There is no denying...

[Katahu]

Since we've been having a string of negative around here, I just like to make a thread that points to the positive side of FSX.

The following are FSX-based features that FS9 will NEVER support:

1. 18,000-mile height barrier which allows the user to travel beyond low-earth orbit and better enjoy trips in a SR-71 Blackbird [the hot rod of jet travel IMO].

2. The capacity to finally reach the poles. Therefore, no more invisible barriers near the poles.

3. Skin and bones that are both animated using inverse kenetics [ie: wing flex] and are affected by the wind [ie: wind flags].

4. Moving surface platforms that allow you to land on them as they're moving.

No, this thread is not about the graphics. It's about the features that you don't normally see in a screenshot. If you like to talk about how bad a stupid ground texture looks in the US or how ugly the UK appears to be in FSX, then do that on another thread as this thread is about non-graphical features.

This thread is also NOT about performance. If you like to talk about that, do it another thread.

[SkyNoz]

4. Moving surface platforms that allow you to land on them as they're moving.

I've had a thought and possibal project that I might persue, which is doing a aircraft carrier with functional Ramps that rise and fall, to the lower deck. Do you agree with my hypothesis, Kat?

[flyboy 28]

I've had a thought and possibal project that I might persue, which is doing a aircraft carrier with functional Ramps that rise and fall, to the lower deck. Do you think that is possibal?

I think it's been tried in FS9 with minimal success. If you want to give a shot for FSX I'd support it.

[Katahu]

I've had a thought and possibal project that I might persue, which is doing a aircraft carrier with functional Ramps that rise and fall, to the lower deck. Do you think that is possibal?

My knowledge with scenery is still limited, so I don't know.

FS95 or FS98 use to support rising and falling platforms, but they were jerky and are sometimes the cause of crashes in those versions.

[Hagar]

No, this thread is not about the graphics. It's about the features that you don't normally see in a screenshot. If you like to talk about how bad a stupid ground texture looks in the US or how ugly the UK appears to be in FSX, then do that on another thread as this thread is about non-graphical features.

If that's what you think the complaints are about you're completely missing the point Kat.

4. Moving surface platforms that allow you to land on them as they're moving.

This is hardly a new feature. We had it in CFS2 6 years ago.

[Katahu]

This is hardly a new feature. We had it in CFS2 6 years ago.

I'm talking FS series. Not CFS.

[Hagar]

I'm talking FS series. Not CFS.

Well, like it or not FS & CFS were originally the same program. CFS2 is FS7.5. If they'd developed this properly we could have had those moving landable platforms in FS2002.

[SkyNoz]

Well, like it or not FS & CFS were originally the same program. CFS2 is FS7.5. If they'd developed this properly we could have had those moving landable platforms in FS2002.

They bothe imply different parameters, which only designers can really imply too. Which means, it' will require a altereation in it's function.

[Fly2e]

Since we've been having a string of negative around here, I just like to make a thread that points to the positive side of FSX.

The following are FSX-based features that FS9 will NEVER support:

1. 18,000-mile height barrier which allows the user to travel beyond low-earth orbit and better enjoy trips in a SR-71 Blackbird [the hot rod of jet travel IMO].

2. The capacity to finally reach the poles. Therefore, no more invisible barriers near the poles.

3. Skin and bones that are both animated using inverse kenetics [ie: wing flex] and are affected by the wind [ie: wind flags].

4. Moving surface platforms that allow you to land on them as they're moving.

1. Don't care as I like to fly the bush!
2. Don't have any reason to fly to the barren poles of the earth.
3. Posky invented wing flex and to be honest, does not really add anything except a split second "wow" when the wings do flex.
4. Don't need to land on anything moving.


Ahhhhhh,
Love me FS9!  ;D

[Katahu]

My, my, my. Just by looking at all these posts, I can tell that this forum is really feeling down at the moment.

































Why am I not surprised?

[Bindoe]

fs9 dosn't support shaders
fs9 dosn't support missions
fs9 has bad camera system (excluding Active Camera)
fs9 has bad studders
fs9 dosn't support bump mapping
fs9 dosn't support shadows from VC.
fs9 has terrible low visability weather, with high frame hit from clouds. fsX has no hit. (512x512 DXT3 textures on X850)
fs9 dosn't have ships driving around
fs9 has bad sky blending
fs9 has terrible sound
fs9 terrain engine is weak
fs9 UI is bad
fs9 multiplayer is one work, terrible
fs9 now supports DDS
fs9 reflections aren't very good
fs9 dosn't support shared cockpits
fs9 has bad trees

fsX corrects all of them

Eh. Only disadvantages are:
Low frame rate
messed up terrain in some areas
bad terrain textures sometimes

3. Posky invented wing flex and to be honest, does not really add anything except a split second "wow" when the wings do flex.

The wings don't bounce correctly and the wing flex animations aren't smooth. (Not saying bad things about POSKY, only the fs9 engine).

[pepper_airborne]

My thoughts Bindoe and kathahu.

[vololiberista]

fs9 has terrible sound

RUBBISH!!  Get yourself a decent sound card.
I run FS9 with 7.1 surround Creative Audigy. When I open the throttle of the 4 conway jets on my VC10 I get the same roar and crackle that takes me back to when they were in commercial service.
Reverse thrust has to be heard to be believed!!!
If anyone has heard Concorde take off then they will know what I mean!!!
Vololiberista

[Nexus]

[quote]
RUBBISH!!

[pepper_airborne]

Without a expensive speaker set makes the FSX sound way better then the FS9 sound.