FSX vrs FS9... is it really THAT different?

[Politically Incorrect]

What I am waiting for are all these that don't understand the hardware necessities for FSX, these will be the ones that go out and buy Vista right off the bat in hopes of a miracle only to be disappointed further when there OS won't even boot on their machine.
If they won't upgrade for FSX then they won't for Vista And then what will they blame Vista for being crap or FSX being crap???

Again along with some others i would like to know about these "flaws and bugs" that are ever apparent but no one can state specifically what they are. This would be more helpful information than just coming in and writing bitch posts.

And very seldom have I read about a "flaw" or "bug" that more than just a few experience which then tells me it is more hardware related than programming.

And then there are those who just install FSX without first optimizing there machines. These are the ones who have "far more than minimum requirements" they have the hardware that can run FSX decent but a Windows environment that is bloated with crap and never take the time to prepare their computers before and then after installing new software.

Nick posted a amazing guide to setting up your Windows environment to get the best you can out of FSX, not only FSX but it improves your system overall, and all free of charge I suggest you read it and try it and then see how many of these "flaws and bugs" exist.

Did MS make a huge mistake releasing FSX too soon? I don't think so if anything they may have prevented problems ahead of time. What do you think you would have if they released both FSX and Vista at the same time?

You would have these people with "minimum requirements" trying to run both. It is the "minimum requirements" that most don't understand. It means the "minimum" to run that software ALONE, it isn't saying minimum to run FSX along with TIR,FRAPS,Operating System, internet  connection, chat program, and whatever else you run while flying...... People don't seem to understand that, you must have that extra computing power to run all the other stuff added to the minimum.

Oh well you can talk as much sense that you want but unfortunately most won't listen, they will be the ones here when FS20 is released trying to help those who don't understand  technology advancement and comfort them just as many are doing here today  The complainers are our apprentices  to take over for the next generation of FS simmers. In time you will learn and understand the ways of progression and soon you too will be able to offer help to those in need.

[Red_Kite]

I still don't understand peoples reasoning disabling autogen.... Hell, I even managed to max out fsX minus bloom and traffic and rural areas getting a framerate of 25.

Without splashing out on a rig like yours it's the only way to get half decent frame rates without killing the scenery altogether!

There is also a view that the autogen is not exactly a sim enhancer either, unless you are no more than 300ft or less! Try whacking up all the other sliders and dropping autogen down to zero, then fly at a thousand feet or more and see the difference! Now add autogen and see how it spoils the photographic scenery!

[ashaman]

The more I hear about this crappy "X is better than 9" the more I'm thinking to migrate toward X once and for ever.

X-PLANE, I mean.

I really don't get people that, put in front of a NEW sim, only because is a NEW sim, they begin behaving like religious integralists.

FSX, you like or not, is STILL chock full of problems. You may not want to admit it even to yourself, but this has no consequence on reality.

1) Desertification in real world is a problem, but in FSX Italy is almost a desert as Arizona. FS9 had this problem NOT.

2) Greeks islands in FSX are a MESS. Only thanks to some generous users this problem has being recently corrected.

3) All the bluster for the so called "better flight algorithms" is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY due to the admittedly better-than-FS9 defaults' flight dynamics. No one has ever remarked on having noticed better flight behavior in add-ons, if compared to FS9.

4) Lukla. Should I explain further?

5) Ask, if you will, someone in South America how good is FSX rendition of their lands, that I'm not touching this even with a 10 meters long pole.

...I'm called to dinner... if you really wish I'll continue the list when I return.

But even if I don't, I HOPE (against good sense, I know) that at least SOMEONE among the FSX integralists will see a little light. FSX might have a future in front of it, but its present is FAR from perfect (needs a BIG PATCH, bigger than FS9's, and BADLY).

I have uninstalled it, FSX, by the way. Add-ons to try out are still far away and 15Gb of further free space on HD is always welcome. Will reinstall it when I'll need it, and only out of duty.

[an-225]

For some reason I don't find X-Plane flight dynamics that good... I stall at 5 degrees pitch up! And Joe_D you said you have 2 gigs of RAM. Maybe you are just used to everything loading fast and it seems slow. But when I got that 1 gig it loaded in 30 seconds.

[Brett_Henderson]

3) All the bluster for the so called "better flight algorithms" is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY due to the admittedly better-than-FS9 defaults' flight dynamics. No one has ever remarked on having noticed better flight behavior in add-ons, if compared to FS9.

No...  The improved flight algorithm is IN FSX and applies to ALL aircraft. The data from .air  and aircraft.cfg files is after the fact. That's where things specific to each plane (weight, wingspan, wing area.. etc.) are interpreted BY the sim.

Ground effect, accelerated stalls, turbulence, pitch/roll/yaw/thrust relationships are all improved in FSX.


Think about this;  Hardware had pretty much outgrown FS9.  My system ( 3700+   7800GT)  is old and outdated and could be built from scratch (not an upgrade) today, for about $800 . It could run FS9 FULL out, maxed slider, with gobs of add-ons and enough traffic to crowd every gate at major airports. It's been THREE years since FS9 came out. Making the techno-leap over not only those three years, but looking forward to where hardware will be in the next three years was quite a task. All things considered, FSX has handled that task quite well. AND added new features (I actually enjoy VCs for the first time) to boot. Sure there are bugs, but they're nothing outrageous. And they WILL get fixed. The improved flight dynamics are just part of it. Multi-player is incredible. The tower feature is a BLAST. AND.. sharing the cockpit, man is that fun. You can even take turns flying the plane. The new view options are great too, and customizable !

