New FSX BETA screens

[Fly2e]

WELL SAID ROLLERBALL!!!  ;)

[Lazerbeak]

I agree with what Rollerball said.

Now, back to the subject at hand. The screens have impressed me quite a bit. The default airports look fantastic to me, and detailed enough. The lighting effects look grand, and the ground textures look quite nice (again, to me). I know, that payware airports look "better", but seeing how I avoid payware like the plague, it's nice to have the airports looking decent right out the box. To be perfectly honest, I don't give half a toss about flight dynamics or ATC. Perhaps that makes me sound like some "st00pid gam3r" and not a "true simmer", but oh well.

I must say that I'm perfectly satisfied with what I've seen of FSX. I don't ask much from a sim, just an experience that I personally find enjoyable, and FSX looks like it'll deliver that. Still, my computer doesn't have a snowball's chance at running this thing at anything but the lowest settings, so I'll be sticking with FS9. C'est la vie.

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

Very well said Roger

[cleobis]

Hi must say that I'm very happy with the release of FSX and hope to buy it as soon as it comes out.

I don't care about M$ but I do care about the ACES team wich are guys that love FS as much as we do!

They gave people time to give their opinions, they had blogs sayiong what was happening, they got the press to try it out, they were as open as I ever saw M$ be, they come to our forums and talk about the sim, what more do you want?

People would only be happy if the ACES team built a custom FS for each and everyone of us.

some people wants military stuff, others airliners, others want GA, others want good roads for the cars,etc,etc...

I think they are doing a great job in keeping everyone happy, wich is a very hard thing to do, specialy with us hardcore users!!

FSX was never intended to have perfect a/c, airports, roads, cars, etc out of the box, instead I see FSX as a VERY good base for 3rd party developers to build from!

Some guys keep complaining about the mission thing! I cannot agree with this!!!

Of course the missions will have stuff that is very basic and aimed at the newcomers, wich is normal and I think isd a good strategy from M$, but remember that the mission editor will allow developers to create flights that are very challenging, resque ops, flights that have emergencys, medic evacs, you name it!!

FSX is FS9 wth a LOT of stuff added wich will allow the sim to evolve into much more than we can imagine!!

Just have some pacience....

well, gotta go now....hehe

cheers

[Katahu]

Hey you lot - save your sympathy for Microsoft.

I was talking about the ACES team. Not Microsoft.

[Mobius]

Am I the only one that can't see screenshots and has no idea where to find them?

[topgun_pilot]

actually...you cant wait on ppl here....( i found some of the airports that ppl have posted........ avsim forums somewhere..i dont remember....it showed chicago , etc...even the aircraft list in the beta...woooo has the c172 garmin  etc.....very gelous of those non FS flying fools...half these ppl dont even know what its all about or the history behind this simulator....*(((((( very sad microsoft)))

[Ashton Lawson]

Um, I just feel that no developer should hav to put up with communities that nit-pick.  Its like asking for something extra, then they do it, then you complain that they didn't add another thing.  It can take the wind out of their sales.

Besides, name any other big game company that has such extensive relations with their gaming communities...
Midway, no.  EA, no.  Rockstar, hell no.  any more?  not really.

Im with both Katahu (on the nit-picking), and Rollerball (with monopolies and such)  but no one (unless they're a big mfah) deserves complaints, esp. when they work so hard to help get a little bit of everyone in the sim.

P.S.  I also think they should've worked more on flight dynamics...

[topgun_pilot]

flight dynamics? I agree. that is most importanant and second to the looks. I candy of course to gather that drive to fly whatever it is and dynamics ( right dynamic's) to fullfil the sense of reality. I have to say though, when i flew the beaver in the demo , wow!!!!!
the flight dynamics seemed to be pretty realistic , i am not to familure w/ how the beaver flys, but the way the plane turns,climbs , decends , flaps set...that the reactions are fairly realistic. Ima student pilot, forgive me if im wrong.lol.

[expat]

Topgun_pilot, it is People, not ppl

[Joe_D]

flight dynamics? I agree. that is most importanant and second to the looks. I candy of course to gather that drive to fly whatever it is and dynamics ( right dynamic's) to fullfil the sense of reality. I have to say though, when i flew the beaver in the demo , wow!!!!!
the flight dynamics seemed to be pretty realistic , i am not to familure w/ how the beaver flys, but the way the plane turns,climbs , decends , flaps set...that the reactions are fairly realistic. Ima student pilot, forgive me if im wrong.lol.

In most areas yeah, the flight charateristics of the beaver are pretty good.
However it's like it doesn't even have floats excet when landing.

In reality, the beaver should be a bit unstable and tend to sink when banking to steep due to the floats.

[PisTon]

Rollerball
The ACES team are designed to make money, but look, numerous team members are active in the community, they answer peoples questions, read suggestions, and some are Pilots Now if they were JUST money making eyecandy lovers, do you think they'd do that?

Maybe if you wanted better Flight dynamics you could either spam there email addresses from diferant addresses, but then you would almost certaintly say bye bye to backward compatibility .

The models are exellent, and I've yet to see an airplane with the framerate friendlyness, and quality of there fsX planes, if there was, how much would it cost? $40 per plane?
The airport services are good, but the are for half the MAJOR airports in the world Pretty good.

[cleobis]

Maybe if you wanted better Flight dynamics you could either spam there email addresses from diferant addresses, but then you would almost certaintly say bye bye to backward compatibility .

yes...this is a very good point!

People want better dynamics, but lets face it: The dynamics only can really be changed as we all want with a new flight model, and I think that would probably kill a lot of the backward compatibility!

Then you would get hundreds of complains from people saying that they woulnd't buy FSX because their payware wouldn't work in the new version, and that M$ don't think about the customers, etc,etc!

FS is a huge sim and we have to make choices!

Do we want backwards compatibility and have to keep the same flight engine with litle changes from version to version, or do we want a new flight engine but at the same time loosing lot of the backward comp.?

I would like to see a new flight engine, but I don't suppose M$ will do it soon......

.....remember CF3???

cheers

[Daube]

I wouldn't fear too much about backward compatibility.
The fact is that an aircraft is just a 3D model and some data (for example max speed, position of the CoG, type of engine(s), weight, roll rate, stall speed, etc...)
The flight model is a program that interprets this data to compute movements.
You can change the flight model with no problems, as long a the new flight model reads the same data.

CFS series is the perfect example: the flight model was not the same, nevertheless you could still use older version aircraft in it.

[cleobis]

I don't think you oculd use cf2 a/c in cf3...as I remember cf3 was a completely new thing that had nothing to do with the 2 previous incarnations of cf....I could be wrong though, it's been a loooooong time since I last used cf3...