A Total Joke

[C]

Well, isn't it grand that it's taken 6 pages to finally establish the Roger was making a valid point in the first place...

[Daube]

Ahhhh always the same comments...

I love when people keeps saying that FSX performance sucks. You people have no memory or what ? If you say that FSX has crappy performance, then why don't you admit that FS9 has crappy performance as well ?

Don't you remember ? When FS9 came out, I had a medium-high computer, and I could not fly with full settings over the cities. I was getting something like less than 10 FPS over there. But my graphic card ws not that bad at all at that time, you know, but it seems that almost everybody has forgotten that FS9 PERFORMANCE SUCKS !

Why do you complain about FSX, why do you tell that FS9 performance is good ? Do you realize that FS9 will not run at full settings even on a 6800 GT?

Sure, FS9 "low and slow" experience is nice and smooth now.... now, more than two years after it came out. Why don't you wait two years for judging the performance of FSX then ?

You guys have tweaked FS9 too much, and forgot what you had to do to be able to play it smoothly. Remember the resized autogen textures that allowed everybody to push the autogen sliders to the right ? Remember the sweet low-resolution clouds from FS SkyWorld that finally allowed everybody to play with 100% 3D clouds ?

No, of course you don't remember And now, you expect FSX, with such graphics as we have seen on the preview screenshots, to run as smooth as FS2000 on medium-end computer...

Of course, I won't say anything about the people that keep judging FSX only on the graphics side. Of course, who cares about improved airports, Virtual Cockpits and Multiplayer anyway FSX with graphism equivalence to FS9 is worthles, huh ?

[Daube]

PS: I agree with Roger about the scenery glitch, that's not serious. But I was reacting about the performance comments, and comparison FS9/FSX screens.

[vololiberista]

on 22.10.2006 at 15:45:58, Hagar wrote:
It says here '38 high-detail cities'. It would be interesting to know which cities they're referring to.

They are referring to the high detail of the errors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vololiberista

[vololiberista]

PS: I agree with Roger about the scenery glitch, that's not serious.

It's very serious!!!
London is an internationally fmous city. Heathrow is still the busiest international airport on the planet. M(qualcasoa)s screwed up and we have to pay them for it!!!!!!!

Venezia probably one of the world's most famous places in FS) doesn't even exist on the default scenery!!!!!!!!!!

There should be a new law that allows customers to claim a discount in proportion to the the number of errors on M(qualcosa)s programmes.
They strut about the planet like police telling everyone when how and where we can use their programmes!!!!
The only programme suite they got right was MS Office. And that's only because they were scared of the wrath of industry and commerce.
The sim is nothing to them. All that sweet talk before is just top show. The important aspects of the sim haven't changed from FS9. They've ruined the sim with sloppy graphics control. They had better get it right by the time DX10 and Vista are on line as many people would have spent A LOT of money and would be seriously dissapointed if they felt it all wasted.
Vololiberista

[Bindoe]

My fsX london scenery looks fine.
[quote]It is very annoying that in one programme M(qualcosa)s can get London okish and yet in the "upgrade" so-called, it's a mess!!

It is of course the same old story with M(qualcosa)s !!!!!!!
"Let's tell the world how wonderful our new upgrade will be" only to release with it with more errors than before!!! It is in fact a "downgrade" I am dreading the release of Vista. XP had / has tens of thousands of errors. They are just about to release a new version of IE that no doubt will have even more holes than previous versions. I personally won't touch IE or OE. (the two MOST unsafe programmes produced by ANYONE) The new IE7 is a very belated attempt to catch up with the opposition. (and they had to do a last minute patch they almost forgot in order to comply with the EU!!!)

There have been many pics posted on the forum from FSX and NONE of them match the quality of a good FS9 set up.

[Daube]

It's very serious!!!
London is an internationally fmous city. Heathrow is still the busiest international airport on the planet. M(qualcasoa)s screwed up and we have to pay them for it!!!!!!!

I was refering to MS not being serious. Of course this mistake is serious, but it seems that not everybody is having those glitches ?

Venezia probably one of the world's most famous places in FS) doesn't even exist on the default scenery!!!!!!!!!!

So is Monaco and the whole French Riviera, nevertheless the default scenery is very crappy for those places. But no mistakes, nobody was expecting a fully correct rendering of any city in the world. We were not expecting it with FS9 or any other previous version, so why should we expect it with FSX ?

There should be a new law that allows customers to claim a discount in proportion to the the number of errors on M(qualcosa)s programmes.
They strut about the planet like police telling everyone when how and where we can use their programmes!!!!
The only programme suite they got right was MS Office. And that's only because they were scared of the wrath of industry and commerce.

