New FSX demo

[ashaman]

People of this forum, please calm down.

Having to use a thing for work doesn't mean having to like it.

Those among you that accuse me that my reviews might be inaccurate for my bias toward FSX, obviously know little about the making of a review.

When a review is made, personal likings MUST be put aside for a clear-headed judgment of the product reviewed. This is what I do. And seen that no one has found my reviews to be bad to date, I think I will continue until a good reason will be found for me to change my ways.

To those who liken the wildlife to the AI I ask, how many deers, elephants and the like are parked in the airport nearest you? Or, how does the traffic in the street relate with what happens in the airport.

I never said that nothing was bettered, I said -- and you should read more accurately before attacking me -- that the betterments that really counted were marginal. A better graphic and animated airports I like, but if to have my airport animated I must activate things I could care less about (see above)... well... bummer. I cry for my poor CPU's cycles lost to animate what I don't find useful.

A lot has been said about the wet runways, taxiways and aprons. And they must look nice. But any and every people I asked about difference of friction between wet and dry asphalt has answered... bummer. What difference?

To those who wonder, FS9 has one thing that is better than FS2002. Thing that alone made me decide to upgrade in spite of the next to absolute similarity of the graphics. Thing without which I would have never gone to FS9. Thing that is important for a better simulation.

I'm talking about the weather engine, friends mine. I don't have to explain, I hope, the differences between this part of the two versions of FS. Suffice to say that FS9's weather engine is quite more advanced and gives a more real-like experience than FS2002.

It was a nice step forward.

A step forward that FSX lacks.

I, like you all, love well done graphics in my games. But well done graphics ARE NOT a game for me.

As stated before, in old my posts, I planned not to go to FSX. It was money I didn't want to fork for something that gave me little more than what I already had. But my boss (who is first a friend, and then a boss) needs my collaboration up to the point of giving me a free copy (a LEGAL copy, let me stress) of the new simulator and I resolved that our friendship was worth more than my ideas about the new version of FS.

All I'll have to do on my side will be to fork some of my money to the princes of hardware, in time. A thing this that I would have done anyway, maybe later, but I would have anyway.

In the end I ask you people not to follow me and my points of view. And please, I ask you not to demand I MUST follow yours.

There's no need to work yourself in a lather because I don't like what our friends in Seattle have done... or better not done about our sim.

My points of view are mine. Like yours are yours. Why don't we respect each other's point of view? I reckon we'll live better.

[Bindoe]

I cry for my poor CPU's cycles lost to animate what I don't find useful.

Did you look at the settings page? At least the cars off

A lot has been said about the wet runways, taxiways and aprons. And they must look nice. But any and every people I asked about difference of friction between wet and dry asphalt has answered... bummer. What difference?

A couple of people have noticed a diferance, including me.

Renember, the fsX planes outclass there payware cousins, and they would alone cost you more than fsX.

fs9 was a small step forward in my opinion, it had crappy multiplayer and crappy missions. fsX fixes both these with my jaw touching the floor, gaping at the amazing graphics (mind you, on my midrange gaming system).

[ashaman]

A couple of people have noticed a diferance, including me.

This is the first time I hear anything on the matter. I am interested (and rightfully so), could you elaborate, please?

[Bindoe]

This is the first time I hear anything on the matter. I am interested (and rightfully so), could you elaborate, please?

Wow, that was a fast reply! Gratz (I play to much bf2, heh...)

My notice may of been a poor landing, however, ummmm, I think Ashar noticed a difinant diferance.
I love sunny skies so....

[vololiberista]

From all the publicity I've seen about FSX, herds of elephants etc. do seem to have greater importance than other more important things regarding an upgrade to a programme.  One could argue justifiably that having to upgrade one's pc in order to see a herd of elephants is actually a downgrade!!!

As regards wet rwy's - have any of you landed on one??? So, yes they show the graphics of a wet rwy, BUT do they simulate the friction (or rather the lack of) upon touch down? I doubt it!
This for me is far more important than viewing a herd of elephants from 37,000 feet and if I don't fly across Africa or India, what then?
Elephants, birds etc are only what the Americans call "eye candy" and If I have to watch them in order to see moving traffic at an airport  then to me that's a waste of cpu resources. What is more important is the "upgrading" of the flight engine and other peripherals "directly" related to the sim. Here, one includes scenery etc., ATC, flight planning, AI and so on - Elephants? = unecessary!!
Vololiberista

[Bindoe]

The reason why I'm buying fsX, is the multiplayer, the missions, the amazing new planes, updated engine, space flight, thermals and of course the updated graphics.

Fs9 had what? new clouds? A bunch of low quality planes? Atleast on my computer, graphics help immerse me in the game, also aren't clouds merely graphics? Isn't everything on the screen graphics?

