A Total Joke

[terbert]

Hi all....
Been following this thread....
Have only a few words to say...not getting involved in slagging etc...

Bought FSX,
Installed it,
Tried it,
Conclusion...crap
Uninstalled it, chucked in drawer,
Will try again in a year....  :)

TC.... (Bucks, UK)

[Brett_Henderson]

I've found some glaring scenery errors.. not fond of the autogen either.. But the overall scenery/terrain accuracy/quality is MUCH better. Rivers and lakes look more like rivers and lakes(and even look like the rivers and lakes that they're suppose to be).. Highways  and roads look more realistic and are where they're supposed to be too (so far)... City boundries are more accurate and better defined...

The overall flying experience is the biggest improvement yet (and I've flown them all.. a lot).. Everything, visual re: planes, runways, landmarks and water are better in every way I can compare them, in the net. Every shortcoming I can come up with, in all those areas, is far outweighed by the improvements. And the sound is better too..

I'm still running them both, but it's getting harder and harder to enjoy FS9.. Like I said in an earlier post;   It's flat and stale now.

I don't think it's a total joke OR "crap".. even respecting the original points in this thread. Overall, it's a much better sim; as it should be.

[Mobius]

I've found some glaring scenery errors.. not fond of the autogen either.. But the overall scenery/terrain accuracy/quality is MUCH better. Rivers and lakes look more like rivers and lakes(and even look like the rivers and lakes that they're suppose to be).. Highways  and roads look more realistic and are where they're supposed to be too (so far)... City boundries are more accurate and better defined...

The overall flying experience is the biggest improvement yet (and I've flown them all.. a lot).. Everything, visual re: planes, runways, landmarks and water are better in every way I can compare them, in the net. Every shortcoming I can come up with, in all those areas, is far outweighed by the improvements. And the sound is better too..

I'm still running them both, but it's getting harder and harder to enjoy FS9.. Like I said in an earlier post;   It's flat and stale now.

I don't think it's a total joke OR "crap".. even respecting the original points in this thread. Overall, it's a much better sim; as it should be.

I agree with everything Brett said here.  One other thing I noticed too, is that the mountains actually feel like mountains now.  I don't really know how to explain it, but they feel larger now, instead of the oversized, rounded-off hills that were in FS9.

[vololiberista]

You forgot to mention the herd of elephants seen from 37,000feet !!!!!  
Vololiberista

Bindoe wrote:
You forgot to mention all the other fsX enhacement which I tell you in every single thread.

My point is this and there are many who support this view.....In my opinion M(qualcosa)s wasted valuable time designing herds of elephants when they should have concentrated on the accuracy of scenery especially in important places like London. (no one cares if there's a scenery error in Outer Mongolia. appologies to any Mongolians watching this forum) But it's not just the scenery is it? They had a wonderful opportunity to produce great scenery textures etc. But what about the other parts of the sim ATC, flight planning. As has been said they have released an unfinished programme so most of us( those who have to save up and spend our own money on brand new computers ) will have to wait until Vista, DX10 and a long list of patches have been issued.
Then and ONLY then can one say that FSX is worth the expenditure.
Vololiberista

[Sniperman]

I couldnt disagree more, I enjoy fsx. Although I may not get the greatest frame rate, do you guys honestly think whining about it will help?

[Craig.]

I couldnt disagree more, I enjoy fsx. Although I may not get the greatest frame rate, do you guys honestly think whining about it will help?

that attitude is why MS keep getting away with it.
Its the consumers right to complain if the product is not of high quality. These are such basic errors being discussed. Not some tree being placed in someones backyard.

[Woodlouse2002]

Everyone whined about CFS3 and look where that got us. They axed it.

And now, when hardware has caught up with it people are saying "Actually, thats quite good ain't it."

Sometimes people should just keep their mouths shut.

[Sniperman]

that attitude is why MS keep getting away with it.
Its the consumers right to complain if the product is not of high quality. These are such basic errors being discussed. Not some tree being placed in someones backyard.

Althought some complaints here are valid and need to be adressed, the people going "omg MS screwed everyone" need to keep it to themeselves, the spam gets annoying.

[JBaymore]

..........do you guys honestly think whining about it will help?

Yup.

[Katahu]

You know, in all this yapping about scenery, I decided to take a trip over Managua in Nicaragua [my home city and country]. To be honest, it's the same as FS9 in terms of terrain textures. But in terms of mountains and hills, it's very much improved.

I also took a trip over South Florida to see in several things have been fixed:

1. Kendall-Tamiami Executive Airport
2. The Port of Miami
3. Miami International
4. Biscayne Bay

So far:

1. Kendall-Tamiami has lakes in the center area [but there's none in real life].
2. The Port of Miami looks the same, but at least the peer is there this time.
3. Miami International is suppose to have a fourth runway that was recently constructed. But then again, Miami Int'l will always have all sorts of changes in real life for the next 25years of its contruction.
4. Biscayne Bay still looks dull.

I don't complain about those anymore. Again, this is because of the overwhelming power that addons have over default and how they have altered the way the FS series has developed over the years.