Office is just as full of bugs as XP is, just like ANY OTHER huge program is. The fact is that the bugs from MS are well known because a lot of people (and 99,99999% of the pirates) are looking for them. Do you think Open Office is bug-free ? Or Unix maybe ? What about Apple stuff ? 100% bug-free ? I don't think so.

The sim is nothing to them. All that sweet talk before is just top show. The important aspects of the sim haven't changed from FS9.

Sure, multiplayer, virtual cockpit, meteo (with thermals), airports interactions, helos flight models, and general planes flight models (talk about the different behaviour about the small planes like the S300 for example), behaviour on water etc... this is not important at all, who cares about that anyway, huh ?  ::)

They've ruined the sim with sloppy graphics control.

What sloppy controls ?

They had better get it right by the time DX10 and Vista are on line as many people would have spent A LOT of money and would be seriously dissapointed if they felt it all wasted.
Vololiberista

Sure, we all have felt very wasted when XP came out, as well...

[RAF_OldBuzzard]

Look folks...FSX is optimized for an Operating System that hasn't been released for the general public, and for video cards that aren't (except for a few engineering samples) in existance yet...and you are griping about the performance  ???

Why do so many of you have the UNREALISTIC expectation that a NEXT Generation sim will run at max (or even semi-high) settings on a CURRENT (and in a lot of cases not so current) system ?  

If you are truly so dissatisfied(sp?) with FSX then sell it on EBAY or something. But please, spare us the constant griping.

[Daube]

It is very annoying that in one programme M(qualcosa)s can get London okish and yet in the "upgrade" so-called, it's a mess!!

Right, but again, it seems that not everybody is getting that glitch.

It is of course the same old story with M(qualcosa)s !!!!!!!
"Let's tell the world how wonderful our new upgrade will be" only to release with it with more errors than before!!!

More errors than before ? Have you already inspected the whole planet in FSX to tell that ? It seems to me that, appart from some minor glitches in some precise places, the new mesh detail is showing entire MOUTAINS that were missing in the previous version.

It is in fact a "downgrade"

So you are judging a whole sim just on a piece of scenery ? Very smart, especially from someone who has always been putting the focus on realism...

I am dreading the release of Vista. XP had / has tens of thousands of errors. They are just about to release a new version of IE that no doubt will have even more holes than previous versions. I personally won't touch IE or OE. (the two MOST unsafe programmes produced by ANYONE)

Also the most complete. Want to try Firefox ? Some pirates are just starting to find security holes in this one as well, if I remember well. 100% bug-free software is not possible, you would know it if you would work in a big software company, as I do.

There have been many pics posted on the forum from FSX and NONE of them match the quality of a good FS9 set up.

Then you could try to open your eyes, maybe ?
http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93508
http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93543
http://www.fs2004.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92413

[pepper_airborne]

Look folks...FSX is optimized for an Operating System that hasn't been released for the general public, and for video cards that aren't (except for a few engineering samples) in existance yet...and you are griping about the performance  ???

Why do so many of you have the UNREALISTIC expectation that a NEXT Generation sim will run at max (or even semi-high) settings on a CURRENT (and in a lot of cases not so current) system ?  

If you are truly so dissatisfied(sp?) with FSX then sell it on EBAY or something. But please, spare us the constant griping.

i completely agree with you on that, though people dont seems to understand the differance between FS9 and FSX.

Il get a shot from london later on, though i would like to have the coordinates from this so called high water rollerball showed us, i couldnt find the pond that looked like it nor any suuch heights near the themes.

Oh, that strange airport, what is it called?

[Daube]

[quote]Look folks...FSX is optimized for an Operating System that hasn't been released for the general public, and for video cards that aren't (except for a few engineering samples) in existance yet...and you are griping about the performance

[pepper_airborne]

Crysis really aint gonna run on that you know .

[Daube]

Crysis really aint gonna run on that you know .

Of course I know
Just wanted to show that thinking that Crysis would run on my PC at full settings is just as stupid as expecting FSX to run smooth at full settings on today's average computer.

When FS9 went out, it could not be run at max even on the most powerfull computers at that time. but nobody is willing to remember that.

[pepper_airborne]

Yeah, that is what im trying to tell people lately, but nobody aint listening.

[Bindoe]

Crysis really aint gonna run on that you know .

Crysis will run on a 6800GT. My proof? Have none, but all the screenshots for Crysis were on dual 7900GTX's so Id asume it would work.