Oh, and most current payware works with fsX, well, atleast mine. When the SDK comes out, allot of it will be converted to be fully fsX compatible.

P.S, I'm also a part of a reviewing company, only we pay for everything

[ashaman]

P.S, I'm also a part of a reviewing company, only we pay for everything   What are you a part of?

Names are irrelevant, here on a third site making names would be hardly polite.

The FSX that will be shipped to me is because I have to work with it, and because I wasn't going to buy it. Hence, if I don't buy it, I can't use it to review.

As already stated, my friend and boss took in stride my unwillingness in forking hard earned Euros for something not so much different to what I had already and offered to ship me a copy to keep my review going.

His choice. I cry the need to allot 14 Gb of HD for naught.

The reason why I'm buying fsX, is the multiplayer, the missions, the amazing new planes, updated engine, space flight, thermals and of course the updated graphics.

Fs9 had what? new clouds? A bunch of low quality planes? Atleast on my computer, graphics help immerse me in the game, also aren't clouds merely graphics? Isn't everything on the screen graphics?

Multiplayer, I dont use. New planes, I have already as third part freeware. Updated engine... pray tell?

Graphic engine? It's the same since FS2002. Sim engine... too is untouched since FS2002. What engine are you talking about?

Space flights perhaps, but I want a flight sim, for space I can always download Orbiter. Thermals, with AS6 I have all the thermals I need already...

...updated graphics, that's all FSX is.

As for what reason I bought FS9 on 2002, I've written already and don't see the reason I should rewrite it here.

Oh, and most current payware works with fsX, well, at least mine. When the SDK comes out, allot of it will be converted to be fully fsX compatible.

Deja vu. This is the same thing they said about FS9 when it got out, we're still waiting a lot of planes. Maybe they'll be published with FSXI... who knows... hope is the last to die.


In the end, I seek to convert no one. I've listed the reasons I'm cold toward FSX. If you read an attempt in convincing you in any way, shape or form in my writ, you're deluding yourself.


-Ashaman, who still cries on the need of installing a new HD at the very least to install FSX.

[JBaymore]

In the end, I seek to convert no one. I've listed the reasons I'm cold toward FSX. If you read an attempt in convincing you in any way, shape or form in my writ, you're deluding yourself.

Hum........

The job of a reviewer is to evaluate an object / item and try to pursuade the reader that the reviewer's opinions about that are accurate and worthy of consideration in evaluating something like a possible purchase.   In that sense, I see the word "convert" as applying reasonably well.

I hope in your actual reviews you ARE trying to "convert" people's opinions.  But in saying stuff like you have been saying here.... personally, I think you might harm your ability to "convert" people in the future.  here you display traits that make me question the impartiality of a review you might write.


As to FSX being nothing but a "graphics upgrade" to FS9..........

I used to think that might be the case too, early on.  The early release of the info on "flour bomb missions" REALLY got me off on the wrong foot with the upcoming new release  ;).

I think that impression I got was actually created by Microsoft itself by the nature of the early releases of information they chose to use.  Personally, I think they botched the early info release with a lot of hardcore simmers.

But as I NOW read MSDN ACES Team blogs, the printed media in places like PC Pilot and Computer Pilot, and look at the forum info showing up from Oficcial Beta testers..... I am seeing a LOT of other stuff that they did not talk about initially....and are barely talking about now.

I think there is a lot more there "hiding under the hood" of FSX than roving bands of maurauding elephants and flour bombs bursting on floating targets.  Only the final release will tell us.  

As we evaluate the new release...... please let us all keep in mind that this is an under $100 computer program made to run on an under $3000 computer system intended for a market mainly composed of of non-real world pilots, who use it mostly for entertainment, produced by a company that is selling it as a retail product in order to make money.  It is most definately not a multi-million dollar  simulator used to train real pilots who fly real aircraft so that they can do that job better and more safely.



best,

........john

[Daube]

Ashaman, you said you went from FS2002 to FS9 just because it had a better weather engine ?
And then you keep saying that FSX is not

[Daube]

[quote]From all the publicity I've seen about FSX, herds of elephants etc. do seem to have greater importance than other more important things regarding an upgrade to a programme.

[Fr. Bill]

There is such a profusion of appaling ignorance shown in this and a few other messages in the thread that it's difficult to even know where to begin...

[vololiberista]

You are again criticizing the sim just because of ONE SINGLE feature that you WILL be able to disable.
So, since you can supress it, why do you complain ? Will you be forced to look at those elephants ? Will you be forced to waste CPU ressources for them ? NO.

