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

[Souichiro]

Haven't read all the replies But I can guess the general story they'll tell...

Don't have FSX myself and since my Fs9 itself takes about 8-9 mins from starting the program to actual flying ( including selecting aircraft and such) I won't be getting FSX anywhere soon.

From what I've seen, FSX has loads more potential than FS9, Just not with most of the rigs out there now. I personally think that MS released it to soon, though I also think they would have had a lot of complaints if they waited for Vista and DX10. Around this time next year the first few of us will probably get the systems needed to run FSX to it's full potential, Maybe earlier but I suspect it'll take 3rd party developers some time to learn how to utilize Vista and DX10 to the max.

But only time will tell.

So to answer the original question.

I think that at the moment FS9 is better than FSX but in due time FSX shall reign supreme ( untill FSX+1 of course....

[Brett_Henderson]

And don't come back and say "Oh, but it works on my machine etc etc!"   I'm talking here of people with very high spec set ups and they STILL can't get FSX to work and are horrified at the number of errors throughout the programme.
Vololiberista

I'd sure like to see a list of these horrifying errors  

Not the mindless, relentless drive by the malcontents to make everyone as miserable as they are... because it  DOES work on my (old) machine ..

Yes, there are some good things about FSX.
However, they are outweighed by the bad.

Enough !  Joe.. go ahead and list the, "bad" and I'll counter with "new and better"..   I'll betcha one does FAR outweigh the other alright    

[Brett_Henderson]

Nevermind...

[cavity]

Joe, I know you have been around here for quite a while, and I used alot of the info you supplied when I first started using FS9.  While you might not like FSX, directing your anger at Nick is not the right way to go.  In my opinion, Nick is one of the premier members in supplying extremely useful infomation that is backed up by knowledge.  Everything that he has recommended has improved my simming experience, and his knowledge of the workings of computers is second to none.  I do not have FSX yet, I am waiting for DX10 and Vista and will put together a new rig.  I can understand your frustration, as I have worked for 3 years to get FS9 working well, and I am finally getting there.  Guess what was the biggest factor?  Hardware.  I am finally running 2 gigs in parallel, have cleaned up my system, and will probably upgrade my video card with something cheap but better than my 9600 Pro.  I tried everything to improve the sim, but what it came down to is the hardware.  FSX Im sure has some bugs and flaws, which I have come to expect.  Im not saying its right or that I wouldnt like to be different, but it is what it is.  What if MS stopped at FS9, how would you feel? While FSX may not be great now, the potential for what it will become is what we need to wait for.  Hang in there and give it some time.  Ill bet in 6 months to a year, FSX will be flying high, and most of this will be behind us.  Todd

[Joe_D]

Obviously, this thread is going nowhere.
The original poster was attemting to make a point but was shouted down by the "oposition".

There is something revealing that whenever someone critisizes FSX, there are always those who take it personally. One would think someone insulted their mama or something, judging by their reaction.

[Mobius]

I'd sure like to see a list of these horrifying errors  

Don't count on it!

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/ ... board=joke

[DizZa]

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!

Uh, I already have maxed out the normal scenery except for water and LOD. Oh, and that's on my P4 rig, and out of cities I can max out the whole lot, and can increase LOD radius to over 6.

[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

[Katahu]

I have just one request. I will say it once and only once, so listen up.

Please, for the love of Christ, would someone post a list of all the "bugs" that everyone keeps shouting about? Everyone say's there's bug [and I truely believe there are] but they fail to list them in this thread.

I love FSX for its potential. But I also hate it for its lack of optimization. Again, I know there are flaws [my gut instincts tell me that there are], but I want someone to list the most [if not all] of them.

Is that too freaking much to ask? If you hate FSX that much, and you have every reason to hate it, then you should be devoted enough to make an effort to list all of its bugs so that all will know.

Again, I like FSX and I hate it at the same time [though not as much as X-Plane].

Here are the flaws that I know about X-Plane.

1. The dynamics of the models are always too jerky to the extreme when using a joystick. Even adjustments to the sensitivity and null zone levels are ill-effective.

2. Water landing are a joke. You bounce like a tennis ball even when you come in at a very shallow angle in calm weather and no wind.