If you think the terrain in FSX is apalling, you should try X-Plane. Even with the global terrain package, X-Plane still has issues such as:

1. Aircraft control surfaces acting all jerky with joystick input even when the sensitivity settings have been lowered.
2. Aircraft quality is terrible for defaults. Of course, there are addons, but due to the way addons have to be developed for X-Plane, you need to buy the payware versions if you want to get full enjoyment out of it as the freeware ones pale in comparison to our FS series freeware addons.
3. Automated ATC voices consist of only one robotic voice that reminds you of the worst computer voice imaginable. The only thing good about the ATC in X-Plane is the background chatter [which consists of only random recordings of real-world chatter].
4. Roads in are just as apalling as the FSX terrain in the UK. They're jagged, some hover over the air, and have no traffic at all.

The only thing I like about FSX is its new features in the SDK such as skin and bones and the only thing I lke about X-Plane is its Mars landscape that it offers.

[Daube]

X-plane is full of great features, but its graphics are so horrible that I still cannot afford to use it.

Anyway, some people here are complaining that the cities aspect are not exact, just like the landclass...

I have already said before that I agree with Roger about the river problems in London, and that MS should have definitely checked this error, since London is in their list of hilgly detailled cities.

But for the rest of tha places in the world... I mean, are you guys REALLY expecting all the cities, forest, fields, roads, buidings etc... to be exact ?

I have bought a GPS system recently. The CDs covering the western europe contain more than 2Gb of data. I use only France, Italy, Germany,Swiss and Austria, and all this already take 1 Gb of data. There are really just the roads, no landclass, no mesh, no textures, nothing... and it cost more than 250 euros.

What do you think you would get for 70 euros only ? FSX is not only about its data. A lot of people here are simply forgetting the program itself, and consider only the data which is furnished with the program.

The program consists in the flight model, the meteo, the way of rendering the scenery, the ATC, the AI, the way of rendering the airplanes (with gauges interactions etc...), the graphical effects, etc...

The data consists in the various textures, the meshes, the landclass, the AI flights, the aircraft data for the flight model, the planes themselves, the gauges, etc...

The program you cannot change.
The data you can change.

I think they did a really good job with the program (even if Vololiberista will come to say about the lack of ATC improvements and the hords of elephants, ignoring ALL THE REST as always).

When it comes to the data, they also did a lot of work, like allowing a wider variety of landclasses, wider variety of autogen, default aircraft with very good graphics (payware quality), precise mesh (even if it has a lot of imprecisions and mistakes in some places, like London), great textures that use the latest technologies to make the sim look even better (like those bump-mapping stuff to get reflects on buidling windows etc...).

But it's never enough for some people. After all, this sim was supposed to be perfect, from what I have understood...  ;D

Maybe they should provide a set of low quality textures just like the ones of FS9, that would make a lot of people happy I guess...

[cheesegrater]

The scenery in X-Plane is terrible because it is pretty much all autogen. That is nobody even looked at the scenery to make sure it looks okay, they just generated it from topographic data, it was never hand edited.

[NicksFXHouse]

ehhhh

Truth In Advertising laws were adhered to.. look at the commercials on TV and tell me if you dont see lousy graphics, stutters in the 747 flyby and anything that indicates your getting perfection or anywhere close to it.


as real as it gets... well, its as real as it gets for 50 bucks..

there are 25,000 dollar solutions out there that dont look as good but fly realistic.


Just like past MSFS patch/updates will be released and developers will improve it after DX10 arrives, no big deal

All that stuff will come out with time, including the fixes and the scenery upgrades.

FSGensis already has most of NA ready.

The entire topic is a bit silly and I understand the frustrations... venting and causing a big stink is not going to make it look better, support will.

thats my 2 cents..



For the record, I did not agree with the release date and did push for further development as it was needed however what I do is not in direct connection with the development team. It was my job to evaluate the software and make recommendations to upper management who in turn did what they wanted to to, which was to release the software before xmas.

You have no idea how much pressure is being placed on release, especially since VISTA went belly up and sliced down in features in order to get it stamped to CD before the end of the year.


The plan is to watch the fourms and the feedback, make a list of the biggest issues the cry babies whine about and fix the issues in the order of importance.

Im not kidding... they knew there was going to be allot of whining and they will use it to fix what needs to be fixed because they were pushed to ship it. There was a cut-off date on the CD run which had to be met or you would still be pissing your pants waiting for it until after the first of the year while VISTA was being stamped... and nobody was going to miss a xmas release date after the $hit that went down about VISTA.


dont worry, you will get your patch.

[Bindoe]

My point is this and there are many who support this view.....In my opinion M(qualcosa)s wasted valuable time designing herds of elephants when they should have concentrated on the accuracy of scenery especially in important places like London. (no one cares if there's a scenery error in Outer Mongolia. appologies to any Mongolians watching this forum) But it's not just the scenery is it? They had a wonderful opportunity to produce great scenery textures etc. But what about the other parts of the sim ATC, flight planning. As has been said they have released an unfinished programme so most of us( those who have to save up and spend our own money on brand new computers ) will have to wait until Vista, DX10 and a long list of patches have been issued.
Then and ONLY then can one say that FSX is worth the expenditure.
Vololiberista

Uh, they did improve Flight planning. And the scenery textures are great. Again, you say they focused only on elephants from FL370, which is incorrect.

[Daube]

Thank you very much Nick N for those informations, highy appreciated