden anticipation of the release date spells all kinds of bad omens) or it will be a problem...

...for the end users only, as there will always be the one that will say: "but for so little a price..."

Anyway, I too vouch to return to the matter at hand. This is not the place for this kind of discussion.

[Daube]

I paid 99 for FS9.

Does that mean it was done better?

Problem you see it's not that we're grousing about ONE damned measly error while the rest works grandly.

Being precise to the spot in all the world is next to impossible. But coming from a FS9 where things were lied down in a way that was satisfying (if not excellent) to a newer software, that on paper should be better and that instead shows to be a shoddy work under so may points (and it's not a matter of point of view) to result in so many way WORSE than the old and it's sold as better because some filtering effect was added... and shoddily at that...

...well I DARE hope the same philosophy is not followed in vista too (even if the sudden anticipation of the release date spells all kinds of bad omens) or it will be a problem...

...for the users only, as there will always be the one that will say: "but for so little a price...".

Anyway, I too vouch to return to the matter at hand. This is not the place for this kind of discussion.

Excellent scenery in FS9
The only thing in FS9 is that the mesh was WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY less precise. So the errors in the source d
It's like a picture of a girl. With a blurry picture, it seens that this girl has a perfect skin... but with a very precise photo, you begin to see all the defects (spots etc...  ;D ) of her skin, but that does not mean that the quality of the picture is decreased.

Someone should post a real comparison between FS9 London and FSX London, just to be sure.

Finally...99 euros for FS9 ?? I paid 45 euros only  ???

[Daube]

PS I would say from a programmer's point of view I would not be happy to release a later version of a programme which included more errors than the last.

From a programmer's point of view, you should know that a software with more functionnalities implies more errors.

You should also know that no matter how good your software is, crappy source data implies crappy output, and that's what happens to FSX scenery. MS got some terrain elevations with errors, so the final scenery has errors. (talking about the mesh only, I don't know how they proceed for the landclass).

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

I won't wander off into another "I hate FSX thread"...I for one Alex, love your shots...I am not complaining about water effects...We should be happy MS provided a base to get us add-on developers to create something better...Wait a few weeks/months and you will find a replacement for those textures...

[pepper_airborne]

It is quite easy to explain why there are more mess errors, or for that why programs and games in general have more errors. This is deu to the fact that the programs and games in general become very complicated. Could one for HL design a map and creatively use the default textures and models, now they cant in HL2.

Same go's up for FSX, the terrian in FS9 was rather simple and therefore didnt have a lot of errors. But now it is very complicated and therefore it automaticly contains a whole lot more of errors.

Shaders, AO, AA, Real-time lightning. And a whole lot more are soon to be standards in games. Now compare this to the old Quake .BSP engines. You can easily see all the flaws that could creep into the design process.

Here's a list, and dont be surprised if you can find a whole lot of those techniques into future games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:3 ... r_graphics

What MS has done with FSX is just a small step forward.

[vololiberista]

Someone should post a real comparison between FS9 London and FSX London, just to be sure.

Ok Here is FS9 default scenery.  Firstly there is clearly "a river" not a "series of lakes".Also there are river banks. Something I understand is missing in FSX. The default scenery is in fact photo realistic. One can even see the perrimeter road around Heathrow. (obviously not here!!!)
Regarding programming a major new "upgrade" there should be a quality control, and in my opinion M(qualcosa)s quality control concentrated only on the new gizmo's and not the fundementals.  FSX has all the hallmarks of a "rush job!"
Vololiberista

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]
Ok Here is FS9 default scenery.

[vololiberista]

Actually yes if one wanted to model them that accurately. But that is only in "Central London!" But remember that the Thames is tidal up to 82 miles inland so there would be river banks except at high tide! The photos I've seen not only of London and other rivers but other places by the sea show no river banks or shorelines in FS ie the terrain stops abruptly. This has been reported in other threads as well!!
Vololiberista

[pepper_airborne]

I cant imagine your a programmer, otherwise you would have realized that it would have taken a lot of work, time and space to create tidle effects. Imagine of they needed to create the waddenzee accurately(Dutch Wetlands that flood completely and fall almost completely dry 2/3 times a day.).

I personaly think it looks heaps better then the old FS9 London.

[vololiberista]

I cant imagine your a programmer, otherwise you would have realized that it would have taken a lot of work, time and space to create tidle effects. Imagine of they needed to create the waddenzee accurately(Dutch Wetlands that flood completely and fall almost completely dry 2/3 times a day.).

I personaly think it looks heaps better then the old FS9 London.

I'm rather tired of your sniping remarks as to mine and others  integrity.Whenever you are on the forums you always make sniping personal comments to people you disagree with. !!!!
Let's put it this way IF THEY CAN SPEND HOURS GETTING IT RIGHT IN FS9 WHY CAN'T THEY IN FSX!
I have spent many many hours of my working life developing and testing programmes so DON'T tell me I don't know what I'm doing!
YOU also clearly do not read peoples posts. Go back read and inwardly digest what everyone has said!  In Simv people have many points of views and sometimes there is heated discussion BUT we DO NOT make insulting comments. This is the second time today that you have made an insulting comment to someone you do not know.
I cannot understand why you believe a series of lakes is better than a river!!!!
Vololiberista

[beaky]

Hey, wait!! I know this one:

"Cuidado: piso mojado"!  ;D


I'll stay out of the FS9 vs FSX debate (for now), but I must say I'm impressed that you're flying FSX at all on that machine, Alrot... !!
What were your framerates during that flight?

[MOUSY]

If you all keep on like this we're goin to have ANOTHER locked thread quite soon...

[Alphajet_Enthusiast]

I'm totaly agree with ashaman , If it would be a game ,would be the most boreing game of all, is not like combat fs ,its not to test your skills in the yoke & pedals its a simulation of how to fly a real airplane ,Our only skill its to learn VOR, IFR, to localize Vor freq ILS freq, Its to learn how are you get the flaps down the aproaching speed,deal with downwinds & crosswinds ,its to deal with navigation NAV1 or by GPS ,its ATC ,Its Fuel,It weigh in passengers,Its to make Flight plan destination & arrive VOR Interseccions, I use to go to my local international airports and I have seen ,there isn't no diference from the real world ,I said once THIS IS NOT A GAME.

Alex  

Missions, my friend, missions...  ;D
But if anyone claims its a game let me know. I'll cover your back!  ;)