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

[NicksFXHouse]

[To Katahu]


Call me hyper-sensitive, but as someone who knows computers, programming and the FS series pretty well... I take each of these as offensive, sarcastic and rude.











Not too conducive to constructive dialogue, hu ?

Glad I got up for a glass of water... you forgot one Brett, from his first post

FSX  has flaws well beyond the ability of DX10 and VISTA to fix them. This must be accepted and addressed (by simmers and MS) if FSX is to survive  beyond this release.

Since he knows all about LOD_RADIUS, his assessment of what the sim will be like with the DX10 and update patch is also as knowledgeable as a 2 year old who wants their candy and can

[Joe_D]

I rest my case.
I will now exit and let the childred play.  ;)

[krigl]

[quote]


Its simple math

Its not a game, its a SIMULATOR

[Brett_Henderson]

I rest my case.
I will now exit and let the childred play.  

You've gone past pitiful to pathetic. You have no case to rest, and you're hollow sarcasm continues...

[Brett_Henderson]

And Krigl... You made some excellent, respectful and well thought out observations..

[Joe_D]

You've gone past pitiful to pathetic. You have no case to rest, and you're hollow sarcasm continues...

 

[Daube]

ps. sorry for another 'hijacking' post, but I thought I'd add my different point of view to the discussion. Few seem to agree with me, but, whatever, I can but try.
Try what? - That's the question....

Opinions and point of views are always welcome when they are given with arguments and details

I can perfectly understand your frustration. Of course fr normal users, seeing a new sim with top graphics like FSX, without being able to run it at full settings is quite difficult to accept, but what's the problem ?

I mean, now a normal user has a choice:
- either he buys FS2004, plays at full graphics and enjoys the FS2004 + FS2002 addons already available,
- either he buys FSX, cannot run it at full graphics but still can enjoy all the new features.

When it comes to the payware addons that already brought to FS2004 a big part of the FSX new features, well, you are basically saying that thanks to microsoft, we are now getting for just 70 bucks exactely the same than what a guy got on FS2004 for more than 300 bucks:

- some payware quality planes: a payware plane cost at least 20 bucks, right ? I talk about small props, not liners, because FSX liners are not complete enough to deserve the "payware quality" title.

- some "best freeware" / payware quality scenery: not everywhere, of course, but some cities are beautifull, and the rest of the world has quite a good mesh I would say, and the new forests and new autgen radically transformed the look of jungles, cities, and even whole continents that were almot inexistent in FS9.

- a lot of  payware quality airports (moving vehicules are only offered by payware addons, excepted one freeware addon for a single German airport if I remember well)

- a real multiplayer flight, allowing close formation flying: this, no payware could offer it to you. Only freeware IBNet Player, known by only a few users, and still very much beta stage, would allow it.

- and so on....

If you want an FS2004 that is as complete as default FSX is, you would have to spend a lot of money, so even if you cannot get the top-notch graphics immediately, you are still getting a lot of stuff to enjoy out of the box, and for a quite limited amount of money, don't you think ?

That's my point of view. The performance problem is always the same with all the games:
- X-Plane is even more heavy than FSX
- LOMAC was running a 2 FPS on my GeForce Ti4400 long after it went out
- IL-2 didn't allow me to play at max settings for a long while, and even max settings were not looking that good anyway
- FS2004 is juste running well today, just like you stated it.

Nevertheless, (excepted for LOMAC), I have been enjoying what those games offered since the beginning.

[JerryKGSP]

I have been sitting on the side lines for the most part of the FSX volleyball game.  I was down at my son's house over the Holidays and got to play the Xbox 360 for the first time.  The graphics and detail are stunning and the high definition of the games makes for some stunning scenery, some almost good enough to make you ask, is it a picture?

Well,my thoughts turned to FS9/FSX and the possibilties with a system like Xbox 360.  In my opinion, that is the correct system for FSX and future editions.  I had much rather pay $500 or $600 and in that process have the luxury to play other games as well.  If there were a Xbox 360 version of FSX we wouldn't have nearly as much to talk about in these kinds of threads.  BRING IT ON MICROSOFT!!!!!!  

[DizZa]

[quote]

[Mobius]

:-/

[NicksFXHouse]

ps. sorry for another 'hijacking' post, but I thought I'd add my different point of view to the discussion. Few seem to agree with me, but, whatever, I can but try.
Try what? - That's the question....

You have not hijacked anything the rest of us have not hijacked

[krigl]

[quote]
Without violating any ND agreements, I do wish to correct the assumption that Microsoft wants FS9 canned and taken over by FSX, on the contrary. It was a key point in my discussions with Microsoft that since reasonably priced hardware has come of age which will allow full experience of FS9 the FSX market will cater to the next generation of hardware enthusiast and to FS9 fans as they migrate into the right hardware. Jut as you can still run FS8 and migrate into FS9 with hardware upgrades, the same is true for FS10 so that entire subject is moot.

With all due respect, saying you are taunted by Microsoft to buy FSX because of its features and new sim, that

[loomex]

oh, oh, oh...Its My turn!!!!!!!
When I bought FSX, I knew that my current set up would not run it well, due to my video card. With marginal frame rates, and all the little tweeks used, I still believe this sim is better. I have some planes that wont show textures because, as Nick said at one time, "if you video card is getting low on memory the AC textures are to first to sacrifice" With all that, and sliders down I still believe the FSX is better.

[cavity]

Nick, from a development standpoint, did you discuss the future of upgrading things such as ATC and weather?  The ATC must be hard coded, as there are no free or payware improvements that address its short comings that I am aware of.  I know they added more weather reporting stations, but how far off is the day when weather can be morphed between stations so you can actually fly from thick clouds into mostly cloudy, then partly cloudy etc.  One of my pet peeves is when Im on approach and go from clear to zero visibility instantaneously.  Cant wait till they make it so you descend and see the fog layer before you lose the visibility.  Todd

[JBaymore]

No, it doesn't give the budget user the pleasure of doing using FS9 now, because the budget user who loves FS now wants FSX, it's human nature - it's the best, the newest. It's very existance takes away the pleasure of using FS9.

I want a Massaratti (spelling?).   I drive a Nissan pickup.  ;D  It's all good.

best,

.....................john