Jump to content

Dillon

Members
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dillon

  1. This justification of a sim that can only do half the job is disturbing. Like all FS versions before it, FSX should be able to perform all around (up high, down low, over major cities, etc). There should be plenty head room for add-ons no matter what the genre as that's what drives the FS franchise in the first place. If we're going to settle for half the experience maybe the name of FSX should be changed to "Microsoft General Aviation Simulator", then there would be no complaints. :roll: WEA-JHD (don't know your real name) you have more than enough hardware for any title. In another l
  2. Bill concerning low and slow I have agree, FSX does appear in many cases to be the better of the two as long as your not flying in the US Southwest. I just hope you guys don't totally forget FS9 until FSX is officially up to speed with comparable performance on most machines. Aerosoft's Aspen would have been great in FS9. I suggested to Mathjis to do Jackson Hole to go along with Aspen. Hopefully if Jackson Hole (KJAC) is concidered it would be a dual plateform product. Once again a thank you to SimWings for doing yet another awesome scenery to be enjoyed by all. Mathjis has been a g
  3. So true but FS2k4 looks allot better with haze especially for comparison shots. Who ever flies without it in either sim (that wouldn't look realistic at all as there's no visible atmosphere)??? Like I said above for prospective buyers of scenery these days, no one flies with the default textures/mesh,etc... Below is more like what people are seeing in their FS9 installation these days. This in my book can give FSX a run for it's money any day (this is not to say the improvements in FSX aren't credible but the visuals below can be had with a lesser system than what's required for FSX)..
  4. Hey Bill, first of all love your work.... Now explain to me why Fly Tampa, FLight Zone, Imaginesim to name a few don't feel the same... :? This actually makes since. Just like Heathrow I wouldn't recommend doing KEWR for FSX (at least not yet anyway). You don't need a crystal ball to figure that out...
  5. I love the way people always like to take FS2k4 shots without adding haze when comparing them to FSX shots (I have to admit it does make FSX look considerably better next to the FS2k4 shot )... Either take the haze out of both or compare both with haze... :? No one is doubting FS2k4 default looks worse than FSX default but that was left along time ago thanks to groups like Flight1 of Ulimate Terrain fame. If a person is making a choice at this point their not using a default version of FS9 (why even raise an argument like that?). Another thing is Hawaii is not one of the more demanding
  6. Just the same it only makes since you stand to make more money producing two versions. You can't tell me there's not a demand for an FS2k4 version of Aspen or Cloud9's Orlando Intl (for example). If your selling in stores it would only make since that an FSX compatible scenery would out sell an FS2k4 product with a brand new shinny FSX box sitting right next to your add-on. Most simmers prefer to download anyway. But just the same an argument could be made with any FS add-on sitting on a store shelf. Who would by new scenery for a sim sitting in the discount bin. Bottom line is when Johnn
  7. Kansas City from Imagine has just been released for FS2k4. Another high quality add-on in the scenery department... Aerosoft needs to take a look at this. Again another example of what's still feasible in FS2k4 (with great performance to boot) almost a year into FSX's release. Thanks again Simwings for the FS9 effort that we all can enyoy...
  8. It sure is nice this is being done for FS9 (Simwings is not Aerosoft who would have nothing to do with FS9 at this point). My guess is when you started this scenery it was pre FSX days... An unprecedented thing has happened this time around in the history of Flight Simulator (although some preach falsely that this happens with each new version of the sim). A year ago Aces treated us to the first FSX demo which performed like crap on most machines. Here it is a year later and detailed add-ons are still being developed for FS9 (the version before the latest incarnation of the sim). My bet
  9. FSX only... :cry: Just looking at the screenshots again today brings tears to the eyes... :wink:
  10. Since Aspen has been done (unfortunately for FSX only) just thought I'd chime in with another great location that many would appreciate, KJAC. This is a little known airport in one of the most beautiful areas in the western United States. It would be nice to finally see the airport and the town near by modeled especially in FSX. :wink:
  11. If you look at comparable sites like Amazon you'll get about the same thing. Like I said before just like everyone else with any since knows FSX if properly patched will be the future. Again like I said above I support add-ons for FSX but at this time FS9 is still a contender. Due to the horrible state in which FSX was released I truly believe many will pass this version up altogether in favor of waiting for FS11. Hopefully by then more user requested features will have been put into the base sim outside of just graphics. For the record since the argument always leads to FSX's release be
  12. This was posted over on Avsim.com which says it all: :wink:
  13. First of all Mathjis proof of what I'm saying here is you and Cloud9 are the only ones out there releasing FSX only products at this point. Even AirlinerXP is releasing a new title for FS9. FlyTampa (TNCM St Juliana at St Marteen , St Barths TFFJ, and SABA TNCS) has great new scenery that focused on FS9 first and later FSX. If your point is correct why are most other developers outside of two still focusing on FS9 as the priority??? You tell me the ratio of FS developers releasing FSX only titles. I only can point to 2 who's starting to do this consistently, you and Cloud9 (BeaverX, FS9 ve
  14. You guys are way to far on the 'FSX' bandwagon. No one but you and Cloud9 are exclusively making products for FSX (a practically unusable sim at this point). I know SP1 will be out shortly but you guys should really consider supporting FS9 for at least another year. FSX won't come into it's own until well after the Vista/DX10 patch is released for it. Aerosoft makes great scenery and it's terrible you currently only wish to share it with a certain segment of the community at this point...
  15. Thanks Mathijs, FS9 is far from dead at this point... :wink:
  16. I for one am very glade scenery is still being produced for FS9. FSX is not in any condition to properly handle add-on's on this level (at least not at this time). Aerosoft among a few others are doing their best to ignore this fact... FS9 is not over yet... I can't wait to run this version of Heathrow in FS9... :wink:
  17. Alcatraz island only for FSX??? It's nice to give something away for free but to say, "we are sorry, we promised a San Francisco scenery for FS2004" and then release a piece of it only for FSX is interesting... FS9 is far from being dead and until Aces fixes FSX FS9 is still the better of the two for add-ons... :wink:
  18. The first picture which is supposed to be a joke should actually be part of the scenery for real. When people think of this area the classic movie always comes to mind. Please include those figures and the car in the release version... I'd go as far as to say a static Beech 18 would fit the bill as well. Put in a cool location at the airport (the real scenes were depicted next to a hanger with the plane back in the distance), this would diffidently be something worth flying to Casablanca to see in FS. Imagine 'Bogy' at the real airport (or shall I say the FS version)... Guys the first
×
×
  • Create New...