Guys, guys! Hold your horses there. I understand that Joe may have said some things in the past few pages that have offended you, but that's no excuse to continue this petty debate especially when Joe is just beginning to understand that these petty debates are useless and fail to resolve anything except who's better at winning an arguement.
[To Brett]
I don't think Joe has offended anybody with his first post in this thread. After carefully reading the first post through, I have determined that he is just simply stating the obvious. He is right when he says that there are flaws in FSX. In fact, I have just noticed a flaw myself when I tried FSX. Sometimes, the scenery would freeze up or stay put in the monitor like an image burnt into one's mind, while the buildings pass by and the aircraft moves along. It kind of resembles suspended animation. That's one flaw I found. Chances are it's hardware related as my dad's laptop [which has a better processor than mine's] doesn't seem to suffer such problems.
Joe was also right when he said that FS is expected to work like any other normal game or sim right out of the box.
[To Nick N]
Nick, I think it's time for you to settle down as well and take a deep breath. Having 8 pages worth of arguements can make anyone exhausted. Maybe Fozzer's finest meals can help lower your blood preasure.
[To Joe]
I'm starting to see that you have calmed down already judging from your last two posts. I hope everyone else, whether they're fans of FS or not, does the same. And let's keep it that way. This thread was not intended for arguements judging by Francsal's initial post.
[To Franscal]
Sorry if your thread has derailed a couple of times, these kind of threads have a habit of starting heated and pointless debates [exactly like politics]. So let me restart this thread by stating the following:
Sometimes it can be quite difficult for one to see differences in the screenshots unless they know what to look for. I for one look at the water. FS9 and FSX have completely different water effects. Another thing I look for is self shadowing. FSX is the first version to finally exploit self shadowing. Another feature that indicates that a shot is FSX based is when space is used as a background of the shot. But even this feature can be confused for Orbiter. Try flying over the planet earth in orbiter at a certain altittude, then do the same in FSX at the same altittude. You'll notice very little differences except for the terrain textures and the water.
But there are certain things that can't be shown in a still image like a screenshot. The animations that are now affected by the inverse kenetics of skin and bones are not visible in much the same way as motion is. Then there's the flight dynamics. There is absolutely no way anyone can depicts the dynamics through a screenshots. Videos help, but the only sure way for anyone to know is when they try it themselves. For me, I have noticed that the stall characteristics in FSX have improved as I pushed my Mooney Bravo to the limit. Another thing is the water dynamics [not the effects]. The water no longer anchors a floating plane, therefore the plane can float slowly even with 1/3-1/2 power. Has anyone noticed that you no longer bounce off the runways during takeoff in much the same way as FS9 did?
There, I hope this post helps.
by cavity » Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:11 pm 