And instead of focusing on wildlife, which for most of us, will add some ADDITIONNAL flight experiences, why don't you focus on the full list of new features and improvements ? Are you afraid of finding anything interesting in them ?

Ah no, of course, sorry I forgot. You fly only one type of plane in one type of conditions and one type of flight, so all the rest is useless bullshit, right ?

Once again, it's perfectly OK that you criticize FSX because it lacks the improvements you were waiting for. But it's just incorrect to say that FSX is crap, or FSX is elephant simulator, and ignore all the improvements that some other people were waiting for.

EDIT: bullpoopoo ? LOL, another automatic text conversion...

I never said "I disliked FSX or that it was Crap!!!!!!!!!"
I am rightly highlighting the promotion of "eye candy" against real significant material improvements (not marginal) in the core Sim. AND, furthermore,  as a real pilot with night rating multi engine, instrument rating and jet transport ratings I feel I have the right to point out what I see as flaws. As I have said many times I am going to wait until both Vista and DX10 are up and running before I make a final judgement. And for your information I fly numerous a/c on the sim. So before you get up on your high horse and risk being accused of believing the sun always shines out of the nether reagions of m(qualcosa)s  remember that some of us on here are VERY experienced flyers, and that here in Europe the name of "Microsoft" stinks a hundred times more than a street full of Durian.
Vololiberista

[Mobius]

To those who liken the wildlife to the AI I ask, how many deers, elephants and the like are parked in the airport nearest you?

Actually, there are lots of deer, and loads of birds in the area of the airport I operate out of.  There have been times when people have had deer run out in front of a landing airplane and they have had to go around (it happend to a friend of mine during training).  There are loads of birds landing and taking off around the airport also, mostly huge flocks of migrating Geese in the fall and spring.  Look at this link to the information of the airport I fly out of - http://www.airnav.com/airport/C29 - and check out the additional remarks section:

-       1 BIRDS ON & INVOF ARPT; ESPECIALLY DURING RAINY PERIODS.
-       AVOID NOISE SENSITIVE AREA 1 MILE SW. CTC AMGR AT 608-836-1711 FOR NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES.
-       135 FT CRANE 1/4 M EAST 1300-2200, 240 FT CRANE 1/2 M FM AER 28 SR/SS, 230 FT CRANE 1 MI SE AER 28 & 240 FT CRANE2.2 MI SW.
-       CRANE 80 AGL 1/4 SM E AER 28, UNLGTD/FLAGGED.

It seems to me like there are a lot of things here for a small, midwestern airport with only one runway that aren't included in the graphical engine of FS9, but have the potential to be in FSX, only through representing these objects with improved graphics.  They are things I have to deal with on every flight, and if improving the graphics engine in FSX will allow me to see those birds I avoid everytime I go flying, I'm all for it.

A lot has been said about the wet runways, taxiways and aprons. And they must look nice. But any and every people I asked about difference of friction between wet and dry asphalt has answered... bummer. What difference?

Actually, from my experience, there isn't that much difference.  I had a BFR (biennial flight review) last December, on a day after we had got almost a foot of snow, after which it was plowed and compacted.  I took-off and landed that day with 15kt direct crosswinds and never really noticed a difference between that and a dry runway.  The only differece I noticed was during my runup, the wheels slipped on a patch of ice and once I had landed, the instructor wanted me to clear the runway so another aircraft could take-off, and I jumped on the brakes, and slid a little there, but still didn't really loose traction.  I've landed on wet runways after summer showers, and there isn't really much of a difference there either, but there is a very small difference.  Runways are built with an aggresive surface made of grooves to allow water to clear, and give aircraft better traction, so they don't slide when the conditions are right.  So if I don't skid an extra couple of feet when I land in a rain storm, I could care less, because I know I wouldn't go careening out of control whenever I tried to land in the real world.  There's a reason you don't hear about aircraft skidding off the ends of runways everyday, even though it rains somewhere everyday.

[vololiberista]

Yes, we have all had to deal with other a/c not under the supervision of ATC (birds bees etc) and if FSX had engine failure due to bird ingestion then that would be quite realistic. As for wet rwys, you've been lucky!!!!
In a fast moving jet even at 75knots one can acquaplane on just 0.2 inches (nought point two inches) of slush or water. I was taught to "in wet conditions to make a "positive" landing!"  A nice smooth  pasenger friendly touchdown in wet conditions can and does produce acquaplaning which often sends the a/c right to the other end of the rwy into the driink or whatever! now if acquaplaning was simulated then that would be a plus for FSX

[Daube]

[quote]

I never said "I disliked FSX or that it was Crap!!!!!!!!!"
I am rightly highlighting the promotion of "eye candy" against real significant material improvements (not marginal) in the core Sim. AND, furthermore,