All said and done.. it's an incredible piece of software with the most potential yet. All this will include some growing pains. If you don't want to be part of the journey.. fine.. fly FS9. You don't gain a thing by constantly telling those who appreciate FSX, that they're naive loyalists with rosy glasses. We know better.

[Joe_D]

The bugs in the mesh will be fixed. Anyway, as Nick said, you're not going to get much out of fsX if you have bellow a AMD 3700+, 2gb RAM, and 7900GTX.

Yeah, I do have an 8800GTS with a hell fast C2D. It runs fsX pretty good, and looks far better than fs9. On my system with:
P4 650
2gb RAM
X850XT PE

It looks much better than fs9 in rural areas, and in cities I managed to pull this:

1280x1024, 4X AA, 3x Temporal, 16x HQ Full trilinear AF.


I still don't understand peoples reasoning disabling autogen.... Hell, I even managed to max out fsX minus bloom and traffic and rural areas getting a framerate of 25.

I have yet to see a pic of FSX without blurry textures in the near distance as compared to FS9. Not even a pic from MS

This is because of the new way FSX handels ground textures. The ground textures in the near distance are of lower resoulution than in FS9.
Hardware upgrades,etc wont fix this.
The combo of blurry ground textures and high res autogen

[vololiberista]

To all those like P.I. etc. who are in denial that FSX doesn't have flaws (when in fact it has more than FS9!!!) London, Lukla etc etc etc

The game and PC shops here in Piemonte have taken FSX off the shelves!!!!!!!!!

Why??? because they have had SO MANY complaints about installation problems, and bugs in the programme that they have had to withdraw the programme from sale!!!!

To all of you who think the sun shines out of The

[Joe_D]

It would seem that those who think that all is well with FSX is in the minority.

There is so much concern for the quality of FSX that some sites have resorted to silencing any critsizim of it, oblivious to the fact that is counter productive to do so.

The day that ACES/MS will get offended

[NicksFXHouse]

[quote]
I have yet to see a pic of FSX without blurry textures in the near distance as compared to FS9. Not even a pic from MS

This is because of the new way FSX handels ground textures. The ground textures in the near distance are of lower resoulution than in FS9.
Hardware upgrades,etc wont fix this.
The combo of blurry ground textures and high res autogen

[Mobius]

Bah, my FS6 looks like that and runs locked at 4978 FPS Nick, why don't you get some better screen shots.*

By the way, you say you live on Bainbridge Island?  I've been there, it's a very nice place, consider yourself lucky.

Although, you said you weren't going to reply to this thread anymore....




*that was sarcasm, just in case anyone missed the obvious.

[CAFedm]

My 2 cents...  ;D

Just installed FSX in order to test some projects that are being modded to work from FS9 to FSX. Still have lots of work to do! Anyway, in spite of the scenery bugs mentioned, I found my local scenery to be quite faithful to the real thing (especially the roads - mostly in the right places, and complete with moving traffic!), and first impressions are that it is a noticeable leap forward, not a so-so upgrade as the title of this thread would imply. Sure, my system runs everything at reasonable settings in the single frames, but upgrading hardware in the next 6 months or so should bring out the potential that FSX seems to promise. The whole point of my 2 cents is to say, I think there is a lot of potential with FSX, particularly for addon designers. It will be interesting to see where everyone's opinions on this lie by next spring/summer, after upgrades have been implemented, and after a few addon items are available.

[Joe_D]

Nick, if you don't like the channel, try another!

No one needs your constant flaming of anyone who has anything bad to say about FSX.

Perhaps you can tell us when hardware will be avalable that can run FSX at least as well as FS9?

Don't forget, FSX was released as a DX9 title.

Care to address all the othe issues?

[NicksFXHouse]

Nick, if you don't like the channel, try another!

No one needs your constant flaming of anyone who has anything bad to say about FSX.

I dont care if you have something bad to say.

Baring the moody gloom you love to post...

Don't say things that are not true or assume something does not work because you are A: Clueless and B: Do not have the hardware to run the software anywhere near close to 'properly'

===================================

You even went so far as to give a technical explanation about the sim and you were full of bull in every word you said. Who do think you are telling people things from a "technical" point of view when you are clueless about what it is you are speaking about... That's what used car salesmen do, try and make people believe they are knowledgeable and in reality they don't even know where the carburetor or the fuel injector(s) are on an engine.

================================


@Mobius Yes, Bainbridge is beautiful and rated the #2 place to live in the entire USA by Fortune and Forbes



Now I be done...

Later

[NicksFXHouse]

Nick, if you don't like the channel, try another!

No one needs your constant flaming of anyone who has anything bad to say about FSX.

Perhaps you can tell us when hardware will be avalable that can run FSX at least as well as FS9?

Don't forget, FSX was released as a DX9 title.

Care to address all the othe issues?

DO YOU READ OR JUST ASSUME?

Go back in the thread... 1.5-2 years between now and then, suck it up


LOL

[Joe_D]

I dont care if you have something bad to say.

Baring the moody gloom you love to post...

Don't say things that are not true or assume something does not work because you are A: Clueless and B: Do not have the hardware to run the software anywhere near close to 'properly'


@Mobius Yes, Bainbridge is beautiful and rated the #2 place to live in the entire USA by Fortune and Forbes



Now I be done...

Later

I rather doubt that.