Is FSX worth getting?

[Daube]

I'll just add that the vast majority of improvement listed here are just graphical in nature.

BTW, the flight model has not been changed acording to ACES. What has been done is the flight model of the default ac has been tweaked within the constraints of the old flight model.

Sure, nevertheless now we get better flight dynamics, ground effect, stable helos, and on the graphics "functionnality" we get the moving VCs which make FS9 completely obsolete !

And on the non-graphics side, we get all the multiplayer stuff (tower controller, shared cockpit, smooth flight etc...), the glider experience (finally !!), improved meteo (not just the cloud textures), live airports with all the vehicules, missions, new SDKs for all the new types of addons (the missions once again are good examples), and much more stuff.

Saying that FSX is all about graphics is unfair. Graphics improvements are many, for sure, and they are also those who have the greatest impact on the performance, however even if we put graphics appart, FSX has still a lot to offer.

[Brett_Henderson]

I'll just add that the vast majority of improvement listed here are just graphical in nature.

BTW, the flight model has not been changed acording to ACES. What has been done is the flight model of the default ac has been tweaked within the constraints of the old flight model.  

Even when you try to make a point... you're as pointless and clueless as ever..

The M/P improvements are beyond graphics..
The V/C improvements are beyond graphics..
The tower and new views are beyond graphics..
The sounds and sound rendering are beyond graphics..
The improved models are better, 3D models AND have better texture rendering..
The improved terrain is better graphically, but also better period..
The +100,000ft celing is beyond graphics..
The buildings are better models AND graphically better..
The mission addition has nothig to do with graphics..

And nobody ever professed that the entire flight algorithm had been re-written..

[Brett_Henderson]

And all aircraft use THE ONE AND ONLY flight model. There is no "default flight model", as in add-ons use some other algorithm..

Individual aircraft parameters are laid out in the air / aircraft.cfg files.. but that's just data used by THE flight model.

[NicksFXHouse]

I wish to add something that many may not understand...

If you are pushing your system past what it is able to render in FSX the flight dynamics and many other areas will suffer. MSFS is a simulation, not a game, and as such it has been programmed to eat resources to provide what the user wishes to see based on the settings however if the hardware can not produce what the settings and sliders are set to, the sim will rob from areas in order to compensate, therefore, things like turbulence and flight dynamics may skip calculation cycles and may not appear as impressive.


When FS9 and a system are correctly set up and calibrated, 18 frames are just about as smooth as 24 ... and you can not tell the difference between 24 and 34.. all will give the feeling of 'floating on air' but if a system is not set up correctly or does not have the hardware to do what the user set the sim for, then flight becomes choppy and does not 'feel' like flying... its very ridged and not flowing.

FSX is the same in that respect but it tends to perform even better on lower frames

[Joe_D]

I'm certainly not going to get into a pissing march with those who say much more than graphics has been upgraded in FSX and then, they begin to list a bunch of graphical improvements and sling insults.

Of course there have been some other welcomed upgrades new features and but, the vast majority of improvement are graphical.

[DizZa]

I'll just add that the vast majority of improvement listed here are just graphical in nature.

BTW, the flight model has not been changed acording to ACES. What has been done is the flight model of the default ac has been tweaked within the constraints of the old flight model.

I counted two of my list which are graphical.

Also, while the flight dynamics engine is the same old one, it definately IS improved.

they begin to list a bunch of graphical improvements

I counted two of my list which are graphical which were:
Default planes are easily payware quality
Head latency effect

What else was graphical?

Oh, and one more thing. Shouldn't a simulation be immersive? Why fly a simulator when you don't think you're there? Graphics add immersion.

[Joe_D]

......Oh, and one more thing. Shouldn't a simulation be immersive? Why fly a simulator when you don't think you're there? Graphics add immersion.

I could not agree more!

[Daube]

I'm certainly not going to get into a pissing march with those who say much more than graphics has been upgraded in FSX and then, they begin to list a bunch of graphical improvements and sling insults.

Of course there have been some other welcomed upgrades new features and but, the vast majority of improvement are graphical.

Well...
First:

FSX is ALL about graphics as this is basically all that has been upgraded in FSX.

Then:

Of course there have been some other welcomed upgrades new features and but, the vast majority of improvement are graphical.

That's good, you're evolving. Maybe in a far future you will even be able to argue

It is tempting to say "vast majority of FSX stuff is graphical", of course... but keep in mind, this is just because the graphical stuff is the easiest to notice. FSX is FULL of new stuff that make FS9 obsolete and boring, and I'm not talking about the graphics.

And for the "full range of problems" involved by the full version compared to the demo... what problems ? So far the only real problems I have seen are the activation and the logbook corruption. And because FS9 was just a full bunch of bugs, I am not expecting FSX to be bugs-free, not at all

[Brett_Henderson]

Geez.. talk about semantics

[Brett_Henderson]

[quote]Quote:
......Oh, and one more thing. Shouldn't a simulation be immersive? Why fly a simulator when you don't think you're there? Graphics add immersion.

I could not agree more!

[Al_Fallujah]

Throwing my PC info in... just to help those on the purchasing bubble. If the PC you are considering is close to or better than mine, you will do just fine with FSX.

I built my PC a year ago. I run with most of the sliders in the middle. I keep car and boat traffic to a minimum though as that one cuts the framerates down a lot if I crank it up. I get smooth play with those settings. The only oddity that I have noticed is that often, my aircrafts shadow is not a shadow, but an image with the same paint scheme that I am flying. I rarely look for my own shadow though ( old song running through my head...)

AMD 2.2 GHz (64bit)
1 Gig Ram (Mushkin, 2x512MB)
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe (but not using the SLI right now)
eVGA 6800 w/ 256mb PCI-E
DVI output to a Dell 15" monitor , res set at 1024X768, 75hz refresh.
Standard HD, 100 GB, nothing special,  running XP (SP2) for now.

Nothing else about my PC is remarkable. I am contemplating Vista, as I have a 64 bit chip that I am not taking full advantage of. I am also considering doubling the RAM, but that depends on the budget.

Highly enjoying FSX.   I got it FOR the graphics improvements. The other collective improvements are bonuses to me.