3. The SDK that comes with X-Plane are so difficult that it's no wonder that only the payware addons for X-Plane can reach a quality that all of our FS addons have. The Freeware for X-Plane are poorly modeled and it's all because of the difficulty of the SDK that Austin Meyer provided.

4. The weather effects may be awsome, but the appearance of it is a total wack job.For one, the drops of rain look like someone is pouring salt all over the earth and the lightning stikes are pencil drawings like the ones in FS2002.

Of course, X-Plae is designed to be technical as opposed to graphical, but Austin Meyers should at least put some effort into making it look better. Sure, he has the global terrain package, but even that is not good enough to surpass even FS9 because many parts of the scenery textures are either too repetative when it comes to cities or just don't belong in certain areas. Go take a trip over Miami in Florida. Fly over Japan. Even my home country, Nicaragua looks no better than in FS9.

There, you see? I made an effort into listing all the problems and issues I can find from a product I hate so much [I hate x-plane to death]. So why aren't any of you doing the same towards FSX?

And please, don't give me that age old excuse that you never had time to list the issues. Back in basic military training, my job was to make sure everyone's boots, class B shoes and sandles are in inspection order within the hour of revele. IThere were 40 airman with my group and that meant 40 different pairs of combat boots, class B shoes and sandles [for latreen use only] and nobody helped me. If you don't have time, make time.

Sorry for acting like this, but I'm growing a bit inpatient when a simple question has yet to be answered with this thread. And as you can see, I'm a neutralist when it comes to issues with the FS series. So please, for the sake of everyone else who are new and ill-experienced with FSX, post a list of the FSX bugs so that all will know. It's not that hard if you know it.

PS: The airmen in basic would also accidently kick the footware out of order as they frantically try to complete their tasks as well. So I had to go back and redo them.

[Joe_D]

First you say you know there are many flaws in FSX. Then you say you have no idea what they are.

I honestly don't know who is more confused here......me or you.

[NicksFXHouse]

First you say you know there are many flaws in FSX. Then you say you have no idea what they are.

I honestly don't know who is more confused here......me or you.

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  looks strange and is a step backwards to say the least.

Speaking of "bloom" turn it on, then turn on your ac navigation lights etc, and post a pic in the spot view.

Apparently you are the one that is confused


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.


What is confusing is when someone like you comes into a thread and makes all sorts of general complaints, then goes on to make all sorts of statements which provide no assistance or help... and tries to make everyone think the software is totally bad... the company that produces it out to get you and the public

...and then goes on to prove his point by making a technical post when you don

[vololiberista]

I'd sure like to see a list of these horrifying errors  

There are plenty of threads with images or explanations of said errors........
or why not try to fly to the places mentioned and see for yourself.
London is a disaster and has become a city of lakes instead of a great river.
Lukla is wrong in every possible way!
These are just 2 examples.
I think that if M(qualcosa)s wants to keep the sim running then it would be better for most to wait until FSXI which would be a huge fix. For most people to run FSX now or in the near future requires a considerable financial outlay and from what I have seen and heard the problems with it don't justify the expense incurred!
And, as mentioned above it's not now possible to buy it in the shops in this part of Italy! (having been withdrawn!!!)
Vololiberista

[Joe_D]

I told you you would return....

The pic you posted only shows autogen on city textues. The autogen masks the blurry textures.

Nick, I've grown weary  of your flaming.

[NicksFXHouse]

I have a blast reading post from people who hate M$, do not own the software, have never installed or run it themselves.


@Joe

Here is some REAL technical advice...

Do NOT buy components for a system before MARCH. It may not be until MAY before the good next gen hardware is on the market and debugged. If you do make such purchases before the time period I, as an engineer suggest, suck it up and realize you screwed up.

DO NOT buy software on its first release.. It typically takes 3-6 months to correct scenery flaws and other issues before the software is considered completely non-beta. This is true for the ENTIRE software industry. If you do make such software purchases, suck it up and realize you screwed up.

[NicksFXHouse]

[quote]I told you you would return....

The pic you posted only shows autogen on city textues. The autogen masks the blurry textures.

Nick, I've grown weary

[DizZa]

[quote]I told you you would return....

The pic you posted only shows autogen on city textues. The autogen masks the blurry textures.

Nick, I've grown weary