So Happy!!!!

[Boca]

Jeez..  8-)

I think he's the one who'se "cross".  ;D

Or have I just used a copyrighted insult.  

[Daube]

I thought long if and how to answer you on this point. I could get out of it making a cheesy comparison, but that's just not me.

Regardless of what you meant, some words just shouldn't be used in a polite contest.

I did not attack you nor anyone else. I only limited myself in repeating for the N-nth time how much I am disappointed with the simulator by me dubbed "the cross".

Disappointed, yes. Because you are free not to believe me, but I wished for something really good.

I stay disappointed.

When I compare "the cross" to FS2000, it's only on the hardware demand of this last in its times. If you were around at the time you'd remember. It was... exactly what "the cross" is now, in kind.

Unusable, a little step forward under some points and a big step on the side on other more important points.

In short? A transition. A transition no one will keep in any regard, once something better will come. Emphasis on "better".

By my point of view I feel you're free to follow "the cross" if you want. None of my business.

But really it gets on my nerves when people denies me to express how much disappointed I am with "the cross". And you people have been doing just this.

You've attacked FS9, because it's old, will be out of business soon and so on... have I reacted?

I don't remember a moment I've been hailing FS9 as the perfect simulator. I should be drunk, stoned and with a cerebral commotion going, to do so.

Have you? Or better, haven't you been doing just this with "the cross"?

Mind, I'm not telling you people are either of what I wrote above. I simply wrote you people sound like you are.

Irony, eh?

In the end, never forget that the simulator is something that You should use. Not It use you.

And with this, I'm out of this thread. For real.

I don't know how to write that anymore. I am NOT trying to convince you to jump to FSX.
I have used FS9 for several years, I appreciated it and had so much fun with it, until the very last moment.
I recognize all of its qualities and also its limitations.

Now the fact is that FSX overcomes some of those limitations, made some of those qualitites even better, and handles the rest just as good as before.
The only thing I disagree with is when someone tells that it's not a big step forward. It is a very huge step I would say, maybe not on ALL the domains, but on a lot of them, it is. As for the hardware requirements, we now have all the workarounds we need, so this argument is out of the discussion.

And just like FS9, I recognize FSX still has a lot of limitations, which can be really dissappointing, as much for me than for you, especially in the domain of the instrument navigation and ATC, two of the most important elements of the simulation. Now, is that sufficient to deliberately ignore all the new positive stuff that came alongside ? A lot of us say no.

[Brett_Henderson]

All this talk about the huge hardware leap is what amuses me.

Like I've said a dozen times in this forum..  FS9 was out for well over a year, close to two, before a $2,000 computer could really run it well. I'll promise you, that on FSx's 2nd birthday, $2000 will will buy plenty of FSX machine. And even if, at that, time, you still can't "max it out", that's better than the alternative. I'd rather have a sim that can be kept growing into, than one that's potential is fully realized right out of the gate. I'd be more upset with MS if they gave us little increments to purchase every year.

Ashman... if you really want someone to be upset with.. look to the hardware companies.. because it's THEY who milk us for incremental technology, a year (or less) at a time.

I, myself am kind of happy that MS gives us a $70 sim that can be customized to fit whatever hardware we have and will keep giving newer and better experiences, for the next several years.

[Brett_Henderson]

Hey Daube..

[Daube]

I'm not an expert nor a real pilot, but I saw some expert people here complaining about some missing stuff in the domain of the instrumentation, or the electronic environment, something like ILS and all tha kind of systems), but which is still not simulated yet by FS. Sorry I cannot remember precisely what it was, I just remember that there were discussions about it, back when we were talking about the expectations for FSX.

Also, on the flight dynamics point of view, we have gained some nice stuff with FSX, but still we get no real vector thrust, no rocket engines, no airplaine reliability management (airplane damage depending on how you handle it, like in IL-2 for example) etc...

For the ATC too, it is still very basic, since it was not enhanced since FS9 (in FSX, only some bugs were corrected, according to the developpers, nothing else). We still get no emergency procedures, no waiting circuits (what's the exact name in english, when you must circle in a given area waiting for your turn to land) etc...

So yes, FSX is still lacking a lot of stuff on very imporant domains for a simulation. That's true, and it's perfectly understandable that some people can be very disappointed with that.

But, on the ohter hand, FSX offers also a lot of new stuff to counter-balance those drawbacks: better flight dynamics, better visual environment, live airports, multiplayer stuff, thermal system, etc... which FS9 has not. So I do not consider FSX as being a useless step, not even a "minor" step. FSX brings a lot of stuff, even if it's not what some people expected.